Monday, 23 November 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Government has no clear mandate to introduce the Australia Card. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled insist that the Government not proceed with the Australia Card without the consent of a majority of the Australian people in a majority of the States as determined in a national referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 96 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The decision by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation not to televise the Jack High Bowling Tournament in 1988 is cause for distress to the 500,000 bowlers and many non bowlers who, for years, have enjoyed this interesting programme for television. 2. The unilateral decision was taken after verbal assurances had been given that the 1988 event would be televised. This action is deplored and we feel should be reversed by the Parliament in the interests of your many constituents. by Senator Chaney (from 100 citizens). Petitions received. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Standing Committee on Infrastructure be renamed the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —On my own behalf and on behalf of Senators Haines, Tambling and Collins, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, we shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with deep concern the further deaths of Aboriginal Australians held in custody since the announcement of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. (b) notes the view expressed by the Royal Commissioner, Mr Justice Muirhead, that immediate action is needed to prevent the death toll rising still further and that action must not be postponed until he has completed his investigations; and (c) expresses its support for the work of the Royal Commission and calls upon all relevant authorities to respond to Mr Justice Muirhead's comments by taking immediate action to ensure the safety of Aboriginal Australians in custody. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —Pursuant to standing order 109a, I give notice that at the placing of business I shall withdraw Business of the Senate, notices of motion Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4 standing in my name for this day, for disallowance of certain Customs regulations, an environment protection order, Australian citizenship regulations and certain Public Service regulations. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —On 21 October 1987, Senator Stone on my behalf told the Senate that the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances was examining certain delegated legislation with reference to our bipartisan scrutiny principles. Protective notices of motion of disallowance were given on that date to protect the Committee's position while Ministers considered the Committee's queries. That process has now concluded on this the last day on which it could conclude. The Committee's concerns about the legislation have been allayed by ministerial undertakings to amend instruments, as well as by some convincing explanations of the background to certain matters. I emphasise that the Committee will be following up with the relevant Ministers to ensure that ministerial commitments to make amendments are implemented by departments as soon as reasonably possible. The Committee will be examining the issue of delay in implementing undertakings. Delays can undermine the whole basis of honour on which the Committee withdraws notices of motion. As far as present matters are concerned, the Committee is happy with the outcome and we express our thanks to the Ministers who have assisted us with undertakings and explanations. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard, for the information of honourable senators, statements setting out the cause of the Committee's scrutiny of these particular instruments. Leave granted. The statements read as follows- Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations (Amendments) (Statutory Rules 1987 Nos. 97, 115 and 176) These regulations impose very strict controls over the export of certain chemical compounds, and the export of a wide range of dual-use technology to Eastern-bloc countries. The Committee was principally concerned about (i) the existence of avenues of redress where ministerial permission to export was unjustifiably refused and (ii) the status of persons taking these kinds of decisions as ministerial delegates. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator the Hon. John Button has told the Committee that the discretionary decisions in question are ministerial decisions and the absence of independent review procedures is justified because of the sensitive nature of the high government policy involved. This policy relates to (i) the need for effective interim measures to control the export of chemical weapon precursors pending entry into force of a comprehensive Chemical Weapons Convention banning chemical weapons; and (ii) the need to support the strategic requirements of the Co-ordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (Cocom) to prevent the direct or indirect export to the USSR and its associates of advanced technology capable of dual civil and military application. The Committee has accepted the Minister's view that ``It is an acknowledged exception to the general principle that administrative decisions should be reviewable on the merits, where the decisions involve ``high'' government policy, or where international relations or national security are affected''. However, the Committee draws the attention of the Senate to the important concession made by the Minister concerning the role of ministerial delegates in this sensitive area. The Minister has written: The Committee expressed concern about the unqualified power of the Minister in both Regulations 13d and 13e to appoint persons to exercise the same unreviewable discretion as the Minister to grant export permissions. While it is considered such a discretion, when exercised by the Minister, should not be reviewable for the reasons noted previously, I accept the argument that the non-reviewability of such discretions becomes less palatable, and less acceptable, when exercised by ``non-accountable'' public servants. I therefore undertake, at the next available opportunity, to propose amendments to the relevant regulations, to effectively restrict the exercise of the Minister's powers by authorised officers to only positive grants of export permission; i.e.-where an export permission is to be refused, or where an export permission which has been granted is to be revoked, such a refusal or revocation could only be done by the Minister. In fact, I am advised this accords with current practice in both portfolios concerned; i.e. where authorised officers are inclined to refuse an export permission (no permission have been revoked to date), the matter is referred to the Minister for final decision. The Committee thanks the Minister for undertaking to provide, in the legislation itself, for this important distinction between the personal roles and involvement of the Minister and those of his or her delegate in decisions that are not reviewable. The Committee has accepted the Minister's view about the inappropriateness of independent merits review of high-policy ministerial decisions. The Minister will, of course, carry responsibility for refusals to allow certain exports to certain destinations. The economic implications of refusals to individual Australian exporters will be obvious. They are, of course, outweighed by the requirements of international and strategic obligations. In the midst of this high policy arena however, there will be high-technology exporters some of whom, at some time may consider that they have been dealt with unfairly or erroneously on the facts or on the law. Therefore the Committee urges the Minister to ensure that necessarily strict procedures and decision making will not prevent bona fide exporters having the opportunity to make appropriate representations on matters that might be subject to different interpretations, for example, the nature of the goods to be exported and the bona fides of the importer. Such internal procedures would not prejudice security. An Order dated 29 May 1987, made under Section 6 of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 The Committee raised with the Minister for the Environment and the Arts, Senator the Hon. Graham Richardson, 7 issues of concern to it regarding these Orders. Firstly, it appeared that the Minister's Department was empowered to ``determine on behalf of the Minister that the preparation . . . of an environmental impact statement or a public environment report in relation to . . . proposed action [that might affect the environment] is not required for the purpose of achieving the object of the Act''. The Committee was concerned to ensure that such a crucial Departmental decision-making role was performed in a way which guaranteed the Minister's personal involvement in important matters. The Minister has explained that annually for the past 2 years his Department has received several hundred proposals which could possibly fall under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. Less than 100 were eventually determined to be environmentally significant and these generated less than 10 Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). However, information on proposals submitted to the Department is submitted to the Minister on a weekly basis to provide an advance warning of proposals. Further, whenever the Department is in any doubt over the issue of not requiring an EIS, for example where the decision is marginal or where there may be political or other sensitivities involved, the Department brings the matter to the Minister's attention for resolution. At the request of the Committee the Minister has undertaken to formalise this crucial, but informal, administrative practice by issuing a formal instrument of instruction to his Department requiring the regular submission of reports on doubtful and marginal cases and other relevant matters. Environmental impact is a most sensitive issue. The Committee's concern was to ensure that delegated legislation in the form of these Orders did not either deliberately or inadvertently encourage a situation to arise where ministerial control of significant departmental decision-making was less disciplined than the Minister himself would expect when fully appraised of these matters. Active, personal, ministerial control of and responsibility for, large or difficult environmental policy issues is potentially the single most effective means of monitoring and improving the quality of administrative decision-making and its attendant processes. Through direct ministerial accountability to Parliament, any failure in the quality of top level policy making and related public administration can be more effectively scrutinised by Parliament itself. The Committee is satisfied with the Minister's decision to formalise the current practice which directly places on the Minister responsibility for the more important decisions not to require Environmental Impact Statements or Public Environmental Reports. Secondly, the new Order introduces an alternative procedure to that of requiring an Environment Impact Statement, involving a Public Environment Report. The Committee was concerned that the Order did not make it clear when an EIS would be prepared and when a PER, which would be less detailed, would be drafted, thus creating an area of hidden and unreviewable discretion at the heart of the process for determining the quality and extent of the impact assessment procedures. In his letter to the Committee the Minister has given some informal guidance on the distinction between an EIS and a PER based essentially on the scale of the proposals. The Committee accepts that the development of workable criteria will take time and that the differences between the alternative procedures will become clearer over time. In order to meet the Committee's concern on this point the Minister has agreed to produce guidelines to assist all concerned in predicting and making the choice of alternative procedures. In his letter to the Committee, the Minister wrote: I would also expect that, within the next two years as a result of more experience in administering the PER process, my Department will publish guidelines, aimed at assisting both proponents and the public as to when one or other of these two forms of environmental documentation might be required. I will keep the Committee informed of progress in preparing these guidelines, I do not think it possible to predict ahead of preparation whether these guidelines would be suitable for inclusion in the Procedures, or whether such a course would be practicable. I am prepared, however, to give this matter further consideration in the light of experience. The Committee thanks the Minister for his willingness to address this issue in this empirical and forthright way and for his courtesy in agreeing to keep the Committee appraised of developments. The Committee expresses its hope that dependable guidelines might emerge well within the two years time table and that the Minister may see the legal and declaratory value of entrenching these in the law. Thirdly, the Committee wanted to ensure that interested members of the public could have proper access to relevant decisions and documents. The Minister has agreed to make amendments to the Orders to provide for the publication of certain matters in the Gazette and to make it quite clear that upon receipt of a written request certain information will be supplied to a querist by the originator of the proposals, the Department, or the Minister. Fourthly, the Order contains a significant general obligation to make a draft EIS or PER available to the general public. However, that obligation is seriously limited by conferral on the Minister of a discretion to direct that the drafts be not made available. The Committee considered that any exercise of such a power should be by means of a ministerial instrument that would come before the Parliament for scrutiny. The Minister was sympathetic in principle to this suggestion though cautious that it should not lead to making public matters of national security or commercial confidence which might constitute the reasons for suppressing draft statements or reports. The Minister proposes two alternative solutions: (i) expressly require the Minister, when exempting drafts from public availability, to take into account whether publication would be prejudicial to national security, the interests of Australia, commercial confidences or be otherwise contrary to the public inte-rest; and expressly require the publication in the gazette of a summary of reasons for the actual decision; or (ii) table in Parliament an appropriate Ministerial Certificate provided this did not allow for the inadvertent disclosure of the sensitive information which the exemption process is designed to protect. The Minister has undertaken to make appropriate amendments to implement the first solution, while consulting with his Ministerial colleagues on the security aspects of tabling a ministerial certificate. The Committee has agreed to accept the Minister's interim solution. It does introduce an element of protection from undue suppression of information, and the Committee agrees that the security implications of the general issue require careful assessment. While the Committee will await the outcome of the Minister's further examination, it notes that there should be no greater risk of the disclosure of national security or commercial-in-confidence information in the second, parliamentary based, proposal than in the first gazette based proposal. The Committee recognises that it may be inappropriate to provide for a power to disallow a certificate of exemption that was personally directed by the Minister for national security or clear commercial-in-confidence reasons and reported to Parliament. The Committee does not concede this lightly. As a matter of principle, legislation providing for complex schemes that are generally protective of the rights of individuals, should not be capable of ministerial suspension or exemption unless that is achieved by a ministerial instrument subject to tabling and disallowance in Parliament. An unfettered discretion to suspend or exempt certain cases from the operation of legislation tends to undermine the uncertainty and predictability of that legislation in an unacceptable way. The appropriate remedy is independent merits review or parliamentary oversight. In its scrutiny of, for example, section 19 of the A.C.T. Credit Ordinance, the Committee requested proper parliamentary oversight of the exemption power (See the Committee's Seventy-seventh Report, P.P. No. 172/1986 page 34. See also Senator Richardson's letter of 3 November 1987 to Senator Harradine on a similar matter. Senate Daily Hansard, 3 November 1987, page 1594). It may be that a decision certified to Parliament (no less than the Gazette) as having been taken as national security grounds or commercial-in-confidence grounds, is a reasonable exception to this principle. Fifthly, the Minister has agreed to amend the Order to leave no doubt that where reasons for decisions are to be given these will be in writing. Sixthly, the Committee was concerned about the Minister's power to determine who would constitute ``the public'' for the purposes of certain discussions about a proposed action. A wide discretion such as this would leave room for allegations of unfairness or discrimination if certain persons or groups were excluded from participation. On the other hand some control is needed over large numbers of people who might include persons intent on disrupting the consultation process. The Committee has suggested that a nomination or representation scheme should be considered to allow persons who have expressed an interest to attend discussions personally or be represented by a nominee. The Minister has told the Committee: . . . I would intend to write, within the context of paragraph 6.6.2., to community groups, representative of the opinion and constituency identified by the public comments on the proposal, and ask them to nominate representatives who might attend a ``round-table'' discussion. This procedure is not without its difficulties and, in recognition of this, I shall ask my Department to prepare and publish guidelines to assist in the identification of representative members of the public to attend these discussions. I would hope that this could be done within 6 months and will keep the Committee informed of progress. Finally, the Orders contain a general ministerial power of exemption which permits a Department to request the Minister to exempt a proposed action from the entirety of the administrative procedures. The Minister must take into account the national security and commercial confidence criteria referred to earlier, as well as the general principle that it is in the national interest that the administrative procedures should always apply as far as reasonably possible. The Minister is required to make public the reasons for an exemption unless satisfied that to do so would be contrary to the public interest. The Committee is very concerned about this provision which, on its face, is contrary to the general principle referred to above concerning suspensory and exemption powers. The Committee is particularly concerned about the withholding of reasons for granting an exemption. The Committee notes that since 1975 there have been only 11 exemptions granted under the predecessor to this provision and in all cases the decisions and reasons appeared in the Gazette. However, in addressing this matter the Committee is not unmindful of the Senate's recent decision to reject in a Bill a ministerial power to suppress the reasons for issuing a direction to a statutory authority in circumstance where the existence of the direction itself would also be suppressed (Senate Daily Hansard, 27 October 1987, page 1321 re former subclause 29 (4) of the Australian Tourist Commission Bill 1987). The Committee recognises that national security matters could quite properly cause the Minister to exempt a proposal from some or all of the procedures without giving reasons. In his letter the Minister has told the Committee: While I agree that withholding notification of exemptions and the reasons for such exemptions as permitted by paragraph 11.5 should only be exercised after full and proper scrutiny, there may be occasions when, for national security or similar national interest reasons, such exemptions may need to be granted. To allow for such cases, appropriate provisions must be made in the Procedures. However, I recognise that the grounds of ``in the public interest'', while acceptable in 1975, may raise concern in 1987. I will therefore undertake to discuss the whole matter of paragraph 11.5 with the Attorney-General and other relevant Ministers with a view to deciding whether or not the provision is necessary and, if it is, making the wording more accurately reflect the objective to be achieved. These discussions will also encompass the issue raised in the fourth point of the Chairman's letter concerning withholding all or part of a draft EIS from public review for security or commercial confidence reasons. I will keep the Committee advised of the progress of these discussions. In the circumstances the Committee has agreed to accept this on the basis that the Committee expects that it will be kept informed and that a serious attempt will be made to provide for proper parliamentary oversight in appropriate cases. The Committee considers that the Minister's personal intention to seriously address this important issue is reflected in his statement ``. . . I agree that withholding notification of exemptions and the reasons for such exemptions as permitted by paragraph 11.5 should only be exercised after full and proper scrutiny. . .''. Public Services Regulations (Amendment) (Statutory Rules 1987 No. 90) These Regulations provide for the transfer of Senior Executive Service officers within the Service. The Committee was interested to know principally whether a reasonable period of advance notice was given to an officer about to be transferred and whether a Secretary's power to veto an appeal against a direction to act in another job was subject to proper criteria. The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, the Hon. Ralph Willis, M.P., has informed the Committee that no minimum period of notice is expressed in the regulations because SES officers will have been consulted in relation to a proposed transfer at an early stage and the underlying philosophy of the SES, embodied in the Public Service Act itself, is one of enhanced mobility. The Minister has also informed the Committee that the veto power is essential to allow Secretaries to be able to determine whether it is in the interests of efficient management for an officer to cease performing duties and temporarily perform other duties. An officer who thinks that he or she has been unfairly treated in relation to availability for temporary performance may lodge a grievance which, if disallowed by the Secretary, may be considered by the Merit Protection and Review Agency. The process will reduce the likelihood of an SES officer being subjected to unfair or biased treatment. Australian Citizenship Regulations (Amendments) (Statutory Rules 1987 Nos. 87 and 88) The Committee was concerned that by an unreviewable discretionary process Australians overseas who had lost original citizenship documents could still be refused copies of those documents, namely extracts from the Register of Australian Citizenship by Descent and declaratory certificate of citizenship. The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, the Hon. Mick Young, M.P., informed the Committee that strict controls were needed over access to certain documents because they could be put to fraudulent use by criminals. The Committee shared the Minister's concern that the procedures should prevent the issue of documentation that was already in existence in circumstances where it could be put to criminal use in obtaining passports, benefits etc. However, the Committee considered that where a bona fide person had genuinely lost original documents and failed to persuade an authorised officer to exercise his or her discretion to issue copies there should be some internal, reconsideration mechanism which would allow a senior authorised officer to review the facts. Such an internal procedure would assist in underwriting the quality of authorised officers' initial decisions. At the same time it appeared to the Committee to be unlikely that a criminally motivated person would request copies of documents that were not in fact lost and, on being refused, willingly submit himself or herself to a self-initiated reconsideration process that would probe into the matter. In its letter to the Minister of 18 November 1987 the Committee wrote: ``. . . [T]he Committee has a firm commitment to the idea that the avoidance of unnecessary grievance by means of appropriate internal procedures promotes justice and skilled decision-making in the interests of Australia and Australians overseas.'' In his letter of today's date the Minister has agreed to the Committee's request to amend the regulation to provide for internal reconsideration rights. While external review rights might have been the ideal, the Committee has to look at the practicalities of the situation where Australians overseas should, where possible, have the same rights as Australians in Australia. Legally guaranteed internal reconsideration rights seem to come closest to this. The Committee hopes that any weaknesses or shortcomings in the use of an internal reconsideration procedure will come to light in a way which allows the Committee to act decisively again to protect the rights of citizens. The Committee is grateful to the Ministers who have answered its queries, the officials who have advised the Secretariat on all of the above issues and, by no means least, its present acting legal adviser, Professor Dennis Pearce of the Australian National University, whose professional assistance to the Committee is a vital dimension of its operations. Senator COLLINS —I also seek leave to table the Committee's correspondence for public access. The Committee's usual practice is to have brief correspondence incorporated in Hansard. On this occasion the correspondence is too lengthy for that to be done. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —I thank the Senate. I table the correspondence. 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 document read as follows- 1. Australian Institute of Sport-Strategic Plan 1988 and Beyond-pursuant to section 12 of the Australian Institute of Sport Act 1986. 2. Australia's Population Trends and Prospects 1987-Report. 3. Document relating to the simultaneous dissolution of the Senate and the House of Representatives-5 June 1987. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. I refer the Minister to the recent sabotage of Telecom Australia cables in the Sydney central business district (CBD). Can the Minister explain why it was apparently so easy for someone to sever vital Telecom cables in the Sydney CBD which had the potential to jeopardise Australia's entire telecommunications network? What assurances can the Minister give to guard against any future acts of sabotage of the telecommunications network, particularly in view of the plans by Telecom to lay high volume traffic optical fibre cables across the entire continent over the next 10 years? Does the Minister consider the current backup arrangements adequate in the event of a full scale breakdown in the terrestrial telecommunications network? Further, does the Minister consider that the Aussat satellite system could be better utilised to ensure the security of Australia's nationwide telecommunications system? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case, as we all know, that on the night of Friday, 20 November, 24 cables carrying up to 35,000 circuits through the Haymarket, Pitt, York and City South exchanges were cut at 10 different locations under the city of Sydney. The cables affected are in an area bounded by Martin Place, Kent Street, Chinatown, Regent Street and Ultimo Road. The damage, which is estimated at several million dollars, occurred when someone, manifestly with a detailed knowledge of the underground tunnel system and the local, junction, optical fibre and coaxial cables, entered the tun- nels and attacked the cables apparently with an angle grinder and an axe. Telecom linesmen, engineers and technicians mounted a major round the clock operation to repair the damaged cables and restore services which did leave thousands of customers, including major business houses, without communications of both telephones and special services such as data links. Telecom has now provided temporary services for 70 per cent of the 15,000 telephone and data lines affected. Most of the remaining problems are centred in offices around the very busy Martin Place region. Full repair and restoration of these services could take several more days. Of course the Government, as well as Telecom itself, views most seriously any outside interference with the network, let alone a destructive and disruptive incident on this scale. Telecom's security and investigation branch, together with the New South Wales Police, is carrying out an exhaustive investigation of the incident and they are liaising with the Australian Federal Police. In addition, security patrols of the tunnels have been stepped up, and a number of immediate measures have been put in place to make entrances to the tunnel system more easily secured. The reason why those tunnel entrances were not as well secured as they might have been has, I think, become quite apparent in public statements by the Operations Manager of Telecom and it is because of an anxiety about safety and ease of egress in the event of an emergency situation as far as the workmen are concerned. Telecom has today announced a reward of $50,000 for information leading to the conviction of those persons responsible for the sabotage. I should say in terms of the larger issue that Telecom has been working for some time already to improve the security of its public network. In March this year a major in-house review of network security was initiated. This review has reached the stage where problems and potential threats have been identified. The review is now moving into the solutions stage and, at my request, its work is being accelerated following Friday's incident. This process should be completed early in the new year, and measures to further protect the integrity of the network will then be carried out. As to the last part of the question as to the role that Aussat and the satellite system might play in avoiding problems of this kind in the future, I think the answer speaks for itself that it is only as a marginal addition to the basic Telecom network that we can expect Aussat to be playing a role in the reasonably foreseeable future. When it comes to the major intercity links and the major intracity network connections of the kind that were in issue here it is difficult to see Aussat playing any role that could possibly substitute for the cabling that was under attack here. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The last part of the question referred to the backup generally, Aussat being one possible opportunity to provide backup. What plans does the Government have to ensure that there is backup in these situations if they should occur again? Senator GARETH EVANS —The way the network is constructed a very large number of backup routes and circuits are available as alternative means by which data, telephony and so on can be routed. Whether it is possible to develop backup on any greater scale than exists at the moment as a solution to the security problem is something that I will raise with Telecom to see whether that cannot be incorporated into the review process, if that makes any sense. Senator SCHACHT —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to the transcript of an interview by Laurie Oakes of the Opposition economic spokesperson, Andrew Peacock, on the Sunday program yesterday, in which Mr Peacock reaffirmed the policy of the Liberal Party of Australia to abolish the fringe benefits tax (FBT)? What would be the cost to revenue if the fringe benefits tax were abolished? What options would be available, as Mr Peacock implied, for avoiding going back to `the situation where the so-called rorts continue' if the fringe benefits tax were abolished? Senator WALSH —I have not actually seen the transcript nor did I see the program, but I have read a couple of Press reports and, as the Press reports seem to be consistent with each other, I assume that they are basically correct. In regard to revenue, the Budget estimate for fringe benefits tax receipts for this financial year is $750m. However, that does not tell the whole story. If the rort of converting what should be paid and would otherwise be paid as wages or salaries into fringe benefits were to be reopened there is no doubt that there would be a major conversion of income presently received as wages and salaries into fringe benefits, should fringe benefits again become non-taxable. Although it is speculative, as to the degree to which acting on Mr Peacock's policies would increase the cost to revenue beyond the $750m, there is no doubt that that would happen and, I think, there is every reason to believe that the cost, in the first year even, would be a few hundred million dollars, blowing out probably by a few hundred million dollars for each subsequent year until it eventually ran into $2 billion or $3 billion, if the rort were to be reopened in the way that Mr Peacock seems to be suggesting. I cannot think of any way of collecting tax on income received in kind which is more efficient than the FBT arrangements the Government has put in place. But I have been asked what other alternatives would be available. One alternative which would be available would be to require all employers to state on the employee's group certificate the value of income paid in kind and, in addition, as group certificates already require, income paid in cash. Small employers who do not issue group certificates would be required to buy taxation stamps for the income paid in kind instead of in cash. Of course, that would be an enormous additional work load for those in the private sector if they were required to provide details of every type of non-cash remuneration paid to every employee instead of lodging bulk returns as they do now. If one just looks at the revenue collected, that system could have the potential advantage of there being no exemptions to fringe benefits tax or income received in kind instead of case; and that, other things being equal, would boost the revenue. However, the cost incurred by the private sector in administering the vastly more complicated arrangements which Mr Peacock seems to be proposing would probably reduce the profits of companies and other taxpayers to the point where that revenue gain would be more than wiped out. In other words, on both efficiency and equity grounds, I would suggest that that alternative method is vastly inferior to the arrangements put in place by the Government. I noticed in the same Press reports that, although Mr Peacock was hedging his bets to some extent on the rorting of the taxation system through the payment of fringe benefits, he remained unequivocal and re-endorsed his 1984 commitment to continue paying pensions to millionaires. That, of course, would require higher taxes instead of the lower taxes the Liberal Party is proposing, unless Mr Peacock is also proposing to blow out the Budget deficit-which, I note for the record, is precisely what the coalition Government did, to a grossly irresponsible extent, during its last year in office. Senator CHAPMAN —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. Is the Minister aware of the widespread community concern in the upper north of South Australia caused by the impending closure of the Port Pirie Education Centre (Inc.) as a result of the Federal Government withdrawing for 1988 its base grant funding under the education centre program? Did the Commonwealth Schools Commission verbally recommend that the Port Pirie centre be included in a recommended 26 centres for continued funding in 1988? Is the centre's utility further recognised by the fact that at the very time the Government has withdrawn funding, another section of the same Department, in the form of the Commonwealth Employment Service, has contracted for the centre to run its job search program next year? Furthermore, did the same Department recently approve a community employment program (CEP) grant to the centre of some $50,000 to improve its grounds, while again during the same period forcing its closure next year through its withdrawal of base grant funding? How can the Government justify wasting some $50,000 of CEP funds in this way-an amount which would have been sufficient to keep the centre operating for another year? Is the failure by the Government to establish rational spending priorities a further example of this Government's managerial incompetence or an example of its contempt for underprivileged rural and isolated people? Senator TATE —I have a brief note on this matter which I will make available to the Senate. Insofar as there are six or seven elements of the question asked by Senator Chapman, at the end of my answer I may refer the question to the Minister for a more detailed response. In the brief available to me, the note reads that the reductions to the education centre's program in the 1986-87 Budget were made in the context of the need to reduce overall expenditure within the public sector. The Government chose to maintain the maximum number of centres possible whilst sustaining a viable network serving both rural and urban areas. The Port Pirie Education Centre subsequently received assistance under the projects of national significance program, administered by the Commonwealth Schools Commission, to support a policy development project concerned with rural schooling, with particular focus on the needs of girls. The grant was not offered as an alternative to recurrent funding. It is open to all education centres to seek additional funding from a variety of sources to support and enhance their operations. Without accepting the colouring which tinted some of the elements of the question put by Senator Chapman, I will undertake to seek a further and more detailed response to the various elements of his question. Senator COATES —I refer the Minister for the Environment and the Arts to reports of the concern expressed by the Tasmanian Government about the possible need to fight fires in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests. Is the Tasmanian Minister for Forests correct in assuming that the Commonwealth is so intransigent as not to allow reasonable fire protection to take place? Has the Commonwealth made assessments of the likelihood of fire in the Lemonthyme and Southern forests this summer? Is the Commonwealth required to contribute towards the cost of fire prevention preparations? What response has the Minister given to Mr Groom's request to undertake firefighting precautions? In particular, and in the light of the Minister's wholehearted support for protecting Australia's natural heritage, I ask for his response to Mr Groom's quoted assertion: I do not believe Senator Richardson would lose one wink of sleep if the Lemonthyme and southern forests were burnt out during the coming summer. Senator RICHARDSON —I thank Senator Coates for his question. If the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests were destroyed this summer I would lose more than a wink of sleep. The telephone would never let me sleep because of organisations ringing up to complain. Apart from that, having visited the area I know it is magnificent with values that are worth preserving. I would always be greatly saddened if we were to lose any of it. I heard of Mr Groom's complaints and requests on the radio and I read them in the paper a couple of days before I received a letter, so he can now hear of my response a couple of days before he gets my letter in reply. The Commonwealth in fact argued in the High Court of Australia that forestry operations in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests would contribute greatly to fire risks and that was one reason why we should prevent them and why there ought to be a stay of proceedings for logging in the area. Further to that, obviously the Commonwealth, in setting aside that area for protection during the Helsham inquiry, the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests Commission of Inquiry, is well and truly aware of the values of the area and would not like to see them degraded in any way. The Commonwealth has never intended to stop fire control activities and does not now. Commonwealth responsibilities fall a long way short of financing the normal responsibilities of State governments. It remains the responsibility of the Tasmanian Government to control-and, indeed, pay for that control-the fire risk in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests and the Commonwealth has no intention of making any special grant for the purpose. I think I would have to say to Senator Coates that the Minister's statement was a media stunt try on. It will not work and the Commonwealth will continue to look for an appropriate Tasmanian response. Senator Walters —You have not learnt a thing since you became a Minister. Senator RICHARDSON —I have not learnt a thing in a few years; it has taken Senator Walters a lifetime to learn nothing and she does it in style. I insist that the Tasmanian Government continue to maintain its fire control responsibilities and would hope that after this answer it gets on with the job. Senator JENKINS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Further to my question last Friday on organochlorine residues in Australian beef, I ask: What stocks of contaminated beef are held, in what quantities and where are these stocks currently located? Has the Minister seen a report in today's Age newspaper in which it is stated that the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (AMLC) Board is to meet shortly to decide what to do with the contaminated meat now held in storage in the United States, with one of the options being the sale of that meat, at a reduced price, possibly to Eastern bloc or north African countries? In the light of the Minister's reply to my question of Friday last, what control is the Government able to exercise over the disposal of consignments of contaminated Australian meat held in storage both overseas and in Australia? What action will the Government take if the AMLC Board should decide to seek buyers for contaminated beef in countries which may have less stringent systems of inspection than the United States and Japan? Senator WALSH —I did see that report in the Age. I must confess that I did not contemplate it for any length of time, but my quick impression was that there was some discrepancy or difficulty in reconciling the various figures within it, such as a reference to, I think it was, 2,000 tonnes of beef and a reference to $50m. If 2,000 tonnes is the total, I cannot reconcile those two figures. But I will get information on that. I did also note that it was reported that the AMLC is contemplating disposing of that stock to countries-specifically to the Eastern bloc; I am not quite sure what that means, but it was the term used-which do not have very stringent requirements. I gather from the tone of Senator Jenkins's question that she disapproves of that. Personally, providing there is a full and accurate disclosure of the alleged contamination, I do not see anything particularly wrong with giving a buyer the option of purchasing at a discounted price if the buyer so wishes. It is, of course, essential in doing that, for both commercial and, if it has any relevance, moral reasons that there be a full and accurate disclosure of what is in the meat. However, I can, of course, understand that there are some people with an authoritarian turn of mind who would prefer not to give people the option of purchasing a product which some other people regard as being inferior or contaminated in some way. They would prefer such people to have no option other than to have no beef at all if they cannot afford the asking price for a product that is supposed not to be contaminated. That is a view that is fashionable in authoritarian bourgeois circles. It is not one that greatly attracts me. Senator JENKINS —I wish to ask a supplementary question. I draw Senator Walsh's attention to elements in my question to which he has not responded. What stocks of contaminated beef are currently held in Australia and where are they held? Senator WALSH —I thought that I had covered that in the earlier part of my answer. I do not know, but I will try to get that information from Mr Kerin. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health. Is the Minister aware of a report published last week in Britain which claims that the risks of fatal cancer from low level radiation have been greatly underestimated? Is he also aware that, as a result of that report, the British National Radiological Protection Board has called for the permitted safe level of exposure of the general public to radiation to be halved, and that of workers to be cut by two-thirds? Will the Australian Government re- examine its own controls over radiation in the light of that report? Senator TATE —Mr President-- Senator Hill —You are in trouble, aren't you? Senator TATE —I shall take a little punt on this. I am sure that the Minister would be very well aware of the report which Senator Childs has drawn to the attention of the Senate. Without giving any undertakings as to the consequent action upon a review, I am sure that a further review will be undertaken to allow the fears and misgivings that Senator Childs has quite rightly drawn to the attention of the Senate to be allayed in an expert manner. Senator CALVERT —Is the Minister for Local Government aware of the great concern being expressed by three of Tasmania's largest councils-namely, the cities of Hobart, Glenorchy and Launceston, which together account for almost half of Tasmania's population-that they are to receive reductions in Commonwealth funding in excess of $1m over the next five years? On 2 November, in answer to a previous question asked by me, the Minister said: It is a new system which the majority of local authorities have welcomed because it is a more equitable process of distribution. Does the Minister still hold this view, and will she be explaining this equitable process to these cities when she visits them later this week? Senator REYNOLDS —I think it is important that Senator Calvert take up the invitation that I issued a couple of weeks ago for him to come and have the system explained to him so that he is in a better position of understanding. Senator Walters —Why not explain it to the Senate? Senator REYNOLDS —Let me explain it to the Senate. First of all, the Self National Inquiry into Local Government Finance reported to Parliament about the best possible way of redistributing local government funding, and I would remind Opposition senators that that report had bipartisan support, and when the new legislation went through last year, it also had bipartisan support. What happens in the process of Commonwealth funding going to the States is that each State has to submit a set of broad principles for the more equitable distribution of Commonwealth funding-the Commonwealth has accepted the principles that were submitted by Tasmania-and the State Grants Commission then takes over to allocate those funds in the most equitable way. Senator Calvert has raised the concerns of three councils-Glenorchy, Hobart and Launceston-and he is correct in saying that I shall be talking to each of those councils this week. However, we have to remember that it is very unwise to look too far into the future at just what will happen in regard to funding, because populations can change, valuations can change and recommendations to States grants commissions can change. I look forward to talking to those three councils. The recommendations that were submitted this year with respect to them were in accordance with the principles of distribution. The recommendations involved only three councils-Hobart, Glenorchy and Waratah-incurring actual losses in the current financial year, the greatest of which was only 6.9 per cent. What we have to remember is that, historically, throughout Australia a number of councils have been disadvantaged over many years. I seem to remember that Senator Calvert or Senator Chapman raised the question of rural councils. Professor Self recommended that there should be a redistribution which looked at those councils on a needs basis. Whether or not a number of capital cities and the larger councils like it-of course, I do not expect them to like the potential for some changes in emphasis in the distribution of funds-the reality is that capital cities have done very well over the years since Gough Whitlam introduced funding to local government. Some councils, especially those in growth areas and a number of rural areas, have not been getting the attention they deserve. The focus of the Self inquiry was on trying to bring about a more equitable system throughout Australia. However, in relation to the three councils that Senator Calvert has mentioned, I am fortunate in that I will have an opportunity to visit them this week. I will certainly take up their concerns with my colleague the Tasmanian Minister. I remind Senator Calvert that the Commonwealth has the broad focus to accept principles, but State grants commissions have to make the ultimate determination on the most equitable basis set down by those principles. Senator CALVERT —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister aware of the misleading statements made by her Labor colleague Duncan Kerr who `slammed the decision' and called on the Grants Commission to find a more equitable grant payment structure? Does the Minister agree that Duncan Kerr is condemning the State Grants Commission when it is the Commonwealth guidelines that are in question? Will the Minister be offering Duncan Kerr the same invitation as the Minister offered both Senator Panizza and me when she invited us to `a full briefing of the new arrangements for local government funding'? The PRESIDENT —Senator Reynolds will answer that part of the question which is a proper supplementary. Senator REYNOLDS —I think you will agree, Mr President, that Senator Calvert has raised a number of other issues that relate to the first question. As you have given me the call, Mr President, I am quite happy to answer them. I am aware that Mr Duncan Kerr has made his concerns known, as well he should, in regard to representing Glenorchy and Hobart in his electorate. He wants to sit down and discuss this question with me. As I said earlier in answer to Senator Calvert, I will certainly be raising these concerns with my counterpart in Tasmania. It has to be remembered that it is the State Grants Commission to which Senator Calvert should be directing his concerns, because it is the State Grants Commission that ultimately determines the distribution. The Commonwealth only accepts the broad principles. Senator WOOD —Is the Minister for Local Government aware that a commission of inquiry into the system of government in the city of Sydney was appointed by the New South Wales Government? Is the Minister aware that the first report of the inquiry recommended that the Sydney central business district and some of the adjoining residential areas be constituted as an area known as Sydney central? Is the Minister aware that the government of Sydney central would be in the hands of a board known as the Sydney central commission? Is the Minister aware that the report recommends that all commissioners be appointed by the Premier of New South Wales? Does the Minister agree with the system of elected local governments in Australia being replaced by State government appointed commissions? Will the Minister condemn the inquiry's recommendations as the end to democratic local government in Australia's second oldest local government area? Will the Minister express support for democratic local government in central Sydney to her New South Wales counterpart? In passing, she may answer the question whether the State Government of New South Wales answers the description of `bourgeois authoritarian', as defined by Senator Walsh. Senator REYNOLDS —I did answer this question last week when it was raised, I think, by Senator Calvert. I said on that occasion that I totally supported the principle of democratic, elected local government, and went on to indicate that it was for that reason that I was a strong advocate of constitutional recognition so that we could see Federal, State and local authorities working in closer co-operation and consultation. I also said at that time that I understood that the indication of establishing a central commission-that is, commissioners appointed by the New South Wales Government-was in actual fact only a recommendation at that stage. I have expressed my concerns about the alarming precedent that would be involved if the New South Wales Government were to accept that particular recommendation. However, I am pleased to report-and I refer to a Press report in the Sydney Morning Herald of 19 November-that the commission plan is to be dumped. The report states that State Cabinet is expected to reject a controversial plan for a fully appointed commission to run Sydney, that Government sources had that day confirmed that there were some problems with the plan and that Cabinet was meeting to fully discuss the matter. Senator Michael Baume —Window dressing for the State election! What do you think about that? Give us a considered view on that. Senator REYNOLDS —Senator Michael Baume interjects about windows and dressing. I am not sure what he is referring to. The fact of the matter is that the New South Wales Government commissioned a report; it received a report; it is currently discussing and making its final decision about that report; and when the New South Wales Government has made that decision, we will all be in a position to make up our minds about what we think of its final decision. I am confident that the New South Wales Government will fully take into account the principles involved in terms of democratic local government elections, and I reserve any further comment until Cabinet has fully reported. Senator KNOWLES —I direct my question to the Minister for Local Government. Has the Minister consulted with the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support as to the long term financial effect of current road funding trends on the budgets of country local authorities? Will the Minister direct her Department to examine the effects on the budgets of the non-metropolitan local authorities in Western Australia which are faced with a real loss of 70 per cent of 1985-86 Federal Government road funding by 1994-95 if the report of the Cameron Independent Committee of Inquiry into the Distribution of Federal Road Grants is implemented and Federal road funding remains constant in nominal terms only? Senator REYNOLDS —The answer is yes, I have been in consultation with my colleague who is responsible for road funding; and the detail of that question should be referred to Senator Evans. Senator McKIERNAN —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications, relates to the Government's recently announced ban on smoking on all commercial domestic aircraft. I ask this question in the knowledge that the Government has responded to many public demands and to a majority decision of the Federal parliamentary Labor Caucus that such measures be put in place. Accepting that one of the arguments used by those in favour of the Government's decision is the health hazard posed to non-smokers, I ask: Has the Government based its decision on medical or scientific evidence? If so, what was that evidence? Has the Government instituted or commissioned any of its own studies or surveys? Finally, it has also been argued that smoking on aircraft has a substantial impact on the cost of servicing and maintaining aircraft, an impact which is paid for by the consumer. Now that the decision to ban smoking has been made, I ask the Minister when he expects these savings to be passed on to air travellers. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, when I announced that I would take a proposal to Cabinet to seek approval to institute a ban on all domestic airline flight smoking, I indicated that quite apart from the likely adverse health effects of passive smoking there was ample justification for such a ban on the ground of distress and discomfort to non-smoking passengers. But there is, nonetheless, a major health justification for the ban. The ban is in line with the objectives of the national campaign against drug abuse, it is in accordance with the recommendations of the National Health and Medical Research Council 1986 working party report on the effects of passive smoking on health, and it does have strong support, as has become apparent in recent days and weeks, from the medical profession generally. The Government has received representations from a number of medical organisations supporting the ban, including the Australian Medical Association, the Public Health Association of Australia and New Zealand, the Australasian Epidemiological Association, the West Australian Professional Health Educators Association, the National Heart Foundation, the Thoracic Society of Australia, the National Health and Medical Research Unit in Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, the Queensland Cancer Fund and a number of individual medical practitioners-including, Senator Walsh, even some members of the Australian Capital Territory doctors union. There has been research undertaken overseas on smoking in aircraft. The US National Academy of Science's National Research Council report in 1986 did recommend a ban on smoking to reduce potential health hazards to cabin crew, as well as for three other reasons: to lessen irritation to passengers and crew, to eliminate the possibility of fires caused by cigarettes and to bring cabin air quality into line with established standards for other closed environments. Senator Robert Ray —Why don't you get rid of grog? Be fair dinkum. Senator GARETH EVANS —That might help to get Senator Ray's weight down. Senator Button —Cheap populism! Senator GARETH EVANS —It was not Senator Ryan who called me a Left fascist, Senator Button. The Sixth World Conference on Smoking on Health in Tokyo from 9 to 12 October this year made a recommendation concerning enforced smoking and non-smokers' rights in the following terms: All countries should work towards establishing smoke-free environments in all enclosed public places, particularly work sites, transport, health-care facilities, schools and child-care facilities. In addition, bans on smoking have been recommended by the World Health Organisation at its thirty-ninth World Health Assembly in May 1986 and by the United States Surgeon General in his 1986 report on the health consequences of involuntary smoking. As to the last part of the question, the Government has not undertaken any surveys of passenger preference, but it is clear from the current ratios of smoking and non-smoking seats provided by the airlines that the overwhelming majority of passengers do prefer non-smoking seats, and certainly representations that the Government has received on this issue have been strongly in favour of such a ban. Might I also mention in terms of the commercial implications of this, and it is something I propose to draw to the attention of Qantas Airways Ltd, that Niki Lauda, who runs Lauda Airlines, the Austrian applicant for rights into Australia, told me a couple of weeks ago that he is proposing to make his 767 flight to the Far East and Australia a non-smoking international flight-the first of its kind, I understand, in the world-because of his research which indicates that more people will take the flight specifically for that reason than would be deterred from doing so by virtue of the ban. There are no precise figures available as to any savings that might be achieved in the servicing and maintenance of aircraft as a result of the ban. However, I would have to say in response to that part of Senator McKiernan's question that I would not expect them to be of sufficient magnitude to result in decreases in air fares. Senator CHANEY —My question to the Minister for Transport and Communications relates to the answer that he has just given. In light of the seriousness with which he regards the risk to the health of people on aeroplanes, why has he continued to expose service personnel who man the VIP flights to those health hazards, given that he is not prepared to see the rest of Australia subjected to that indignity? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is a very reasonable question. I will refer it to the Prime Minister. Senator FOREMAN —I refer the Minister for Transport and Communications to an article in the Australian newspaper entitled: `Telecom seeks ties with Aussat, OTC'. In that article, Telecom's Chief Manager, Bob McKinnon, was reported as saying that closer co-operation was needed between the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (OTC), Telecom Australia and Aussat Pty Ltd because of the size of the domestic telecommunications market. Does the Minister agree with this statement? Does the Government agree that closer co- operation could lead to a mutual sharing of difficult but related expertise? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is a view that has been around since at least the 1974 report of the Vernon Commission of Inquiry into the Australian Post Office that the provision of domestic and international communications should be provided by one organisation. Telecom's views on this matter to that effect are well known and have been taken into consideration by the telecommunications policy review team and the associated officials group from other departments that have been working on this matter in recent times. The reality is that OTC and Telecom in particular already work closely together, and this is formalised in a series of working agreements. The present legislative framework does allow considerable scope for the organisations to work either more closely or competitively as their respective commercial judgments lead them. The question raised by Senator Foreman is important, but I am not going to pre-empt an answer to it. The matter in issue is being closely considered at the moment by the officials group to which I referred and will be considered shortly in association with other Telecom-related policy matters by the structural adjustment committee of the Cabinet. Senator HAMER —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Is it a fact that responsibility for the forward equipment planning for the whole of the Defence Force has now been taken over by the Chief of the Defence Force? Why has no public announcement been made of this very important change, which I for one have been advocating for more than 10 years? Will it for the first time result in the equipment and structure of our Defence Force being dealt with as a whole, rather than as an uneasy amalgam of three separate Services? Will this change also overcome the previous system whereby the three Services separately made equipment bids and Defence Department public servants, usually without any relevant qualifications, were able to play the competing services off against each other and keep policy control in their hands? Was this divide and rule system and the consequent antagonism in the Defence Department between civilian and professional defence personnel very damaging to the efficiency of our Defence Force? Does the Force Development and Analysis Division of the Defence Department examine new equipment proposals, using operational research techniques? Finally, will this division now come directly under the Vice Chief of the Defence Force, as it obviously should, to avoid the continuation of the friction between the civilian and professional elements of the Defence Department? Senator ROBERT RAY —I think in respect of the first part of Senator Hamer's question, I did read something to that effect. However, I cannot remember the detail. Senator Hamer asked a lot of other questions, the basic thrust of which, I think, is that Defence civilian personnel know nothing about equipment and, in fact, activists in the field know everything. I took that as an implication of part of what the honourable senator said. However, there is no doubt that part of the thrust of his question obviously is correct, that if we can have a unified approach to equipment rather than one or other service jealously trying to promote their own interests and their own equipment, we would all be better off. When the Defence Department was merged some years ago it was quite obvious that it would take a long time to get a unified defence approach in which all the Services would co-operate and establish the correct priorities. Based on what the White Paper said and as a result of many of the other innovations of this Government, I hope that this approach will gradually evolve. There are a lot of personnel in the defence area and, naturally, it is not an easy department to administer. I just note for the record that at last we now have a government that does have an overall policy and strategy in the defence area. When the Liberals were in office, the strategy seemed to be, in my view anyway, more tailored to election gimmicks than anything else. Hence we would have such proposals as buying the occasional aircraft carrier coming into an election, which would have been a very good gimmick in 1983 except the British reneged on its sale. As to the latter two points of the honourable senator's question that were a little more detailed, I will seek an answer from Mr Beazley when he gets back to the country tomorrow and hope to provide it to the honourable senator by the end of the week. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the latest employment and unemployment figures. I ask the Minister: What up to date information does he have on labour market trends in the several State economies compared with national trends? What policy factors have caused discrepancies in the State by State results? Senator WALSH —I have here some non- seasonally adjusted data on unemployment rates for Queensland and Australia in the financial years since 1983-84. Since they are for whole years, the fact that they are not seasonally adjusted should not, I think, make any difference to the relativities. They show that in that time the Australian average unemployment rate has fallen by 1.3 percentage points, while the Queensland rate has gone up by 0.2 percentage points. Thus the gap between the unemployment rates in Queensland and the rest of Australia has widened. In 1983-84 the national unemployment rates was 9.6 per cent and the Queensland rate was 9.7 per cent. By the next year the national rate had fallen to 8.6 per cent, a decline of one per cent, and Queensland's rate had gone up into double figures, above 10 per cent. In the most recent financial year-1986-87-the Australian rate was 8.6 per cent and the Queensland rate was still as high as 9.9 per cent. In regard to the last part of the question as to what is the reason for this, various excuses have been offered about people who were already unemployed allegedly flocking into Queensland. That is contradicted by the statistics on interstate migration that are available. Another excuse which has been offered is the fact that Queensland is a mining State and to a greater degree than the Australian economy generally is a mining economy. That is inconsistent with the record in Western Australia, which is also a mining State, where employment has grown quite rapidly. I think the rather inescapable conclusion is that Queensland's employment record over recent years is attributable to the fact that it has a National Party Government run by the machine which put Senator Stone into the Senate. Senator SHEIL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I ask: When half a million Australians have difficulty in speaking English, why is the Government adding to this number by bringing in at least 40,000 migrants yearly with little or no English? I stress that they are migrants, not refugees. Why is the knowledge of English not a criterion prior to migrant entry? Why does the Government select migrants who have little or no English, thereby causing Australian taxpayers to fund tuition in English to the tune of some $50m a year? Senator REYNOLDS —I do not have a brief on this subject because I think that there is bipartisan support in regard to our immigration policy. I suppose it has never been imagined that anybody would ask the kind of question that Senator Sheil has asked this afternoon. I am more than happy to take the honourable senator's question on notice, but I would have thought that, given the bipartisan support that political parties have had to immigration policy over the years, it would have been fairly apparent that providing migrant services to new citizens who come to this country is part and parcel of both Government and Opposition policy in regard-- Senator Stone —It is the way we are selecting migrants who immediately need the services. That is what he is asking about. Answer the question. Senator REYNOLDS —Obviously this matter is raising certain divisions within the Opposition in regard to its policy on immigration. As a matter of fact on Friday I spent a very enjoyable evening with Senator Short at a conference on Asian immigration. Senator Short and I had no difference of opinion on immigration and I am sure that Senator Short would support the adult migrant education program. While the question has been directed to me I believe that it could very well be directed back to members of the Opposition to sort out the differences between the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party of Australia in regard to services for migrants. If Senator Stone and Senator Sheil are saying that only English speaking migrants should come to this country, they should stand up and say so. Apparently that is what Senator Stone believes. Senator Sheil has raised a question that I am certainly prepared to take on notice but I believe that it has highlighted a very unusual difference in philosophy among those on the other side of the chamber. Senator WALTERS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. The introduction by the Australian Taxation Office of taxpayer self-assessment was intended to speed up the processing of tax returns. However, I have been informed that delays of up to 12 weeks are now being experienced by taxpayers expecting refunds, while assessment notices for underpayment of tax are being processed within six weeks. Can the Minister explain the reason for the difference of six weeks between the issue of assessment notices and refund cheques, because one could be forgiven if the immediate reaction were that the Government is employing delaying tactics in the issue of refunds to save interest payments and help the Budget debts? Senator WALSH —Senator Walters says that she has been informed-I do not know by whom; whether it was the fairy at the bottom of the garden or some Liberal Party of Australia tax evader. Senator Tate —Are they two different creatures? Senator WALSH —Senator Tate asked me whether they are two different creatures. I do not know about that; I will have to take that one on notice. On the alleged delays, I will see what information I can get from the Taxation Office via the Treasurer. Senator STONE —Has the Minister for Finance noted Press reports over the weekend alleging that the Government, in its negotiations with its own backbenchers over parliamentary salaries, has entered into two deals relating to future entitlements under the parliamentary Superannuation Fund Investment Trust arrangements, namely: firstly, that members and senators retiring under those arrangements in future should be entitled to receive 100 per cent of their benefits by way of lump sum rather than, as at present, only 50 per cent that way and 50 per cent by way of pension; and, secondly, that entitlements under these arrangements should in future be calculated on the basis of parliamentary salaries plus electoral allowances rather than, as at present, only parliamentary salaries? Is the Minister also aware that the Department of the Treasury is currently conducting, on the Government's behalf, a full-scale inquiry into the arrangements governing superannuation schemes in general with a view to reducing their present degree of concessionality? Against that background I ask the Minister: Firstly, are these Press reports correct? Secondly, if so, does he approve of such deals said to have been entered into by his Government? Senator WALSH —I have not seen any Press reports alleging that some deal, or deals, have been done, although I have not read all the newspapers, so I am not disputing that there may have been such reports. To the best of my knowledge no deal was done along the lines that Senator Stone suggested, or any deal on other lines. As yet, there has been no announcement of any government decision, but I think it is well enough known that I can say that the article which Michelle Grattan wrote in the Age last Saturday, although questionable in one or two details, is basically correct. I was asked whether I was aware or could confirm-or something like that-that a review of superannuation arrangements in general was under way. The answer, of course, is that I do know such a review is under way. I do not know what specific propositions for change the Treasury may have submitted or be submitting to the Treasurer, if any propositions at all for change are being submitted. As to whether there is any incompatibility between Press reports of Government decisions on parliamentary superannuation and other matters, I will submit that to the Treasurer for comment. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice and relates to matters concerning the security and operation of the National Crime Authority (NCA). Is it accepted practice that the South Australian Attorney-General should acknowledge the existence of Operation Vigilante being conducted in South Australia by the NCA? Is it accepted practice that the South Australian Minister of Emergency Services should talk about the timetable of the NCA in South Australia, particularly that he expected a final report by the end of the year? What is the practice of the NCA in giving briefings? Is the practice consistent with the offer of the South Australian Minister of Emergency Services to arrange a briefing for senior Opposition members by the NCA-and I quote from the South Australian Hansard-`so that they will have perfect knowledge of what is going on'? Following the statement of the South Australian Premier that he was prepared to establish a royal commission into the South Australian police force if the NCA recommended such a move, I ask whether that is an appropriate function for the NCA. Senator TATE —In relation to the method by which the South Australian Minister might make public a certain general understanding of operations being undertaken by the National Crime Authority and, in particular, those instances where the Authority has gone beyond a general investigation and is using its plenary powers under a particular reference, it is the case that already in its reports published for the Parliament the National Crime Authority in a very general way makes the scope of its references known to the general public. To know whether the South Australian Minister had gone beyond the very general description of the operation being undertaken in his apparent acknowledgment of the fact that a reference known as Vigilante may be being undertaken, I would have to see the text of his acknowledgment and the extent to which he details that operation or reference. I did not make a note of the second part of the question, but it concerned whether a Minister should make a timetable, I think it was, for making a reference known to the general public. I do not think that that would normally be expected to be made known by a Minister but I am not sure to what extent that also has been indicated by the National Crime Authority. Honourable senators will be aware that certain references given very early in the life of the Authority have come or are coming to an end. The Authority has made it clear that it is moving from having some six or seven references under way to a position, over the next year or so, where that number will be reduced to three, including perhaps a major reference that will be discussed in Hobart next Thursday afternoon. As for the practice for briefings, the Chairman of the National Crime Authority, Mr Justice Stewart, gives briefings in a very general way to persons other than Ministers as to the operations of the Authority-for example, in certain selected cases to editors of major media groups. So the briefings, in the most general sense, are not restricted to Ministers. Whether the briefings available to members of the Opposition would extend to their having a perfect understanding of operations, I suspect that that is not the case, because, quite frankly, I am not given briefings which enable me to have a perfect understanding of operations-nor have I sought them, and nor do I want them. The final part of the question- Senator Hill —Calling for royal commissions. Senator TATE —I doubt whether it is the function of the National Crime Authority to call on governments to institute a royal commission in those instances where it has formed an opinion that, even with its extraordinary and plenary powers, it would be unable to uncover a particular matter such that admissible evidence could be compiled so as to lead to charges being laid. The operations of the National Crime Authority are held in secret and on the grand jury model of the United States, and under royal commissions matters are made public even though they do not lead to the compiling of admissible evidence that would lead to charges. Therefore, of course, that can be damaging to individuals. For that reason there is a very clear distinction between the way in which the National Crime Authority and royal commissions operate. I would be surprised if the National Crime Authority would see it as within its brief to suggest that that alternative method of investigation be undertaken by a government. Senator RICHARDSON —On 20 November Senator Puplick referred to aspects of my advertisement in north Queensland newspapers concerning the World Heritage listing of Queensland wet tropical rainforests. In particular, he asked me to specify which non-indigenous plants invade rainforests following disturbance by logging. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a list of such plants. Leave granted. The list read as follows- Non-indigenous plants which have been observed to invade rainforest following disturbance by logging Taxonomic Name Common Name Lantana camara ... Lantana Thunbergia grandiflora ... (An invasive vine) Spathodia campanulata ... African tulip Cinnamonum camphora ... Camphor laurel Psidium guajava ... Guava Panicum maximum ... Guinea grass Rubus sp. ... Giant bramble Mimosa invisa ... Giant sensitive weed Montanoa hibisciflora ... Anzac weed Solanum seafortheanum ... Climbing nightshade Solanum torvum ... Devil's apple Solanum mauritianum ... Wild tobacco Various species of pasture legumes Senator RICHARDSON —I thank the Senate. Included in the list are lantana, guinea grass and wild tobacco, which are familiar to people with any experience of disturbed rainforests. Senator Puplick may be aware that they cause quite an economic impact in north Queensland. Senator Puplick's question greatly simplified the vegetation changes brought about by rainforest logging. Invasion by non-indigenous plants is only one of the many structural and holistic changes which result from logging and are compounded by the continued logging of rainforests. The advertisement drew attention to these changes. Senator Puplick also claimed that I had the advertisement redrawn to exclude a photograph which showed me and another person present on the occasion when I was jostled at Ravenshoe. While one newspaper on its own initiative removed the photograph from one edition, I am advised that the advertisement is being run by that newspaper and others in north Queensland in its original form. Senator ROBERT RAY —During Question Time on Wednesday last, Senator Harradine asked me a number of questions relating to the resignation of pilots from the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). He also suggested that the RAAF utilise flying instructors from the Reserve to assist with training as an interim measure until experienced levels within the permanent Air Force increase. I undertook to obtain a detailed response from the Minister for Defence to the honourable senator's suggestion. The Acting Minister for Defence has provided me with the following response: The Chief of Air Staff has directed that increasing priority be given to pilot training, if necessary by adjusting activity levels in the operational force. Increasing pilot output is a long term objective because of the need, first, to increase the output of qualified flying instructors and, secondly, to increase the number of suitable applicants. In the interim, the Chief of Air Staff has directed that instructor postings be stabilised to provide greater training continuity. By late next year it is expected that instructor output will have doubled from 24 to 48 over a two-year period. RAAF pilots and instructors who have left the permanent air force may enrol in the active Reserve for a period of five years. These officers are normally employed in operation officer duties and vacancies as air crew are, of course, limited. There are 12 pilots presently employed on air crew duties but they are precluded from flying high performance aircraft and from being employed on flying instructor duties. Senator Harradine's suggestion that Reserve pilots who are instructor qualified be used in flying training is already under active consideration by the RAAF and the defence working group examining pilot separations. The question of operational conversion training was raised during recent discussions with Qantas Airways Ltd, which is the largest single employer of former RAAF pilots. The questions of location, attraction, currency of experience and continuity of employment are relevant not only to the operational conversion training but also to the wider use of reserve officers in flying training. Senator TATE —During Question Time, Senator Childs asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health, the following question: Is the Minister aware of a report published last week in Britain which claims that the risks of fatal cancer from low level radiation have been greatly underestimated? Is he also aware that as result of that report, the British National Radiological Protection Board has called for the permitted safe level of exposure of the general public to radiation to be halved, and that of workers to be cut by two-thirds? Will the Australian Government re-examine its own controls over radiation in the light of that report? During Question Time I received the following notes: The limits for exposure to radiation of workers and members of the public in Australia are recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council and generally incorporate the latest international recommendations as they are published. The recommended limits have been based principally on medical studies of the surviving populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who were exposed to levels 20 to 100 times higher than the current occupational limit, and for whom it has been demonstrated that they suffer an increased risk of contracting cancer in later life. Based on these studies, the recommended limits have implied risks of about one in 1,600 per year for workers who receive the limit and one-tenth of this figure for members of the public. In practice, however, the imposition of these respective limits, together with an obligation that exposures shall be kept as low as reasonably achievable, lead to average exposures which are generally 10 times lower. The corresponding risk is then about one in 16,000 for workers and one-tenth of this for members of the public. Very recently the estimates of doses associated with those atomic explosions have been revised and reduced to about half of earlier estimates. This implies that the risks associated with exposure are doubled, if it is assumed that the risk is strictly proportional to the dose. The Australian Radiation Laboratory is currently reviewing this new information to determine what changes may need to be made to the Australian recommended radiation protection standards. In practice, occupational exposures in Australia are, on average, less than one-fiftieth of the current recommended limits. A more detailed assessment of the situation will be provided when further information becomes available. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.13) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Australian Institute of Sport is to be congratulated on having brought forward a strategic plan covering its work in the years ahead. The Institute has had a very patchy history in some respects in terms of the administrative side of things and control of its financial affairs. These matters were the subject of a number of inquiries arising from claims about financial maladministration at the Institute of Sport during the time of its previous Director. It now appears that all of those matters have been satisfactorily resolved and I, for one, have a great deal more confidence in the current administration of that organisation to effect proper financial and administrative controls. I am glad to see that, in the strategic plan, those matters in particular are given some attention. The Institute has also had a great deal of success in terms of its program in relation to elite athletes. The details on page 9 show the success of persons associated with the programs of the Institute. This substantial record included success in the World Cup hockey for men in 1986 and the men's rowing eight in 1986, the swimming medals that have recently been won, success in international tennis especially at the junior level, success by the Australian netball team, success by some Commonwealth Games divers, weight lifters and track and field athletes, gold medals by weight lifters and success by squash players and walkers. Nevertheless, some attention must be paid to the fact that Australia is no longer a major power in world track and field events, and this is a regrettable development. It is also important to understand that not all of the decisions made by the Institute have been greeted without some criticism-for instance, its decision to base the cycling program in Adelaide rather than in Launceston, where it should have been based. I know that my colleague Senator Newman has been particularly active in pursuing this matter. The decision not to employ Johnny Warren as the soccer coach attached to the Institute was one that caused a great deal of anxiety in the soccer community. The Institute needs to address itself to the relationship which it will have with major international sporting figures produced by Australia who are not part of the Institute's system. One thinks of Phil Anderson in cycling and Wayne Gardner in motorbike racing. One thinks particularly of the continuing success of Australian sports men and women in areas such as professional surfing. These days there are various events on the circuit for surfing professionals: the Stubbies Classic, the Beaurepaire Open, the Rottnest Classic, the Rip Curl Pro, the Coca-Cola Classic and the Suran Super Series. That is an area of sport to which the Institute should be giving greater attention and encouragement as it clearly attracts a large number of Australian participants. Sport is a big business and stars earn big money. A fairly recent review among Australian sportsmen reported that Greg Norman earns about $12m; Wayne Gardner, $4m; Pat Cash, $2m and Bruce Crampton, $1.2m. Notable golfers have an income of half a million dollars and more and motor-racers are in much the same league. Jockeys can earn a quarter of a million dollars and football players earn from $150,000 to $200,000. But, again, those are areas to which the Institute does not appear to be paying much attention. Finally, I mention what I think is a major failing on the part of the Institute and one to which I would like to see it pay more attention in its strategic plan for the future; that is, the encouragement of Aboriginal sports men and women. Sport has been one of the areas where Aboriginals have been able to participate on an equal basis and have been able to get recognition and kudos in a way which is not available to them in many of the areas of discrimination which continue to be practised. It is an area which some people seem to be quite determined not to address as a matter of national priority. I believe that the Institute of Sport, in its future strategic planning, should look particularly to the contribution which it can make to raising the standards for Aboriginal sports men and women and indeed their opportunities to participate on the same basis as all other Australians. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(3.18) —I welcome the report from the Australian Institute of Sport. I think it is the most encouraging report from the Institute in the years since it was established. I compliment the Institute on its initiatives and in sticking to the areas where it has been most competent. Certainly, the Institute has been able to overcome many of the apprehensions people had when it first opened that it would fragment sport, particularly the major sports, and we would wind up with hockey in Western Australia, swimming in Townsville and tennis in Melbourne. I note that the Institute intends to place the cycling program in Adelaide, and that is probably not a good idea if the Institute is to concentrate on elite athlete training. However, the report does show the comprehensive range of activities the Institute is undertaking and lists many of the elite athletes it is training. They have been very successful. But the Institute insists on informing us that the training of elite athletes is not its only forte; that coaching, including the coaching of coaches is also very important. Research at the Institute is showing good results and I see that it is expanding. Today I spoke to a gentleman from Queensland who is attending the Institute. I discovered that the Institute is working out measures to assess an athlete's will to win and his ability to concentrate. That can be done by way of computer programs. I notice that the Institute is expanding and developing its accommodation facilities and hopes to gain income from that. The Institute is certainly well organised as it moves to its strategic goals and I hope that it will be successful. What I welcome as much as anything is its proposal for becoming as financially independent as it possibly can, through income from accommodation and sponsorship. So I welcome this report and wish the Institute every success with its new strategic plan. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(3.20) —In addressing the strategic plan for the Australian Institute of Sport, I draw the Senate's attention to the factors which are referred to at page 4 of the report as needing to be continued because they have contributed to the Institute's success already. The ones I pick out are: the availability of adequate facilities and resources; a close co-operative working relationship with State governments and institutes; a proper targeting of resources; and tight and effective management. I am extremely concerned that those factors in fact are not currently being implemented in a situation concerning the velodrome and the cycling satellite for the Australian Institute of Sport. As my colleagues have mentioned, I have spoken on this matter on previous occasions. I want to alert the Senate to the problem that is continuing in this matter. In 1986 a Senate Estimates committee was told by officers of the Department that the matter had not been decided; that a number of considerations were being taken into account; that Adelaide was the favoured site, despite the fact that the most magnificent site in Australia was already up and running in Launceston with a covered velodrome; and that there was no velodrome whatsoever in Adelaide, which at that stage was not the selected site-only one on which obviously the Minister was looking with favour. Since then we have been messed about from Estimates committee to Estimates committee, continually being told that the matter is in the pipeline, that decisions will be made. We were told this time last year that things had to be decided so that the project would be up and running by February this year. All that has happened is that we have now been told that the velodrome has still not been built in South Australia. The decision was taken that the cycling institute be established in South Australia. South Australia still has no velodrome and, in every other respect, the facilities there are at best the equal or even possibly the inferior of the Launceston facilities; yet we are facing the prospect that more taxpayers' dollars are to be spent in building a new velodrome in Adelaide from the beginning. It may not ever become a covered velodrome. Even if it is, I fear that Commonwealth funds will once again be called upon to provide the facility. I remind the Senate that we are considering the factors which go into the good management of the Australian Institute of Sport. They are: the proper targeting of resources; tight and effective management; co-operation with the States; and provision of adequate facilities. We have an excellent facility. We are facing a proposal to cover a velodrome that is not yet built in Adelaide. The Commonwealth apparently gave an assurance to South Australia that, subject to the extension of the national sports facilities program, it would give stage 2 of the project the highest priority. Stage 1 is not yet built. We have grave doubts as to whether any firm commitment has ever been given by the South Australian Government to build a velodrome. In the meantime the cyclists of Australia have no velodrome facilities on which to operate when there is one going begging which all who have appeared before Estimates committees over the last 18 months have agreed is the most excellent world class facility which has been established, I remind the Senate, with taxpayers' dollars already. For a country that is trying to cut its cloth according to what is available, it is disgraceful that any consideration should continue to be given to putting more dollars into a facility in another State. We talk about waste. The Government says, `We are cutting back', but it cuts back in stupid areas. Here is an opportunity to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely, but the Government is passing up that opportunity. My disgust is intense in this matter. It is not just a question of my State having an excellent facility and relishing the opportunity to host this satellite of the Australian Institute of Sport. As a representative of the taxpayers of Australia, I express my disgust that there should be any further consideration of new dollars being spent on a facility that is already provided by the taxpayer. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(3.25) —I also rise to speak on the Australian Institute of Sport report 1988 and Beyond. This report certainly does discuss the achievements over the past seven years of the Australian Institute of Sport, which are, of course, considerable. The Institute was originally set up because athletes were not receiving sufficient opportunities in Australia. Page 4 of the report states: The Australian Institute of Sport is a unique institution which has specific statutory responsibility for assisting high performance athletes, coaches and technical officials to achieve excellence. In that respect the Institute of Sport is certainly contributing, and it has gained an international reputation as an institution. It has also had many successes-in the Commonwealth Games, with Robert de Castella and with our weightlifters, in the World Hockey Cup, with a gold medal, in tennis, in swimming and in all sorts of sports. However, I think a lot of people would agree that what is most important in Australia is active participation in sport rather than people being spectators of sport. Sebastian Coe once said: I'd rather see fifty thousand people taking part in a fun run than one person running a four minute mile. It is part of the brief of the Australian Institute of Sport that it should also have contact with State governments and local governments and encourage active participation. I, together with many others in the community, would hope to see them being more active in this respect. Recreational sport has always been an important part of the Australian way of life. This aspect will become even more important in a rapidly changing society where we now have large scale unemployment, shorter working hours and early retirement. We do not all want to become armchair spectators. I hope the Australian Institute of Sport will take on more of its brief in encouraging active participation in sport. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.28) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I welcome the tabling by the Government of this paper because it is important and because the information in it is significant for policy makers, both in government and elsewhere. In brief, the report, in my view, sketches a fairly unhappy picture of the population trends in Australia. We find that our population growth, at 1.46 per cent in 1986, is historically low; it is low compared with rates in most developing countries, although high compared with rates in other developed countries. That growth is really caused by immigration. The report goes on to point out that the most recent estimate of fertility in Australia-for 1986-is one of the lowest levels ever recorded, and about 10.5 per cent below long-term replacement. It is significant that in a country as wealthy as Australia, a country with such benign living conditions, we do not increase our population. The need for immigration to ensure that we have any population growth at all is a quite stark fact that needs to be widely understood within this country. I do not wish to go into great detail on the figures that are disclosed because time does not permit it in this brief debate, but the implications of our lack of population growth in Australia, which is reflected by the lack of population growth in other developed countries, are very large indeed. As the report said on page 3, whereas at present only about two-thirds of people live in developing countries, by 2100 this is projected to have risen to six-sevenths of total population. So by 2100 only one-seventh of the population of the world can expect to live in what we currently describe as the developed world. Australia, which is presently the forty-fifth most populated country, could be expected to be only the sixty-eighth most populated country by 2025-a very substantial shift. We find in the report also a projection of a further decline of fertility to about 12 per cent below the long term replacement rate by the early 1990s; that is, Australia is experiencing even greater population declines than other developed countries. Quite apart from anything else, that has major implications for welfare and retirement policy. There will be a very substantial increase in dependency unless we change either the birth rate or the immigration rate, or a bit of both. The report points out that the increase in aged dependency between 1986 and 2025 is projected to be 82 per cent, with an average annual net migration gain of 50,000, or 65 per cent, and an annual gain of 125,000. In a community that is already complaining about the levels of taxation required to maintain the existing income support systems, that is a very serious matter for this country. The single point I wish to make is that the latter part of the report points out that the Australian Government does intentionally influence population growth through its immigration program and that, to date, no policies have been put in place to influence fertility. The report points out that policies to influence fertility by making the financial burdens easier to bear have had limited effect in both Eastern Europe and Western Europe. However, I think one would be very bold to say that the substantial financial disadvantage suffered by people with dependants was not a factor in forming attitudes towards family formation and reproduction. The Government has ample information available to it. The Institute of Family Studies has pointed out that a family with three children requires an income in excess of $50,000 to have the equivalent disposable income of the single person on average weekly earnings, equivalent to under half that amount. Many studies show the very significant financial penalties which are incurred by people who have children. Unfortunately, that is not totally cancelled out by the fact that child bearing is still a particularly joyous and happy part of the lives of the great bulk of Australians. I simply wish to say in the few seconds that remain to me that I think it is important that governments pay greater attention to the high cost of dependency and that non-government bodies, like the Government itself, should focus also on the extent to which there is an imperfect understanding in the community of the positive joys of child bearing, rearing and caring. I think that there are very significant implications for Australia in that and I hope that we will see greater emphasis on a more pro-family policy approach from the Government in future. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(3.33) —Unlike Senator Chaney, I believe that the report by the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs entitled Australia's population trends and prospects 1987 is rather disastrous. For too long this country has been in the grip of a large bureaucracy which was set up in the late 1940s to encourage migration to this country. Nobody has really seriously looked at what the effect of migration on Australia really is. I draw attention to the simplistic nature of this report by quoting only one paragraph at the beginning of the second chapter: Australia's population is small by world standards. With a population of only 16 million, Australia is in forty-fifth place on the list of nations ranked by population size. The number of Australians is about the same as the number of New Yorkers, and yet Australia is the sixth largest of nations in area. The implication in that paragraph and throughout the document is that we simply go on endlessly increasing the size of the population, covering the country with buildings, bitumen and concrete, and take no account whatsoever of the carrying capacity of the country. Nowhere does the report mention the environment. Nowhere does it refer to the ability of the environment to cope with the pressures which the population puts on it. I think that it is relatively self-evident that the impact of a population on its environment is a product of the number of people in that population multiplied by the impact of each person. It is abundantly clear already that the impact of the Australian population on Australia is not sustainable. We are already, by any reasonable standards, an over-populated country. We need to do one of two things-or both. We need either to reduce our population or to reduce the per capita impact of that population on the environment. It is quite clear, as I have pointed out elsewhere, that this Government and the Opposition are hell bent on increasing the per capita impact of Australians on their environment. They wish to pursue growth economics and increase the per capita demands on the environment, both in respect of resource needs and in respect of the amount of pollutants put into the environment. At the same time, they want to increase the number of people having that impact. That is not sustainable in the long run. I think only two weeks ago we had a debate in this place on the run-down of the carrying capacity of Australia's soil, of its capacity to produce food. Everybody agreed that something like 70 per cent of the land in Australia was in need of remedial treatment. Everybody agreed that that treatment was not being given and that insufficient money was being spent for that purpose. Yet, at the same time, we are attempting to increase the pressure on the land by increasing the number of people. We have adopted a migration program which, according to the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young), should be further designed to increase the economic component. Far too little attention is paid to the needs of the migrant people themselves when they come here. They are looked on merely as economic pawns to be shuffled from one country to another and to be brought in as aids to economic growth. However, I point out that the report itself shows that those countries which have lower population growth than Australia, notably Japan and West Germany, even on those economic criteria, are doing rather better than Australia, and that indicates quite clearly to me that there is little nexus between population growth and the healthy economy which the Government and the Opposition are seeking. We invite people into this country provided they have half a million dollars. People who have already demonstrated their willingness to exploit their native countries are eagerly brought in; yet, at the same time we find that we are incapable of supporting the indigenous population in the way in which they should be supported-people who, incidentally, have a different attitude to the environment from Australia's white European and Asian immigrants. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.38) —There is not time to canvass the questions raised by Senator Coulter. Suffice it to say that most demographers, and, as I think Senator Coulter implied, both major political parties, would consider that Australia is underpopulated. It is generally accepted that we do suffer from the lack of an ability to have a self-generating economy and to stand on our own two feet, and not least is this so in defence matters. The report entitled Australia's population trends and prospects 1987 is an important one, as Senator Chaney mentioned. It sets the scene in the paragraph quoted by Senator Coulter, which stated: Australia's population is small by world standards. With a population of only 16 million, Australia is in forty-fifth place on the list of nations ranked by population size. The report goes on to indicate that our rate of population growth is 1.46 per cent. Whilst that compares favourably with the growth rate of most west European countries, in fact, this is able to be explained not by the fertility rate but by the increase in migration. So far as the fertility rate is concerned, the report states: Despite a continued rise in the numbers of childbearers, the annual number of births has remained relatively constant since about 1983-84, and the level of fertility has assumed a steady decline. In 1986 the total fertility rate . . . was 1.87 births per woman, the lowest level ever recorded. Further on the report indicates that one reason the fertility rate is the lowest ever recorded is that the contraceptive has facilitated the decline in fertility. The report does not address the question of abortion; it does not mention anywhere the effect abortions have had on the aging population in Australia. The Institute of Family Studies Deputy Director, Peter McDonald, indicated in the Age recently that the number of abortions occurring would have long term effects on the shape and size of the population. Indeed it has. There were 61,773 abortions last year, but they are only the ones which were paid for by medical benefits. Other abortions were undertaken in public hospitals and funded by the taxpayers. It is conservatively estimated that there were around 80,000 deliberate abortions last year. Surely that rate of abortions must have an effect on Australia's total population. From 1973, when easy abortions were first available, until our bicentennial year, 1988, it is a fact that, on a conservative estimate, 750,000 unborn Australians will have been exterminated. If nothing is done about that, we are likely to go into the twenty-first century with one and a half million recent abortions. The fact is that this matter has not been addressed by this report. I believe it ought to be addressed and taken into consideration. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time for consideration of Government Papers has expired. Senator Short-Mr Deputy President, is it possible to move that the Senate take note of paper No. 3, which is entitled `Document relating to the simultaneous dissolution of the Senate and the House of Representatives-5 June 1987'. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It is possible, by leave, but paper No. 3 will automatically appear under General Business on the Notice Paper for next Thursday. Senator Short-Are we having General Business next Thursday? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The Senate will be considering a motion tomorrow. I cannot predict what actions it will take. If that motion is moved and there are a number of papers listed under General Business on the Notice Paper, I suggest that honourable senators consider whether they wish to move an amendment to the motion to deal with those matters. Senator Short-Should I cover the contingency now? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I think tomorrow would be a better time. It can be dealt with when that motion is considered. This paper will be listed under General Business on the Notice Paper for next Thursday. If the honourable senator wishes to have it transferred to another part of the Notice Paper, I suggest that he move a motion to that effect when the Senate is considering General Business tomorrow. Senator Jenkins-Mr Deputy President, is it possible at this stage to seek leave for debate on paper No. 2 to be continued at a later date? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Having been interrupted by the operation of the Sessional Orders, it will automatically appear under General Business on the Notice Paper. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Richardson) 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 RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(3.45) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have these second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1987 This Bill contains a range of measures which have been the subject of announcements of changes to the income law by the Treasurer. Three proposals included in the Bill are Budget initiatives. They are the removal of the `negative gearing' limitation in relation to rental property investments, reduction in the rate of write-off for capital expenditure on new income producing buildings and income tax averaging arrangements for artists and sportspersons. A number of provisions in the Bill are intended to deal with arrangements to exploit the operation of the income tax law. The most significant measure in this area is the introduction of thin capitalisation rules to limit interest deductions of foreign investors in circumstances where their investments are highly geared. Other `anti-avoidance' provisions deal with financial instruments in the nature of deferred annuities, discounted securities and similar instruments issued to non-resident associates and excessive private company dividends and non-arm's length income of approved deposit funds. The Bill also includes measures relating to the supervision of occupational superannuation funds, facilitation of `shelf' companies, extensions of the investment allowance and gift provisions and a number of technical amendments. Thin Capitalisation Measures The Bill will introduce into the income tax law rules against thin capitalisation to prevent significant losses of revenue that can arise where foreign investors do not maintain an appropriate balance between debt and equity in respect of their income-producing activities in Australia. The thin capitalisation rules contained in this Bill were foreshadowed by the Treasurer on 30 April 1987 and generally have effect from 1 July 1987. They will replace administrative measures that had previously been imposed as a condition for approval of investments under foreign investment policy. The proposals are directed at those foreign investments in Australia that are excessively geared up through the use of `in-house' loans, that is, loans made available by associated persons such as foreign parent companies and other related entities off-shore. The measures will effectively impose statutory debt/equity ratios in relation to funding of foreign investments from non-arm's length sources where a non-resident has a 15 per cent or greater interest in an Australian entity or business. Where foreign debt from such sources exceeds debt/equity ratios of six to one for financial institutions and three to one for other investors, deductions for interest payments will be reduced to the extent that the relevant ratio is exceeded. While the amendments generally apply from 1 July 1987, under transitional measures borrowings that were approved under foreign investment policy and which exceed the new debt/equity ratios are to be freed from the new rules. Transitional provisions are also to apply to companies engaged in mineral exploration. Special provisions will also apply in the initial period of operation of the legislation in relation to the measurement of the level of foreign debt. As the level of debt will generally be taken at its highest point during the year, affected taxpayers are being allowed until 30 November 1987 to make adjustments to their financial arrangements to ensure that their `in-house' debts comply with the applicable debt/equity ratio. Asset revaluation reserves are to be taken into account in determining a company's equity for purposes of the debt/equity formula and will, in the first year of the new rules, be valued as at 28 October 1987, rather than at 1 July 1987, to ensure that foreign investors are not unduly disadvantaged by the new rules. Associated measures, also announced on 30 April 1987, to counter tax avoidance arrangements arising out of certain kinds of corporate restructures, will be included in a later Bill. Income Averaging for Artists and Sportspersons The Bill will also introduce a new system of tax averaging for the specialist income of artists, composers, inventors, performers, production associates and writers. This measure will give effect to the proposal announced by the Treasurer in the 1986-87 Budget to provide, with effect from the 1986-87 year of income, special arrangements designed to smooth out tax liabilities where fluctuating incomes would push such people into higher tax brackets. The provisions of the income tax law which currently provide special treatment for the income of authors and inventors are to be repealed, although a taxpayer eligible to benefit from those provisions will be able to apply, in respect of the 1986-87 year of income only, for those provisions to apply in lieu of the new arrangements. The estimated revenue cost of the new arrangements is $2m in 1987-88. Negative Gearing The Bill will also give effect to the 1987-88 Budget announcement that the income tax restriction on the deductibility of interest associated with the negative gearing of rental property investments is to be removed, with effect from the commencement of the 1987-88 income year. Restoration of full tax deductibility of interest on rental property borrowings will mean uniformity of tax treatment of interest costs for all types of investment. This measure has been made possible only as a result of the Government's comprehensive tax reform program-in particular, due to the implementation of a capital gains tax and the reduction of the top marginal tax rate to 49 per cent. That reform program has brought a new integrity to the tax system and in so doing has relieved the tax paying community generally of the burden of the excessive tax benefits that negative gearing offered high income earners prior to July 1985 when the restriction now being lifted was introduced. Deductions for Capital Expenditure on New Income-Producing Buildings The Bill will also reduce the rate of annual deduction allowable for capital expenditure on the construction of new income-producing buildings, from 4 per cent to 2 1/2 per cent. This reduction, which was announced in the 1987-88 Budget Speech, is complementary to the Government's restoration of full tax deductibility of interest on rental property borrowings. The reduced rate of deduction will apply to new buildings, as well as to extensions, alterations or improvements to buildings, that commence to be constructed after 15 September 1987. Special provisions will preserve the 4 per cent rate for buildings commenced after 15 September 1987 in any cases where the taxpayers who incur the capital expenditure had effectively committed themselves to the construction project on or before that date. These changes are estimated to produce revenue savings of $3m in 1988-89, $10m in 1989-90, $29m in 1990-91 and $54m in 1991-92, continuing to rise significantly for many years and exceeding $500m per annum after 25 years. Discounted and other Deferred Interest Securities The Bill will also make changes first foreshadowed in an announcement of 19 September 1986 to ensure that the investment return under certain financial instruments which are in the nature of deferred annuities, and provide substantial tax deferral advantages, are taxed on an accruals basis rather than under concessional measures applicable to annuities generally. Although the financial instruments in question are considered to fall within provisions that require the application of an accruals basis of taxation to discounted securities and certain other financial securities, amendments are to be made to remove doubts that have been expressed as to the operation of those provisions in their case. The advantages of dressing up loan arrangements as annuities can be twofold-firstly, lower amounts of interest are assessed in earlier repayment years than would be the case if the money were lent by way of a loan with fixed equal repayment terms and, secondly, there can be a significant deferral of assessable income in the case of deferred annuities. The amendments will ensure that the income element of affected annuities are taxed on an accruals basis and will apply respectively to relevant deferred annuities issued after 19 September 1986 and to immediate annuities issued or or after 29 October 1987. A later application date is proposed for immediate annuities because the announcements of September 1986 were primarily concerned with the tax deferral advantages of deferred annuities. The amendments will not affect the existing concessional tax treatment of traditional annuities such as those issued to individuals by life assurance companies. The Bill will also modify the provisions that apply an accruals-based method of assessment of yields on discounted and certain other securities, to correct a feature that is capable of being exploited so as to give an unintended tax result. This proposal was announced on 23 April 1987. As long as an affected security is not issued off-shore nor made payable to bearer, the existing law entitles the issuer to deductions for payments of discount or other deferred interest payments on an accruals basis that generally parallels the basis upon which the holder of the security is taxed on those amounts. Amendments in this Bill will preclude the allowance of deductions on an accruals basis where the security is issued in Australia after 23 April 1987 to or on behalf of a non-resident associate of the issuer. That associate would typically bear tax only by way of interest withholding tax at redemption or prior transfer of the security on-shore. The Bill also incorporates some minor technical adjustments to correct formula calculations for dealing with discounted securities and similar securities. `Shelf' Companies The Bill will also implement a change to a number of company grouping provisions of the income tax law to give effect to an announcement of 29 June 1987. The purpose of these measures is to permit a newly incorporated company, commonly referred as a `shelf' company, to satisfy the 100 per cent common ownership test that is applied in various company grouping provisions of the law. Those provisions permit transfers within company groups of deductions for company, losses, excess foreign tax credits, rental property interest and capital losses and for the roll-over of assets for the purpose of deferring liability for tax on capital gains. The shelf companies affected by these amendments are ones introduced into a company group during an income year but which, although previously incorporated, had been dormant before their acquisition by the group. The changes made by this Bill will apply to shelf companies first acquired by groups in the 1986-87 income year. However, I would also draw to the attention of senators an announcement made by the Minister Assisting the Treasurer during the second reading debate in the House of Representatives. In his announcement, the Minister foreshadowed that the Government has decided to accede to representations that the changes should apply from when each of the relevant grouping provisions was first made available. The amendments to give effect to this decision will be included in a taxation Bill to be introduced later this sitting. At the same time, the Government will also make other amendments to recognise that a change in the ownership of a shelf company may be affected by the issue of new shares from the shelf company to the purchaser in association with the redemption of the subscriber shares. Investment Allowance The Bill will give effect to the decision announced by the Treasurer on 12 June 1987 to extend by 6 months, from 1 July 1987 to 1 January 1988, the date by which eligible property must be used, or installed ready for use, if it is to qualify for the investment allowance. The Government has decided to extend the investment allowance in the light of unavoidable delays that have occurred in the completion of some projects that in all other respects are eligible for the allowance. In the absence of an amendment the delayed projects would have resulted in a windfall gain to revenue of an estimated $30m in 1987-88, with a corresponding loss of the same magnitude to the taxpayers involved. Extension of the cut-off date will defer to the 1988-89 financial year the cash benefit to taxpayers and the cost to revenue. Gifts Amendments are also being made to the gift provisions of the income tax law to permit gifts to the Ninth Australian Division Memorial of Participation (Alamein) Fund and to the Korean and South East Asian and Vietnam War Memorials Anzac Square Trust Fund to attract deductions. Gifts made to these two funds on or after 15 June 1987 and on or before 30 June 1989 will be deductible. The estimated cost of admitting the Ninth Australian Division Memorial of Participation (Alamein) Fund is $100,000 in each of the years 1988-89 and 1989-90 and that for the South East Asian and Vietnam War Memorials Anzac Square Trust Fund is $50,000 in each of those years. Approved Deposit Funds The Bill also introduces measures announced on 12 January 1987 to tax excessive private company dividends and non-arm's length income of approved deposit funds. The amendment will ensure that approved deposit funds do not abuse the tax-free status they were given when established as part of the Government's 1984 tax package for lump sum superannuation and other retirement payments. Income affected by this measure will be taxed at the rate of 50 per cent for the 1986-87 income year and 49 per cent for later years. Occupational Superannuation Also contained in this Bill are measures to effect the handover to the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner of responsibility for supervision of certain aspects of the activities of superannuation funds and approved deposit funds currently undertaken by the Commissioner of Taxation. As foreshadowed in the second reading speech on the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill earlier in these sittings, these amendments are part of the legislative package necessary to establish the new supervisory arrangements for superannuation funds. Superannuation funds and approved deposit funds which comply with operating standards and other relevant conditions administered by the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner will continue to be exempt from tax on their investment income. The Commissioner of Taxation will retain responsibility for the assessment of tax on income of non-complying funds, certain private company dividends and excessive non-arm's length income derived by funds and where any excessive or unauthorised benefits are paid from funds. The Commissioner of Taxation will also retain responsibility for allowing income tax deductions for contributions made to superannuation funds. To facilitate these changes, the Bill will also amend the Occupational Superannuation Standards Act 1987 to remedy certain technical and drafting defects as well as enabling a de facto spouse of a member of a superannuation fund to receive benefits from the fund in the event of the member's death. Amendments of the Taxation Administration Act will permit the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner to utilise the prosecution provisions of the income tax law against fund trustees who breach requirements in the Occupational Superannuation Standards Act relating to the provision of information and documents. The amendments proposed to the occupational superannuation provisions of the income tax law are not expected to have any significant effect on revenue. The Government has also decided that, in view of the substantial increase in recent years in the number of superannuation funds and employees covered by funds and the possible significant revenue implications arising as a result of any across-the-board increases in the level of maximum permissible benefits, responsibility for fixing superannuation reasonable benefit limits will be transferred to the government of the day. This change will allow the Government to determine the reasonable benefit limits in the light of its budgetary and other priorities and is consistent with its policy of subjecting tax expenditures to greater scrutiny. An explanatory memorandum which comprehensively explains the measures contained in this Bill is being circulated for the information of honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT (FRINGE BENEFITS AND SUBSTANTIATION) BILL 1987 This Bill will amend the fringe benefits tax and income tax laws. It will implement a large number of fringe benefits tax changes of a concessional kind that were announced by the Treasurer on 26 August and 29 October 1986. It also contains income tax amendments announced on 29 October 1986 to exclude from substantiation claims against travel allowances paid under award conditions where the amount of the allowance is not greater than was payable under the award on that date. When introducing the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill last year, the Treasurer described it as a major part of the Government's tax reform program. He did so against the background that for some years the income tax law had been increasingly exploited by predominantly higher income taxpayers converting substantial parts of their remuneration into non-taxed fringe benefits. That course had been open to them because there were technical deficiencies in the income tax law itself and because previous governments had displayed little enthusiasm to remedy them. This Government had no such hesitation. The fringe benefits tax legislation, therefore, was a very important measure both in its content and its contribution to restoring public confidence in the equity of the Australian tax system. Like other tax reform measures, it has been more successful than we anticipated. At the time of its introduction, the revenue gain from the imposition of fringe benefits tax was estimated at $300m in 1986-87 and $540m in 1987-88. However, excluding payments by Commonwealth Government departments, actual revenue collections for 1986-87 were $535m, some $200m more than originally estimated. The estimated receipts for 1987-88 are $750m. These results demonstrate forcefully the merit of the Government's actions to correct the costly inequities that had arisen from the growing use of fringe benefit packages. The measures contained in the Bill reflect a response by the Government to community concerns that the car log book and certain other record keeping obligations contained in the original legislation were overly burdensome, that some benefits-particularly those of a minor or compassionate kind-which were technically taxable should have been exempt, and that a greater degree of discounting was warranted in taxing remote area housing and other remote area benefits. I emphasise that while the Government has shown its willingness to respond to reasonable community representations on the operation of the fringe benefits tax law, it has not and will not yield to pressures to alter the basic structure and principles of the tax. The general effects of the amendments being made by the Bill were set out in the two announcements mentioned earlier, and I do not propose to take up the time of the chamber in discussing them in detail at this time. In giving effect to the announced measures it has been necessary to modify the operation of one of the proposals. On 29 October last year it was announced that the general rule for determining the reduction in taxable value arising from employee contributions was to be changed so that any contribution by an employee was first set off against the private component of the benefit. While that will continue to be the general rule in practice, its operation could have produced inequitable results in cases where the contribution was not in fact related to the private component. As explained in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill, the reduction rule now being introduced will apply flexibly to reflect the particular circumstances under which employee contributions are made. A further reduction rule applies under the law to ensure that employee expenses borne by the employer are not subject to fringe benefits tax where the expenses would otherwise have been deductible for income tax purposes in the hands of the employee. Presently, expenditure of a kind that would otherwise be subject to the negative gearing rules is excluded from this `otherwise deductible' rule. Consistent with the Government's decision to remove the negative gearing rules for income tax purposes with effect from the 1987-88 income tax year, the exclusion will cease to apply for fringe benefits tax purposes with effect from the 1987-88 fringe benefits tax year, which commenced on 1 April 1987. Before concluding I draw attention to two proposed changes to the fringe benefits tax law that have not been possible to include in this Bill due to time constraints. In his announcement of 29 October 1986, the Treasurer said that the fringe benefits tax liability arising from any discounts of purchase price under home ownership schemes in remote areas was to be amortised over the period, if any, of the relevant purchase contract until unrestricted title passes to the employee. These rather complex proposals have been the subject of lengthy discussions between officials of the Treasurer's Department and representatives of the Australian mining industry. While it will not now be possible to bring the amendments forward until the autumn sittings of the Parliament the industry has been advised in detail of the arrangements that will apply. The second matter arises from discussion in the tax liaison group. As noted in the 29 October 1986 announcement the liaison group, which was established in 1984 by the Commissioner of Taxation with the major legal and accounting bodies, was to be used as a forum for further consultations with tax practitioners on technical and practical aspects of the tax reform package. The Government has decided to accept the proposal emanating from that group to introduce amendments that will facilitate genuine arrangements under which employers may be reimbursed by employees for the whole or a part of the fringe benefits tax liability attributable to the employee's benefit, or from a third party such as a manufacturer who arranges incentives for employees of a retailer. These amendments will be introduced in the autumn sittings of Parliament next year. I commend the Bill to the Senate. As honourable senators will see the Bill is a lengthy one reflecting the number of concessions granted and the structural features of the existing law that have made it necessary, at a technical level, to repeat a number of the revised reduction rules. Nevertheless, the details of the changes are, as explained in the explanatory memorandum, relatively straightforward. SALES TAX (OFF-SHORE INSTALLATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL 1987 This Bill is part of a package of sea installations Bills which will extend the application of Australian laws regulating customs, migration, quarantine and taxation to installations in Australia's off-shore waters. The measures proposed by this bill are two-fold. First, the Bill will extend the coverage of the sales tax law to areas within 200 nautical miles of the Territorial limits of Australia, the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands, and the Coral Sea island territories-in some areas this will extend beyond the present boundary of the outer limits of the continental shelf. The reach of the existing sales tax law does not generally extend outside geographical Australia, although since 1982 it has had a limited application within the Australian continental shelf area in relation to installations attached to the seabed for the purposes of exploring for or exploiting natural resources. The second measure contained in the Bill expands the types of off-shore installations which will be subject to Australian sales tax law when installed in these areas. Broadly, this is when they are either attached to the seabed or are in these areas for a specified duration. The amendments will apply to off-shore installations that are located in Australian waters for a number of specified purposes, including tourism, recreation, business activities, marine archaeology, fishing, scientific activity or transport activity. The effect will be that any installation used for the purposes of any of these prescribed activities will take on the status of a place in Australia from the date of its installation in Australian waters. As a consequence, any transaction or act affecting goods on such an installation which would be taxable if the goods were in geographical Australia will be taxable as if those goods were in Australia. In addition, any installation which is brought from overseas to be installed in Australian waters, and any goods on it at the time it is brought in, will be deemed to be imported into Australia and on that basis, will be subject to the sales tax law in respect of that importation. The amendments made by this Bill will, in relation to installations that are attached to the seabed in Australian waters, operate with effect from 21 January 1987, the date these measures were announced by the Treasurer. In the case of other installations, the Bill will apply on and after 29 October 1987. The revenue impact of the measures proposed by this Bill will depend on the development of such installations in our off-shore areas and so cannot be determined at this time. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Richardson) 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 RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(3.46) —I table the revised explanatory memorandum to the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 and 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- CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1987 The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, which is now before the Senate, contains a number of amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1987-the harmonised tariff-which was passed by Parliament in the Autumn sittings. The international convention on which the harmonised tariff is based will come into force on 1 January 1988. It is the Government's intention that the new tariff as amended by this Bill will operate from the same date. These amendments, which are explained in detail in the explanatory memorandum presented with the Bill, can be divided into three main categories- First, those required to implement decisions on industry assistance and trade relations matters taken since the close-off date for the principal legislation-many reflect changes already implemented in the current tariff; Second, amendments to correct anomalies created by the translation of current assistance arrangements to the harmonised format; and Third, editorial amendments to clarify the intention of the convention and to correct errors in the original legislation. The first group of amendments results from Government decisions on the development of the pharmaceutical products industry and the chemicals and plastics industries, and those taken following receipt of industries Assistance Commission (IAC) reports on- vegetables and vegetable products; luggage, handbags and similar containers; and reconditioned automotive engines. With the exception of pharmaceutical products and reconditioned engines, the amendments implement, in the harmonised tariff, changes which have already been commenced in the current tariff. Amendments following the Government's consideration of the pharmaceutical products industry and the IAC report on reconditioned automotive engines are consistent with the Government's policy to encourage internationally competitive industries and to reduce reliance on tariff assistance. The amendments reduce the general tariff rate on glycosides from the current 20 per cent to 2 per cent, crepe bandages from 20 per cent to 5 per cent, wadding from 20 per cent to 10 per cent and certain automotive engines from 25 per cent to 15 per cent. Also falling to this category are amendments implementing the Government's continuing sectoral policies in respect of textiles, clothing and footwear and passenger motor vehicles. The second group consists of amendments to redress assistance anomalies which have become apparent following publication of the harmonised tariff. In its report on tariff harmonisation, the IAC calculated its recommended option two would have little effect on industry assistance generally. However, it conceded that duty rates for particular goods might vary significantly. Eight anomalies have been brought to notice which would have unacceptable consequences for the industries concerned. These, and the remedial actions proposed, are: chain of precious metal-duties are increased from 2 per cent to 25 per cent to maintain the current assistance level solar cells and assembled solar arrays-duties are increased from 2 per cent to 20 per cent to maintain current assistance levels beverage concentrates-duties are decreased from 10 per cent to 5 per cent to maintain the current duty rate wadding of textiles materials-duties are decreased from 25 per cent to the current rate of 2 per cent certain air compressors-these goods are currently under reference to the IAC. Pending the outcome of this review, duties have been increased from 5 per cent to 15 or 25 per cent. The amendment reflects the more detailed structures proposed by the IAC in option one of its recommendations on the harmonised tariff motorcycle exhaust systems-duties are increased from 5 per cent to 20 per cent to maintain current assistance levels certain commercial cooking equipment-duties are decreased from 25 per cent to 15 per cent to maintain the current duty rate ammunition-duties are increased from 10 or 15 per cent to 20 per cent to more accurately reflect current arrangements Finally, the third group of amendments includes minor redrafting and additional notes to some sections and chapters to clarify the intent of the convention, to correct errors and to strengthen some provisions in the Principal Act. The opportunity has also been taken to remove a redundant item in Schedule 4 to the Principal Act. Financial Impact The decreases in customs duty rates for the pharmaceutical products will result in an estimated decrease in revenue of $568,000 during the financial year 1987-88. The vegetables and vegetable products industry has undergone considerable rationalisation in recent times, particularly in the processing sector. It is expected that there will be further rationalisation in the tomato growing and processing sector. The changes to rates of duty are expected to have minimal financial impact. It is difficult to quantify the financial consequences of the decision on the chemicals and plastics industries. However, it is likely that the removal of the concessional arrangements will provide some increase in duty payments. In the context of the Government's overall decision on chemicals and plastics which considerably reduced tariff rates, the net effect of the current changes will be minimal. The impact of the change to flax yarns is also difficult to isolate from changes associated with a move to a uniform 15 per cent duty rate for yarns and threads not subject to bounty. In the financial year 1987-88 the changes affecting flax yarns are likely to add approximately $200,000 to revenue and $400,000 in a full year. This is based on annual imports in recent years averaging around $8m from those sources affected by the 5 per cent increase in duties. The remainder of the changes to textiles, clothing and footwear are expected to have no financial impact. It is expected that the changes to duty applying to ammunition could lead to a small net increase in revenue. The reduction in duty on off-road vehicles from an average rate of 63 per cent to 25 per cent is expected to reduce revenue by up to $400,000 in a full year. This loss to the revenue could be offset by additional customs duty through increased imports as the lower duty rate plus removal of quota restrictions increases demand. The imposition of a surcharge of 3.9c per litre on aviation gasoline will raise an estimated $3.9m in the financial year 1987-88. There is expected to be minimal financial impact caused by the other amendments in the Bill. Details of the amendments contained in the Bill have been included in an explanatory memorandum which has been circulated for the information of honourable senators. I commend the Bill. CUSTOMS TARIFF (COAL EXPORT DUTY) AMENDMENT BILL 1987 The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the Government's decision to amend the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Act 1975 to ensure that certain exports of coal to steaming coal markets, at the lower prices operating in those markets, do not attract the coal export duty, which is currently set at $3.50 a tonne. The coal export duty was introduced in August 1975, at a time of high industry profitability as a way of distributing to the wider community windfall profits accruing to coal exporting companies. Over the years, the duty has been modified to recognise changed economic circumstances in the industry. The present policy objective of the Act is to make dutiable only high quality coking coal destined for world steel industry markets. These coals attract a price premium relative to steaming coal, which is exempt from export duty. As a result of changing demand in the international market place, some Australian mines producing coking grade coal are presently unable to sell all their production into coking coal markets, but they are able to sell a less highly refined or washed version of the coal into steaming coal markets at the lower prices applying for this product. However, the existing parameters defining the characteristics of the coal on which duty under the Act is based is having the unintended effect of rendering this lower quality product liable for duty. In view of this, the Government has decided to change the parameters on which the duty is based by reducing the prescribed ash content of the coals from 12 per cent or less to 10.5 per cent or less and raising the crucible swelling number (a measure of the coal's coking characteristic) from over 3 to over 5. These changes will ensure that the policy objective of the Act, which is to only make high quality coking coal subject to duty, is continued. Financial Impact The proposed amendments in this Bill have no direct financial implications, as the Bill seeks to continue existing coal export duty arrangements in operation since 16 May 1987. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Richardson) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(3.47) —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- The purpose of this Bill is to amend several sections of the Wheat Marketing Act 1984 to implement, in relation to the Australian Wheat Board, certain provisions of the Government's policy on the reform of statutory marketing authorities and to incorporate in the Act provisions consistent with the Government's policy on equal employment opportunity. The majority of the Government's proposals outlined in the White Paper `Reform of Commonwealth Primary Industry Statutory Marketing Authorities', which was released in January 1986, were incorporated in an amendment to the wheat marketing legislation last year. One area of that policy which was not fully addressed at that time was the funding of industry organisations by the Board. The Governments position is that where there is a requirement for consultation between a statutory marketing authority and its industry, decisions on payments to the industry for those consultations should be left to the Authority concerned. However, because the funds of statutory marketing authorities are derived from either grower levies or from the sale of a compulsory-acquired product, it has been considered desirable that guidelines be issued to ensure that any monies paid to industry organisation will be for consultations consistent with the statutory objectives and functions of the Authority. In particular, such monies should not be available for agro-political purposes. The Bill provides for the issue of such guidelines to the Board and subject to those guidelines for it to meet expenses additional to travel incurred by the Grains Council of Australia in relation to consultation with the Board. The Board is already accountable to growers through a statutory requirement for members to consult at least annually with the Grains Council to present the Board's annual report. The proposed guidelines would restrict the level of funding to 50 per cent of the Grains Council's operational expenditure in any one year. Details will need to be included in the Board's Annual Operational Plan and financial statements. The Board will also be able, if it wishes, to meet the travel expenses only of any person or body with whom it consults for the purpose of carrying out its functions. The Bill provides that the composition of the Australian Wheat Board Selection Committee will be consistent with the policy in the White Paper that such committees comprise only an independent Chairperson and representatives of the relevant industry who have been nominated by the nationally recognised industry body. The current provisions of the Act, which were put in place prior to the development of that policy, allow for the Chairman of the Board and two representatives of the National Farmers Federation to also be members of the Committee. This approach was adopted in the belief that a broad-based Committee would be better able to select the most capable and effective persons to be members of the Board. While that Committee fulfilled its responsibilities in a highly satisfactory manner, it is nevertheless considered desirable that the situation for the Board should be consistent with the Guidelines established in the White Paper on Statutory Marketing Authorities, that those who finance an Authority should be represented on the Committee which determines who will be recommended to the Minister for appointment. To further ensure the objectivity of the selection process, it is essential that membership of the Committee is independent from the membership of the Board. It is therefore proposed that the representatives of the National Farmers Federation and the Chairman of the Board will no longer be members of the Committee. The National Farmers Federation and the Grains Council are agreeable to this change. Should it be considered desirable for the Chairperson of the AWB to continue to be consulted in order for the Committee to have a better understanding of the qualities necessary for a person to be an effective Board member, then such a requirement could be incorporated in the selection criteria issued to the Committee or in the terms and conditions of appointment of the Presiding Member. Finally the Bill provides for the Board to develop and implement an equal employment opportunity program which is consistent with the Government's policies being progressively introduced for other Commonwealth authorities. Details of such programs will need to be included in the Board's Corporate and Annual Operational Plans and in its Annual Report to Parliament. I would point out that the Board already has recognised the need to be a progressive employer and has reflected this in its Corporate objectives. Part of its strategies to meet this objective is the development and implementation of an equal employment opportunity program. The proposed amendments should not involve any additional Commonwealth costs or revenue. They are being put forward as part of the program of implementing the reform of statutory marketing authorities. The benefits of these reforms are already evident in the operations of other major authorities. I commend the Bill to Honourable Senators Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Richardson) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(3.48) —I table the revised explanatory memorandum and 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- This Bill contains amendments to the Social Security Act 1947 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and minor amendments to several other Acts to implement decisions announced in the May Economic Statement and the 1987/88 Budget Speech. This Bill provides for the introduction of the family package which was announced earlier this year as a Labor Government election commitment. The family package is the centrepiece of this Government's attack on child poverty-not only for families where parents depend on social security because they are sick or unemployed-but for working families who have carried the burden of economic adjustment over the past few years. The family package is based on the basic principle that every Australian child has the right to an adequate standard of living-it is also based on the solid Labor tradition of help for people in need of support. It was the Lang Labor Government which introduced the world's first child endowment-to recognise the extra costs of families with children. The Curtin Labor Government gave child endowment a new priority by increasing payments and extending them to Aboriginal communities and to people with the custody of orphans. The Whitlam Labor Government introduced the handicapped child's allowance to provide extra support to families with handicapped children. The Hawke Government's family package will build on this record to deliver substantial increases in public support for children. It includes the family allowance supplement-a new payment which aims to help families on low wages meet the day to day expenses of bringing up children. Subject to an income test, Family Allowance Supplement of $22 a week will be paid for each child under the age of 13, and $28 a week will be paid for 13-, 14-and 15-year-olds in recognition of the extra costs associated with teenage children. Family allowance supplement replaces the family income supplement which paid $17 a week for each child in working families according to a more stringent income test. In order to make the family allowance supplement an enduring reform, the Government is committed to increase the payment in real terms over the next two years. We will index the payment in the same way we index pensions. In this financial year we estimate that around one million children will enjoy a better standard of living from the tax-free benefits of this package-440,000 children are in working families, another 740,000 children are from out of work families. Child payments for families which depend on income support from social security will be increased automatically in December from $17 a week to the new levels under the family package. This Labor Government has been steadily increasing payments for children in the social security system-in fact the family allowance supplement will be the fifth pay increase for the poorest children in our community since 1983. The rate increases in this Bill are by far the most significant to date. In total there has been a 120 per cent increase in additional pension and benefit (the child payments for families on social security) for children aged under 13, and a massive 180 per cent increase for young teenagers over the rates payable under the Fraser Government. There are two additional parts to the family package. The family package will extend rent assistance of up to $15 a week for low income working families in privately rented homes-this is the first time that rental assistance has been offered to help working families with their housing costs. Families on unemployment and sickness benefit will no longer have to serve a separate waiting period for rent assistance, and will get their help for housing from their first benefit payment. The package also contains more money for disabled children-with the introduction of the new child disability allowance paid at $112 a month per child to all families with disabled children. The child disability allowance will be income-test free and up to 10,000 additional children are expected to qualify for the payment. The 27,000 severely disabled children currently getting the handicapped child's allowance will be automatically transferred to the new payment-and their allowance will be increased from $92 to $112 a month. Another 5,000 marginally less disabled children will have the income test on their payments removed and will also receive more money under the family package. The Department of Social Security is to start a major consultation on eligibility criteria for the child disability allowance to make sure that the right children get the right money at the right time. The measures outlined in this Bill demonstrate this Government's firm commitment to ensure that no Australian child need live in poverty by 1990. The package takes the first step towards constructing a new system of public support for children which stresses the need for adequate payments-targeted to those families which need help the most. This Bill represents substantial gains for our most disadvantaged families which have suffered from the impact of sickness or unemployment. It also highlights the need to support working families bringing up children on low incomes. The family allowance supplement is designed to allow income to increase by 25 per cent over any four-week period without affecting payments-this is to accommodate pay fluctuations such as overtime. The structure of this historically important payment aims to encourage people to stay in the work force, where there is potential for them to build a decent standard of living on the basis of an independent wage. The family package will increase the disposable incomes of working families-making them much better off than comparable families living on unemployment benefit. This emphasis on labour market participation in the structure of social security benefits is reflected by changes contained in this Bill in the area of income support for young people. The job search allowance will replace unemployment benefit for 16- and 17-year-olds in January-it will make it very clear that income support is closely tied to the need for young people to be better prepared for the work force. The Commonwealth Employment Service will maintain close contact with young people on the job search allowance-and where those young people need extra help to find a job, they can be enrolled in vocational training courses, or instructed in job searching skills. We cannot let our young people waste their potential-and the job search allowance aims to give them a helping hand in constructive ways. Job search allowance, sickness benefit and special benefit for people under 18 will, in most cases, be subject to a parental income test similar to the one which applies to Austudy payments. Job search allowance will be paid at $50 a week, subject to a parental income test-but this test will not reduce the payment below $25 a week. Job search allowance will, of course, be subject to an income test on the young person's own income. An assets test is being introduced on the payment of unemployment, sickness and special benefit to people who are aged 25 and over. Under the assets test, benefit will generally not be paid to people whose assets exceed a specified amount. These amounts are the same as those used for the pension assets test. The Government expects to save some $24.5m in 1988-89 through the introduction of this initiative. The age of 25 years for the benefits assets test has been included because available information indicates that very few young people below that age would be disqualified by the assets test. Not to include that age threshold would add greatly to administrative costs and effort for very little return. People in financial hardship and not eligible to apply for other forms of Commonwealth income support may receive benefit under the hardship provisions. Under the hardship provisions of the assets test, certain assets can be disregarded. However, income which could reasonably be generated by those disregarded assets is taken into account when calculating the rate of pension payable under the hardship provisions. Recent interpretations of this provision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal have undermined its purpose and effect so this Bill contains a measure to clarify the Government's intention. Pension calculated under the financial hardship test will be reduced by the greater of- 2.5 per cent per annum of the property disregarded under the test; or the income which could reasonably be expected to be obtained from commercial use of the property disregarded under the test. The assets test will also be amended to ensure that the deprivation provisions will apply in situations where the person ceases work and disposes of property at the same time. This is to reverse the effect of a recent Federal Court decision. The Bill before us contains measures to clarify the treatment of income from investments and to ensure that people with deferred income including income from friendly society bonds are not disadvantaged over pensioners and beneficiaries with more straightforward forms of income such as that deriving from bank deposits. Depending on the type of investment involved, income will either be assessed on a regular basis throughout the term or, as in the case of market-linked investments, be averaged out over the 12 months after the person realises a profit on the investment. The income from deferred income investments which were obtained before 1 January 1988 will continue to be assessed when it is realised. Double orphans' pension of $60 per month will be extended to children who have one deceased parent and whose surviving parent is a nursing home patient for an indefinite period. The Government considers that the guardians of these children are as deserving of financial assistance as those children whose surviving parent is receiving treatment in a mental hospital for an indefinite period. Several changes which will assist pensioners are being introduced in this Bill. The pensioner earnings credit will encourage pensioners and supporting parents to obtain short term work without reduction in pension. It will help pensioners, particularly sole parents, make the transition between relying on social security payments and being financially independent through employment. Eligibility for carer's pension will be extended to people who are caring for an age or invalid pensioner at home but who are not close relatives. This is a compassionate measure to assist friends to provide care in a home environment for those who are unable to look after themselves. The fringe benefit rules are being changed so that persons whose incomes go above the income limits can retain entitlement to fringe benefits for up to three months, provided their incomes do not go over 125 per cent of their limit. This measure will be of particular assistance to pensioners who obtain part time employment or receive other income which is indexed by CPI changes and to those receiving overseas payments who have in the past sometimes lost fringe benefits because their income has been affected by fluctuations in exchange rates. The Bill before us graphically demonstrates this Government's continuing concern for those in our society most in need of support. It provides for significant additional payments to families on modest incomes and for increases in additional payments for children made to pensioners and beneficiaries. The Bill contains measures such as the assets test on benefits and the parental income test for job search allowance which will reduce expenditure currently being paid to those who are able to provide for themselves and their families and enable resources to be directed to those in greatest need. The Bill will also make a number of amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Legislation. Some of these amendments reflect those which I have already outlined for social security legislation. This will ensure consistency in the treatment of service pensioners and Social Security pensioners in the following areas: modification of the definition of `income' that is used for the purpose of assessing the rate of service pension payable; amendments to the assets test provisions; easing of the application of the fringe benefits test, and enabling service pensioners to take advantage of earnings credit arrangements. The Bill also gives legislative effect to the Government's major decision not to allow the adverse interpretations given in three recent Federal Court decisions to the provisions of the Veteran's Entitlement Act relating to eligibility for the totally and permanently incapacitated (TPI) rate and intermediate rate of pension to stand. The Federal Court took the view that the eligibility criteria must be met by a veteran on a continuing basis and that such a pension was not payable after attaining normal retiring age or indefinitely. In order to overcome this interpretation, the Bill provides two related changes. The first will ensure that initial eligibility for the grant of TPI or intermediate rate pension is not to be determined on a continuing basis. Eligibility is to be determined by reference to whether a veteran meets the requirements of section 23 or 24 on the date of lodgment of a pension claim or application. The amendment will prevent account being taken of alterations in the veterans' circumstances, subsequent to lodging the claim or application, which might adversely affect eligibility. This will avoid the possibility of a grant of TPI or intermediate rate pension that is made being limited by the determining body to a specified period, up to say retirement age, as was adverted to by the Federal Court in the McGuire case. The second change is to insert a new section 24a in the Veterans' Entitlements Act. This will ensure that persons who are eligible to receive and are receiving a TPI or intermediate rate pension will not ordinarily lose payment of pension at such a rate in their lifetime. The only exceptions are where the grant of pension would not have been made but for a false statement or misrepresentation or where the veteran's war-caused incapacity improves to the extent that he or she is undertaking, or becomes capable of undertaking, remunerative work for periods greater than specified in the existing law. The amendments to be made in respect of TPI and intermediate rate pension do not otherwise affect the changes of eligibility for these pensions made by the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1985 and carried through in the Veterans' Entitlements Act and the interpretations given to the relevant provisions by the courts; nor do the amendments affect the powers of the Veterans' Review Board or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review whether the initial grant of TPI or intermediate rate pension was made properly. Another important change is that, in accordance with the Government's electoral undertaking, the Bill will extend eligibility for full hospital and medical treatment to returned ex-servicewomen of World War 2. This recognises the valuable contribution made by such women in the defence of this nation during that war. Other amendments proposed to be made to veterans' affairs legislation provide for increases in the rates of the minor benefits available to eligible persons and increases in the rates of clothing allowance, attendant allowance and recreation transport allowance. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —Pursuant to my notice of intention given earlier today, I now withdraw Business of the Senate, notices of motion Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4, standing in my name. Consideration resumed from 20 November. GROUP A Department of Industrial Relations Proposed expenditure, $69,873,000 Senator SHORT(Victoria)(3.49) —We are debating the estimates of expenditure for the Department of Industrial Relations. When the committee debate was commenced on Friday last, Senator Michael Baume made several very pertinent comments about these estimates. Today I would like to follow on some of Senator Michael Baume's comments. I thank him for the opportunity to do this by virtue of the fact that he spoke in my place on Friday due to my unexpected absence. Therefore, he has provided me with an opportunity to make a few remarks today. I thank Senator Michael Baume for that. The points I wish to raise in the estimates of the Department of Industrial Relations relate essentially to the grants by the Department to the trade union movement. In the replies to questions that I asked of the Department of Industrial Relations a whole series of grants made to trade unions by the Department are listed. I regret that the information which we requested in advance was not available by the time Estimates Committee A actually met to consider these estimates and therefore members of the Committee were not able to question the departmental officials about the grants. That is a matter of regret. It is not a matter that is peculiar to the Department of Industrial Relations. Indeed, one of the worrying features about Estimates committee hearings is that all too often the information sought in advance by senators from departments is not available at the time of the hearing and therefore the information, whilst no doubt useful in due course, loses much of its significance if it is not available in time for it to be discussed with the officials in committee. As I have said, that complaint is common to virtually all departments and all Estimates committees. I would like to draw to the attention of the chamber some of the grants that are shown in the material that has now been received from the Department of Industrial Relations. They are shown in appendix 1 of some additional information that was received by Estimates Committee A. This document has been circulated to all honourable senators. I asked the Department: `Which grants, if any, have been made or approved since the May 1987 Senate estimates?'. So we were looking to any trade unions or community groups in 1986-87 and so far this financial year. The information contained in the response to that question really relates only to information available since May 1987-a very short period of months. We find in that information another long list of grants that have been made to trade unions by the Department of Industrial Relations for a variety of purposes. For example, the Trades Hall Council of Victoria received another $35,000 from the Department for the employment of an industrial democracy officer to provide co-ordination and support to Trades Hall Council affiliates involved in industrial democracy initiatives; $45,000 was granted to the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia in Sydney, again for an industrial democracy officer; $35,000 went to the Joint Union Advisory Committee of the State Energy Commission of Western Australia. I might add that that $35,000 goes along with a payment by the State Energy Commission of Western Australia-a government agency-of approximately $200,000 to support the activity of the Joint Union Advisory Committee in 1987-88. So what we are looking at there in terms of taxpayers' money going to the union is not $35,000 but $235,000. There was a payment of an additional $35,000 to the Western Australian Trades and Labour Council, again for the employment of an industrial democracy officer; the Trade Union Community Research Centre of Tasmania received $40,000 for the employment of project officers to continue to provide industrial democracy and so on; and $37,000 went to the Australian national office of the Building Workers Industrial Union, again for the employment of an industrial democracy officer. At the time I sought that information I also asked what contribution, if any, would be made by the trade unions towards the projects for which they had received funds. The information which has been provided is very sketchy indeed. Basically, what it adds up to is that the unions themselves, the recipients of these grants, with a couple of notable exceptions, are not required to contribute heavily to the overall cost themselves. It certainly does not appear to be a condition precedent that they do so at all. I think that is a matter of great concern. Those grants that I have just mentioned are really simply the tip of the iceberg. As I have said, they follow grants that have been made by the Department over many years prior to May 1987. Basically, these are just supplementary figures. But a more disturbing fact is that they do not include payments of literally millions of dollars by this Government to trade unions in a whole variety of ways since it came into office. Last year I was a member of the Waste Watch Committee under Senator Michael Baume's very capable leadership and we investigated in great detail payments that had been made, particularly via the Australia Council, through the arts in working life program and the like, to trade unions with very little screening of those payments in terms of their merit-- Senator Michael Baume —And millions of dollars. Senator SHORT —As Senator Baume has said quite rightly, it runs into millions of dollars. In fact, under that program alone-I do not have the figures in front of me-from memory I think that, over the last three years, for the arts in working life program alone the figure well exceeded $3m. The point that the Opposition makes is not, as has sometimes been said, that the Opposition is against the trade union movement, for example, being involved in providing art, recreational and cultural activities for its members. That is not the point at issue. The point at issue is whether taxpayers' money should be used to fund those activities. I think the evidence is that the overwhelming majority of Australians-including, I would guess, many trade union members themselves-would see that as an inappropriate use of taxpayers' money. There are some very considerable problems about it. It appears to entrench trade union privilege in a society which is becoming increasingly sceptical and concerned about the growing use and abuse of trade union power. It also provides, for a Labor government in office, a fundamental conflict of interest for the Government because the trade union movement is simply the industrial wing of the Australian Labor Party and the parliamentary Labor Party is the political wing of the labour movement. So we have a considerable conflict of interest so far as the Government is concerned. I think what many Australians, and certainly what most taxpayers, are asking is: Why on earth is this Labor Government shelling out countless millions of dollars to its own industrial wing? There can be only one answer to that question; that is, that the trade union movement is receiving privileged treatment because, in effect, it is part of the Labor Government. I think that is a matter of great national concern and is a national scandal. The Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, was waxing eloquent, before his Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) chopped him off at the knees a couple of months ago, about the number of programs that the Government should cut if it were fair dinkum about trying to get its expenditure and the economy under control. Senator Walsh said that 200 programs should be cut. He took me up on the point that he was not talking about social welfare programs-which he was. He did not answer my retort adequately. I would be interested to know whether the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, would regard any of these programs and expenditures by the Department of Industrial Relations to trade unions, and other avenues of expenditure by the Government to trade unions, as amongst those programs which should be cut. I very much think he would. There is another aspect in relation to trade unions and their role and position in society that is not generally known but should also be of very considerable concern. That is the treatment under the Income Tax Assessment Act of the income of trade unions. I wonder how many people know that section 23 of the Income Tax Assessment Act says: The following income shall be exempt from income tax . . . One of those things is contained in section 23 (f): The income of a trade union and the income of an association of employers or employees registered under any Act or State Act, or under any law enforced in a Territory being part of Australia relating to the settlement of industrial disputes. In other words, under this provision, no income of any trade union may be subject to tax levied under the Income Tax Assessment Act. That is also a matter of very great concern. That change in the Act was made after this Government came to office. Admittedly, it also applies to employer organisations but the income of employer organisations is a mere tittle compared with the enormous and increasingly growing income of the trade union movement. We on this side of politics are certainly looking very seriously at that provision in the Income Tax Assessment Act. Quite frankly, I think it is a nonsense and is another example of the trade union movement being placed in a very privileged position. Many things can be said about the estimates of the Department of Industrial Relations. The comments I have made in relation to trade union privileges and the placing by this Government of trade unions in a privileged position compared with any other group in our society concern the points I find to be amongst the most obnoxious in the considerations of this Department. They should be of the greatest concern to the taxpayer and public. Certainly this is a matter of the greatest concern to the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. I say that, in no way being against the trade union movement per se. It is not a matter of opposing the existence or role of trade unions. They have a very legitimate role in our society. That is accepted universally, but what is not acceptable is the privileged position in which they are put. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Burns) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(4.04) —I would just like to answer a few points Senator Short raised in his contribution. I would like to contrast the role played by this Government in industrial relations with that played by the Fraser-Howard Government. The Labor Government has made certain that, in dealing with industrial relations, grants are made not just to trade unions, not just-if we like to put it that way-to those on its side of the fence. There are grants for industrial democracy and to employer associations, individual companies and Territory and local government bodies. The list goes on and on. The reality is that industrial democracy is much more important to employer organisations around the country and employers than it ever can be to the Liberal Party of Australia because it never likes to acknowledge even the possibility of unions and employers getting on. When it comes to industrial democracy, I absolutely defend the Government's role. It is what we were elected for. We hear about a conflict of interest, that the trade unions are somehow beholden to the Australian Labor Party or vice versa. I wonder what it is like for the Liberal Party having John Elliott as its President-one of the leading employers in the country. It certainly is producing a conflict, although not necessarily a conflict of interest. I am sure the Liberals will sort the matter out in their time-honoured fashion and yet another president will hit the fence. If these matters were so important to Senator Short he should have formally asked them at the Estimates committee hearings. Had he done so, answers would have been provided then. Nonetheless, answers have been provided-I have pages of them here-with explanations of what grants are provided, why and how much money was spent. Senator Short —But after the committees had ceased sitting. Senator RICHARDSON —Had Senator Short asked properly at the time, he would have got the answers. Mainly what we heard from Senator Short was just the average, conservative, Opposition attack on trade unions. We have heard it all before, the trotting out of the old waste watch attack on art in working life. I happen to be one of those people who have never believed that art should be the preserve of some sort of wealthy, powerful elite. Why should not trade unions, with over two million members around the country, be able to bring art to the people? Again, this Government would regard that exactly as being a reason it was elected. Then we heard an attack on trade union income. We were told by Senator Short that the Opposition really believes in trade unions-as long as they have no members, no power and no money. The difficulty is that they have all three and they will continue to grow. This Government will co-operate with them, as it will with employers, to ensure that we have an industrial system that works. If one wants to look at hours lost due to strikes under Labor compared with those lost under Fraser-Howard, it is pretty obvious which system works. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(4.07) —The Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson) has raised the question of whether the art in working life program was an appropriate way of spending government money. He says that bringing art to the people is such a worthwhile venture that this particular method is justified. I want to respond to that by stating that our opposition to that program has nothing to do with whether or not arts should be brought to the people. The Opposition, by its actions when in government, demonstrated that it was in favour of bringing art to the people-because it began that program; our Government funded it. But it did not fund it in such a way that the unions took it over. There is evidence available in the printed material to show that that program has now been used as a way of moulding the arts to become a weapon in the industrial relations battle. It is clearly shown-and I quoted this in the Senate last year, and the Minister should be interested in this-that artists were told that they would not be given grants, if they wanted this grant money obtained under the arts in working life program, to be used in abstract for artistic purposes. They were told this money would be available and that they need apply for it only if they were going to use it the way the unions directed-for the best interests of the unions, not those of arts in the community, or to bring art to the people. This is the whole issue. For this Minister to be incapable of understanding that, or deliberately distorting our objection, shows either an inability to grasp reality or a determination to distort it. Senator Puplick —It is only since he has been a Minister that anybody has brought art to him. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —That is an acceptable point but I would not have thought that the words `working life' would have been appropriate in his case. The reality is that this program, funded and supported by the Liberal and National parties when in government, has been distorted and corrupted by this Government in order to pay off sections of the union movement which have been disenchanted by this Government and which have been enraged by its failure to deliver on what they expected and to stand by its platform on almost every issue one can name. The unions have been bought off. This is one of the methods. Some of the grants under the present arrangement that Senator Short was just dealing with are part of a pattern of buying off dissident elements of the industrial wing of the labour movement by the political wing of the labour movement, which has not delivered as requested. I might say, quite frankly, that I am glad that in many areas this Government has not delivered according to its platform. I am glad that in some areas at least it has recognised what we have been saying for so long and has adopted some of our policies. It has adopted them incompetently, partially and without acknowledgment but at least, particularly in its moves into deregulation, it has accepted at last many of the principles which we established and which it violently opposed in opposition. The two-faced Minister opposite who now seeks to take credit for the things he and his Party opposed violently in opposition is a walking example of the sort of hypocrisy we have had to put up with in this House from members of the Australian Labor Party. I want to stress this again so the Minister will understand our objections to the way in which the art in working life program has been distorted. I refer to the way in which artists have been told in official publications that they- Senator Richardson —Nonsense! Senator MICHAEL BAUME —It is all very well for the Minister to say `nonsense!'; I will produce the document for him. I produced it last year in the Senate. He took no notice of it then; he tried to pretend that it did not exist. We have here clear evidence of artists being told that art is not to be there for art's sake and artists are not to be funded to bring art into the working place but are to be funded to make the arts another arm of the unions' campaigns. The use of the arts in that way was justified in the art in working life document. I believe that is a disgrace. Senator Short is quite right to point out the special need for this Government to show incredible restraint and caution-certainly for more than it has shown so far-in making clear that there is no capacity for it to be attacked for its vested interest, that there is no capacity for it to be criticised for paying off dissident groups. It has failed to show that care. It has encouraged attack on that ground by being blatant in its support for the enormous amounts of funding under policies set by this Government. It is all very well to say that some of the funding is at arm's length. That is bunkum. By setting the policy framework, this Government has encouraged the diversion of millions of dollars away from traditional arts. Many of those traditional arts organisations, by the way, were involved in bringing art into the working place and into the community and included organisations such as the arts councils, which were involved in bringing arts into the country areas. Much of this money has been diverted now to organisations such as the Victorian Trades Hall Council. What an objective view of the arts would come from the Victorian Trades Hall Council! All we have to point out is that a large volume of those grants has come since the research director of the Victorian Trades Hall Council became a member of the board involved in distributing the grants. If the Minister is interested in knowing the name, it is Ms Caswell. I find it offensive for this Minister to get up here and say that art is not simply the right of the rich. If one goes along to the artistic performances-ballet, theatre-in Sydney one will not find that it is only the toffee noses, the rich, who attend them. One will also not find that their funding is proceeding in any way for a polemical attack on the labour movement. In fact, the great bulk of the operas, for example, that one might go to see involve the triumph of the oppressed over the oppressor, particularly, I might say, in an economic sense. It strikes me as extraordinary that, because this Minister is prepared to criticise, to reject the great bulk of Australian artistic endeavour as funded by the Government as being pro the establishment-- Senator Richardson —I am not. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —If the Minister is not, why on earth does he make the objection? If he is not, how can he logically object to the impartial funding of the arts and say that this partial, discriminatory funding which he is in favour of is needed because the rest of the arts funding is, in fact, going towards only the toffee noses, the rich? The Minister should look in Hansard at what he said before he interjects. This Government is discriminating in favour of a particular group in the community, is claiming that it is discriminated against and is, in fact, financing the presentation of the arts with a polemic. It is financing in a discriminatory way only those people who are prepared to use their artistic talents to convey a message which happens to suit the trade union movement, because it is being funded through the trade union movement. I believe that is unfair, improper and discriminatory. I believe the Minister's position is intolerable. If the Minister could tell me when he last-as he says he is an artistic person-went to an artistic performance which had a pro-capitalist message or a pro-Liberal Party message-- Senator Short —The last one that he paid for. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —And he paid for his own ticket, a nice point-a theatrical or any artistic performance which involved the presentation of an anti-labour position in a strong way which was funded by his Government, I would be very interested to see it. But I can tell the Minister that there is a mass of stuff around the place funded by his Government which has been deliberately funded only because it has an anti-capitalist, anti-anyone who is on the right wing, certainly anti-Liberal and anti-National Party bias. I point out to the Minister another bit of funding under this Department: the extraordinary funding of a woman from the South Coast Labour Council. As an employee of the South Coast Labour Council she was financed into song writing. I will bleep the offensive words. She was funded by this Government to write such songs as `Up the President's bleep' which was a description of President Reagan's polyp operation, and it did not refer to his nose. Another song for which she was funded under this Government was a song about pushing bleep uphill. It was an attack on Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd-funded by this Government. To get arts funding under this Government it helps if one is an anti-Liberal, anti-coalition-- Senator Short —It doesn't help; it is essential. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —It is essential, as Senator Short says. But if one goes along to a trade union, gets the trade union to support one and guarantees to submerge one's personality to what the trade union wants and write stuff which is down the polemical track that the trade union requires, one's prospects of getting a grant from this Government's activities soar beyond recognition. It is hypocrisy and nonsensical for the Minister to come in here and say that we are opposed to the art in working life program when he does not know its genesis; he does not know how it was funded. We object not to the program but to the way in which it has been hijacked by the Government to buy off its dissident mates. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(4.20) —I wish to add a few words to what I said earlier, as I cannot let the comments made by the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson) go unanswered. Most of them follow what Senator Michael Baume has said. We are making a point about putting the trade union movement into a position of privilege, and the Government into a position of great conflict of interest. The Government's paying money to the programs that Senator Baume and I have been describing is, in effect, another way of funding its political party. The Government is paying to the trade union movement sums of money for programs which presumably the trade union movement itself would undertake if it were not getting government funding. In most instances, the unions themselves say that is the case. Therefore, the Government is preserving the income of the trade union movement, a proportion of which, as the Minister well knows, compulsorily goes into the coffers of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) to fund election and other political campaigns. That is an abuse of privilege and places many members of the trade union movement into an invidious situation. As the Minister will know, a recent survey showed that around one million union members in Australia vote for parties other than the ALP, and yet those one million workers are being forced, through the methods that the Government is adopting, to fund a political party for which they do not vote. Not only that, but, through the activities of the unions, the Government also makes it compulsory for people, particularly those in organised labour, to be members of trade unions, despite the fact that recent polls show that 83 per cent of all Australians oppose compulsory unionism. Seventy-eight per cent of all Australians believe that trade unions have too much power, and even 68 per cent of union members themselves believe that their own unions have too much power. We are not just talking about money and the use of taxpayers funds to fund, quite wrongly, a whole range of political activities. We are also talking about the placing in Australian society of one group-against the wishes of many of the individual members, the union members-in a position of power, privilege and political partisanship which is totally abhorrent to virtually every Australian. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(4.23) —Given that we are debating industrial relations and have spent half an hour on the art in working life program, I would not seek to add greatly to that debate except to say that I have been a supporter, and remain one, of the program. No attempt at camouflage can get around the fact that the Opposition cannot ever countenance art being brought to ordinary people. Senator Puplick best expressed it when he said that I needed to be a Minister to have art brought to me. That is pretty normal. It is the sort of response one normally gets from that side. I would simply suggest that an orchard full of plums in any one mouth will never bring about an artistic or cultural bent. Bitterness and bile will always show, especially in Senator Puplick's case. (Quorum formed) Proposed expenditure agreed to. GROUP B Department of Transport and Communications Proposed expenditure, $1,189,592,000 Senator Walters —I should like the Committee to discuss the two parts of the Department separately. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Burns) —If that is the wish of the Committee, we shall start by discussing Transport. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.27) —I want to make some comments about a matter in which the chamber has taken a great deal of interest for some time, and specifically again last Friday following the tabling of the Menzies report on the Review of Tender Procedures for the Coastwatch Contract. I want specifically to address the nature of the very grave problem which has been revealed by that report from Mr Menzies, and which clearly existed. I wish to raise it at this stage because I want to have some better assurances that the problems have been addressed and rectified in the course of the consideration of these Estimates than I have so far received. The Menzies report identified what Senator Gareth Evans, at an earlier stage of this debate, called `a systems failure'. That was a euphemistic way of describing what was an almighty bungle. It was not only one bungle but a series of bungles-I suppose that is why the word `systems' is used-which occurred in the Department of Transport (DOT). What bothers me is not that it was an almighty bungle, or series of bungles, in the Department of Transport, or bungles in the Department of Aviation at the time or in the Australian Government Solicitor's office in relation to the deficient advice that it gave, but that the whole show commenced with a bungle by a standing interdepartmental committee (IDC) dealing with the coastwatch program. One of the first findings of Mr Menzies was that there was a delay in other organs of government in reaching a decision to let a further contract for coastal surveillance. This immediately resulted in the period available for processing tenders being unduly compressed, and this process had to be carried out in too short a time. Therefore, at the beginning of the operation, before one can start to blame the Department of Transport and the others for the way in which they assessed the tenders, there was a serious failure by no less than a standing interdepart- mental committee dealing with the coastwatch program. That meant, as I said, that the tender process had to be unduly compressed. No doubt that is one reason it was not carried out properly. It is about time that the Commonwealth Public Service caught up with the rest of the country and did not have a great shut-down over Christmas and the New Year and, in fact, well into January-an excuse which Mr Menzies prof- ferred for this further compression of time. That is a factor in this day and age which also should be addressed seriously by the Commonwealth Public Service. The IDC should have been well aware that, as I understand it, the Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd contract for coastal surveillance expired on 31 March this year. The tender process should have been put in train well before that. As it turned out, the contract of Skywest, the former operator, was extended in the first place to 30 June, which gave a little more time. But even that had to be negotiated to cope with the problem. When the contract was finally let to Amann Aviation Pty Ltd-on 12 March this year, I think it was- the Skywest contract, if it had not been for the extension to 30 June, would have expired. Even so, the contract that was let with the new tenderer, Amann, on 12 March this year did not provide for performance until 12 September. The Government let a contract on 12 March knowing full well that the extended arrangements with Skywest would expire on 30 June and that the new contractor was not sown up. This has been the case with the Government all through. There was no legal obligation on the new contractor for performance until 12 September-2 1/2 months after the expiration of the extended Skywest contract. It seems extraordinary that the Government and the people involved allowed that to happen. When this potential further bungle was discovered, the Government again was able to make arrangements with Skywest to continue the operation until it thought performance would occur in September. As a result of the Government terminating that contract, further arrangements were made for Skywest to carry on the contract. All this has happened as a result of nothing else but good luck and preparedness by Skywest to carry on this vital surveillance which could have been totally terminated by Skywest on 30 June if it had stuck to its rights. The Government would have had no way of providing-perhaps this is even the case now-for the coastwatch of the whole of the northern approaches of Australia over that period of 2 1/2 months. I say that only by way of introduction to what I want to say. As I said, I want to refer to the enormity of the failure of the system as identified by Mr Menzies. In going through his report, I have identified no fewer than 12 different bungles by one department or another or by senior people, in many cases senior management, in one or other of the departments. Firstly, I have already mentioned the delay in deciding to let the contract. Secondly, Mr Menzies identified that the request for tender document was deficient. He explained why, but I do not have the time now to develop that. Thirdly, Mr Menzies identified the failure of the Tender Assessment Committee (TAC) to carry out what he said was required-namely, a particularly rigorous examination of Mr Amann's capacities and circumstances. I understand, that the TAC was chaired by a senior officer of the then Department of Transport. We all know now of Mr Amann's deficiencies in terms of his tender, situation and so on, and that is why Mr Menzies said that there should have been a particularly rigorous examination of his capacities and circumstances. The person who was given that task, the Director of the Supply and Services Section of the Department of Transport, was found by Mr Menzies to lack that expertise. For reasons that Senator Evans has already mentioned in the debate, I do not want to rake over the position in which that person finds himself now. It is not the Opposition's intention to do so and it never has been. But we simply have to record the finding that he lacked the necessary expertise, because that is absolutely vital to the debate and our consideration of this matter. What is even worse-I note that this is the fifth failure-is that senior management of the then Department of Transport was aware of this Director's limitations, yet it allowed him to carry out that examination in these particularly difficult circumstances. Sixthly, Mr Menzies has identified that the Tender Assessment Committee took the wrong approach to the assessment of tender for services. In his report he quoted at some length from the Commonwealth Purchasing Manual to show how wrong the TAC was. He also quoted at length from the transcript of his examination of the Chairman of that Committee to show that the Committee simply took the wrong approach. It took an approach which may have been satisfactory for the supply of goods but certainly not for services. Seventhly, Mr Menzies noted that, again, the senior management of DOT did not exercise sufficient supervision. There is no mention of who the senior management was. I wonder, in view of what Senator Evans said the other day about counselling certain people, whether counselling extends to the senior management of the then Department of Transport. I ask Senator Evans what he proposes to do about this lamentable performance, twice identified by Mr Menzies, by the senior management of the Department. Eighthly, Mr Menzies identified confusion between the then Department of Transport and the then Department of Aviation as to the role of the latter in the tender process. I would like to say something more about that, perhaps later. But a very important failure occurred. Ninthly, Mr Menzies identified that some of the advice from the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS) was deficient. I do not know whether the AGS can be blamed for that, but certainly senior people involved in some of the process should be seriously blamed for not having ensured that proper staging of start-up dates was included as a term of the contract. Tenthly, Mr Menzies identified that all those concerned with this matter treated far more lightly than was justified the request by Mr Amann or his company for a change of aircraft. It is clear from the documents, when one examines them, that this was not examined at all; it was just assumed that it was okay. It certainly was not okay, despite Senator Evans's talk of trade-offs of one sort or another. That is another matter which should be examined further in this chamber or by the Standing Committee on Infrastructure. The eleventh system failure identified by Mr Menzies was that the Cabinet submission should have been presented, and the approval for the money should have been obtained from Cabinet under the finance regulations, before the tenders were ever called. Who on earth was responsible for such a major failure-a failure to obtain the necessary Cabinet approval for the expenditure of this large sum of money? The figure was largely unknown before the tenders were called, but it was roughly $20m. Who was responsible for that? The twelfth system failure, as identified in the Menzies report, is that at the end of this process it was suddenly realised that it was necessary to have a Cabinet submission. The documents had gone through the tender process, the Tender Assessment Committee, the Tender and Contract Board and all the rest of it; those responsible had chosen Mr Amann for all the wrong reasons, as has now become apparent, and the Cabinet submission had to be rushed through at the last minute, with all its deficiencies, flawed as we all now know it to be. The poor helpless Ministers, we now hear, could not even ask a question to find out anything about it. Of course, the Ministers in this Government do not ask questions; they have to be spoon fed. This flawed Cabinet submission was presented not just at the wrong time-at the end instead of at the beginning-but was rushed through because apparently nobody realised until that stage that it was needed. Who made the decision to present it at that stage because of the rush? No less a person than the Deputy Secretary of the Department. So here we have the systems failure starting with the standing IDC-the non-decision of a standing IDC-and finishing with a decision of the Deputy Secretary. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Burns) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(4.42) —I would like to ask a question in relation to the same topic. Has the Government made any assessment of how effective the present coastwatch system of patrols is? It has been well known for years that the system is very predictable. This was driven home to me very forcefully when I was recently at Cape Tribulation and, right on time, the Aerocommander with the green and gold stripes flew overhead at 500 feet just having its usual cruise up the coast. Has the Government examined the findings on the system it is currently operating, and have any recommendations been made on how it can be improved? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(4.43) —Senator MacGibbon will appreciate that the Department of Transport and Communications does not have the primary policy responsibility for this program-only the administrative responsibility, which has been the subject of Senator Durack's speech, on which there is much that I could say, but I think it has already largely been said in the course of the debate we had on this matter last week. To the extent that it needs to be gone over again, it will be gone over by the Senate Standing Committee on Infrastructure. The efficacy of the coastwatch system itself is the subject of continuing consideration by the client departments. Central among them are the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, the Australian Federal Police and some others as well. Within the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, an inquiry is currently under way to ascertain whether that is the most efficacious way of running an effective quarantine exercise for north Australia. It must be remembered that quarantine is the primary rationale, as I have made clear in the past, rather than the interdiction of drug running or any of the other purposes that people more popularly assume to be the rationale for the coastwatch system. So far as quarantine is concerned, I do not think there has been any suggestion that the disposition of the coastwatch planes to fly at regular intervals on regular patterns has in itself made the system less than effective because of the nature of the quarantine risk. Questions have been raised as to whether better value for the dollar might not be got out of a less purportedly comprehensive cover and a greater capacity for response to particular situations. That is something we will examine on a continuing basis over the next few months. It will have some implications for whether or not we decide to simply retender on the basis of the previous contract arrangements that went wrong in the Amann case or whether we decide rather to set up a tender for a different kind of operation. Decisions in that respect ought to be possible within a short time frame. It is not an easy question to answer because, as I have said, there are a number of different client departments. The Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs has an obvious interest in keeping track of movements of potential refugee boats and so on in the area. Again, one would not expect the system to be less effective by reason of what may be regarded as shortcomings in the timetable and routine of the flights. Senator MacGibbon —That is particularly vulnerable to prediction. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is on the assumption that there are people deliberately seeking to come in under cover of darkness or something. If, as has been rather more often the case in the past, they are just boatloads of people drifting fairly aimlessly in a general compass direction but without any great sense of strategic purpose as to where they are at any given time, clearly that is not so. All I can say to Senator MacGibbon is that I acknowledge the point he is making: I am aware that it has been made before. I do not think we should take for granted the utility of any of the systems that are offering. They ought to be the subject of constant scrutiny, particularly when large sums of public money are involved; and the present circumstances of the need to recommit the Amann tender, if I might so describe it, has given us a slight breathing space in which to reconsider the best way forward in this respect, and we will look at it accordingly. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(4.46) —I want to make a couple of comments and ask a question in relation to the tender procedures for the coastwatch contract. I think that the report that was presented to Parliament the other day, which has already been the subject of a great deal of discussion and which I shall not pursue in any great detail today, although I am sure it will continue to be pursued in the period ahead, is the most indicting report that I have ever read in terms of bungles in public administration. I shall not go into a lot of detail, other than to say that I do not accept the proposition that it is purely an administrative bungle. The report makes it clear that the material that went forward to the Government on which it based its decision was patently inadequate; and any Minister worth his position as a Minister of the Crown should have realised that as that material came to him. There is no way in which ministerial responsibility can be absolved in this present matter, but that is for another day. The point I raise relates to the departmental arrangements for these tender procedures. The departmental relationships in the Coastwatch arrangements are set out on pages 16 and 17 of the report, which lists the various committees that were responsible for providing advice and analysis of the tenders. There were the Standing Interdepartmental Committee on Coastal Surveillance-and the report lists all the departments represented on that Committee-the Operations and Programs Committee; the Tender Assessment Committee; the departmental working party; and the Tender and Contract Board. I find it absolutely incredible that on none of those committees did the Department of Administrative Services have any involvement; yet that Department is responsible for the preparation of the Commonwealth purchasing manual, of which most of the people involved in this dreadful exercise seemed not even to be aware: not only that, but that Department has responsibility in the broad, as I understand it, for purchasing policy. So I find it almost unbelievable that the Department was apparently not represented in any shape or form in this whole exercise. That is picked up at page 67 of the report, where it states: Source of advice, other than paid consultants, which appears not to have been considered in the coastwatch matter, is the advice available from major purchasing agencies like DAS and the Department of Defence. Indeed, in addition to its purchasing policy co-ordination role, the Purchasing and Sales Division of DAS has a charter to perform the following services on behalf of other Departments and Authorities. Those services include precisely the sorts of matters with which the coastwatch contract procedures should have been concerned. It is somewhat ironic, but welcome nevertheless, to find that one of the three members of the Menzies Review of Tender Procedures for the Coastwatch Contract was Mr Stan Perry, Assistant Secretary of the Purchasing and Disposals Division from the Department of Administrative Services, who, as the Minister said quite rightly the other day, is an acknowledged expert in contract matters. I make the point that I find it almost unbelievable that the situation arose where the Department was not involved. I ask the question-not solely in respect of the Minister's own portfolio but as well in respect of other departments which have contracting and tendering requirements over the period ahead-can we be assured that the situation of the Department of Administrative Services not being involved at all will never happen again? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(4.51) —One of the glorious things about hindsight, of course, is that it always involves 20-20 vision. Although innumerable things did go wrong in this instance, it is not as evident that all of those could have been foreseen at the time. I make no attempt to conceal the extent of the things that did go wrong in this instance. I contest the suggestion that this is one of the greatest bungles in the history of Australian public administration. I can think of plenty more that satisfy that description in bygone years, and which have involved the loss of very considerable sums of money, injury, loss of life or some other danger to the public weal of the kind which did not occur here. I put that to one side and respond directly to the question by saying that the lessons of this particular affair have been well learnt throughout the Commonwealth Public Service. I was, in fact, talking to Mr Perry a couple of days ago to thank him for his efforts with this Committee report, and he said he expected that it would provide a very useful training manual not only within the Department of Administrative Services but across the Public Service for people in the future, right across the departments, who might find themselves confronted with major purchasing experiences of this kind. I have no doubt that the central message in the Menzies report that expertise and experience of high order are necessary for major service purchases of this kind, is a lesson that is well learnt. Equally, I have no doubt that the particular reference to taking account of, and calling upon, the expertise within the Department of Administrative Services and elsewhere within the Commonwealth bureaucracy is another lesson that has been well learnt. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.53) —I want to add a few further remarks to those that I have already made in this debate and perhaps ask another one or two further questions that so far have been unanswered by the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans). I concluded my previous remarks by identifying from the Menzies Review of Tender Procedures for the coastwatch Contract the 12 failures that had emerged in this so-called systems failure, which is the nice euphemism that Senator Evans coined earlier on to describe what Senator Short also said, when he agreed with me, is an almighty bungle and which he, who has probably a greater knowledge of the workings of the Public Service than anybody else in this chamber, said is the worst that he has ever heard of in the Public Service. The point that Senator Evans has determined not to look at or face up to is that it was not a bungle that occurred in one place in one section of a department or by any one person. It was, as he so presciently described it, a systems failure. It was not only a system in the Department of Transport but a system in a lot of departments, including an interdepartmental committee and going up to virtually the highest levels in one or other of these departments. I shall complete my remarks on this exercise by referring to the sort of advice that was apparently given to the then Minister responsible for aviation, the Minister for Resources, Peter Morris, when the whole matter blew up in the Government's face shortly after the contract was let. The contract was let on 13 March and within a few days, although these problems did not seem to be known to the Government at that stage-nothing seemed to be known to the Government during the period in which it was evaluating the tenders-they were widely known in the industry. I asked a question of Senator Gietzelt in this chamber on 18 March, but I might as well have saved my breath for all the sense I received from him about this matter at any stage. Senator Boswell —You were a running dog for Skywest then, weren't you? Senator DURACK —Yes, a few choice accusations were thrown around as well. On 18 March Mr Peter Morris, the then Minister for Transport-I believe he was also Minister for Aviation at the time, although the Press statement is under the heading `Minister for Transport'-issued a Press statement to try to cope with this flood of concern and accusation that was already surfacing quite extensively around the nation. Mr Morris said: Allegations of impropriety levelled by Skywest Airlines against the Federal Government for the approval of a $17.6 million tender for a 3 year northern littoral aerial surveillance contract to Amann Aviation were unfounded Peter Morris, Federal Minister for Transport said today. I point out that the allegations of impropriety were levelled by Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd. When I asked Senator Gietzelt my question on that same day, I had not been approached by Skywest. I had become aware of a number of allegations that were being made and of great concerns that were held by people. I recall one of the first bodies expressing concern about it was the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, so it was not only Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd, but that was the story that the Government tried to put out from the beginning. It was just sour grapes by Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd, according to the Government, and, as Senator Boswell interjected, we were accused of being running dogs for Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd. Let us hear what the Minister further said: The allegations impugn the objectivity and professional judgment of a properly constituted public tender process . . . Of course, that is not what Mr Menzies has found in his report; in fact, the contrary is true. The Minister further stated: The tender process which is set down in strict government guidelines has been adhered to scrupulously and all tenders were evaluated by a specially constituted Tender Assessment Committee possessing all the necessary expertise. I compare the Menzies report recommendations with that statement. It turns out that the Chairman of the Committee did not even know about, or understand, the Commonwealth purchasing manual, and he approached his task completely the wrong way round. Mr Morris said: . . . a specially constituted Tender Assessment Committee possessing all the necessary expertise. That Committee was satisfied that the successful tenderer had sound financial backing, fully understood the requirements of the contract on offer, had made realistic provision for costs, and that it had the necessary arrangements in hand to enable an early start up. We know that the company failed to have an adequate start-up even after six months. Mr Morris continued: The Tender Assessment Committee was however, satisfied that Amann had realistic and achievable plans to set up its operation in a reasonable time frame. I am informed that the aircraft to be imported is already being fitted out and that delivery is expected . . . Honourable members should recall that the aircraft was changed after that. According to Mr Morris, the aircraft had already been fitted out by 18 March, even though the aircraft was subsequently changed. He continued: . . . and that delivery is expected to commence in the very near future. I wonder what Mr Morris thinks is the `near future', let alone the `very near future'. We know that is what he thought on 18 March and we know that six months later-I do not know whether that is the `future'-the company still had not satisfied the contractual requirements. Finally, Mr Morris exhibited his own ignorance of the Commonwealth's purchasing manual, because he ends up saying: To reject the lowest acceptable tender . . . would not only be a rejection of the proper processes . . . Mr Menzies said that to accept the lowest tender, without full and rigorous examination, is in fact contrary to the proper processes, but Mr Morris said that that `would not only be a rejection of the proper processes, but would cost the taxpayer dearly'. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard that 18 March Press statement by Mr Morris. Leave granted. The document read as follows- CANBERRA...18 March 1987 COASTAL SURVEILLANCE CONTRACT AWARDED Allegations of impropriety levelled by Skywest Airlines against the Federal Government for the approval of a $17.6 million tender for a 3 year northern littoral aerial surveillance contract to Amann Aviation were unfounded Peter Morris, Federal Minister for Transport said today. `The allegations impugn the objectivity and professional judgement of a properly constituted public tender process and do Skywest no credit whatsoever. `Even if Amann had not been recommended, Skywest were ranked third by cost and still not have won the contract. By their own admission they were over $2.5 million dollars more expensive than the selected tenderer, notwithstanding the considerable advantage they possessed by being the current contractor free of establishment costs.' `The tender process which is set down in strict Government guidelines has been adhered to scrupulously and all tenders were evaluated by a specially constituted Tender Assessment Committee possessing all the necessary expertise. `That Committee was satisfied that the successful tenderer had sound financial backing, fully understood the requirements of the contract on offer, had made realistic provision for costs, and that it had the necessary arrangements in hand to enable an early start up. `The specialised nature of the coastal surveillance contract is that no tenderer, other than the current contractor Skywest, would have the necessary aircraft, facilities and staff immediately at its disposal. `The Tender Assessment Committee was however, satisfied that Amann had realistic and achievable plans to set up its operation in a reasonable time frame. I am informed that the aircraft to be imported is already being fitted out and that delivery is expected to commence in the very near future. I am also informed that Amann will be seeking to employ staff displaced by the current contractor if that is their wish. `To reject the lowest acceptable tender, as suggested by Skywest, would not only be a rejection of the proper processes, but would cost the taxpayer dearly. Senator DURACK —Senator Evans keeps assuring us that all is well now and that nothing like this will happen again, not only in the Department of Transport and Communications but also in any other department of the Commonwealth. We got this guarantee from Senator Evans last Friday. Senator Evans said that, because everybody had been counselled and because of Menzies report, this would never happen again. After this debacle occurred I was interested to ask some questions at the Senate Estimates committee hearings on 19 October into the Department of Transport and Communications. After having to fight for the right to ask questions at all, I noticed that the Chairman of that Committee was none other than Senator Gietzelt, who had singularly failed to answer any questions on this subject in the chamber and had abused me as being a running dog for Skywest, and a few other things as well. He was not too anxious for me to ask any questions. Although I exonerate Senator Evans from any attempt to stop me asking questions, his own answers were so voluminous that nobody else got a look in-he did not have anyone from his Department answering questions. He just about exhausted everybody else with his lengthy answers about questions of fact of which he knew absolutely nothing, incidentally, because he was not the Minister at the time. I can sympathise with him to some extent on that score because the officers at whom I directed questions knew nothing and could not answer anything. That was the reason why I have had to get some subsequent answers-alleged answers-to some of my questions. A matter which always greatly interested me and which certainly staggered Mr Menzies as well was that there was no contractual staging of the obligations to take up parts of this very complicated contract for surveillance extending right around the north of Australia from Broome to Cairns. Clearly, this could not all start up on one day. Indeed, this question was addressed even in the original tender document by Mr Amann, who, when he specified a six-month period for the commencement of operations from all bases, said that there was scope for negotiation of earlier commencement dates. That was in the tender offer itself. I asked why a proposed timetable for the commencement of the operation set out in Mr Amann's letter to the Department of 12 January was not firmly accepted by the Department. Apparently as early as 12 January, Mr Amann, following some of these negotiations which he suggested with the Department on 7 January, said that there would be a real probability of earlier start-up dates being determined. On 12 January Mr Amann wrote to the Department offering a transition period with fairly specific dates. He said: Based upon a contract award of early March 1987, we would become operational at our main base Darwin by the end of June 1987, Broome the beginning of June, Weipa by mid-end July, Cairns by the end of July and Gove by end of July early August. However, when the contract was let on 30 march there was absolutely no reference made in the letter of acceptance to Mr Amann's letter of 12 January, despite the fact that a number of other contractual terms subsequently negotiated by letter were included. In answer to my question as to why that letter was not incorporated in the letter of acceptance, the Department referred to the discussions of 7 January and stated: In these discussions it was clear that finalisation of actual start-up dates for individual bases would be subject to a number of factors. Against the background of those discussions and given the imprecision with which the dates were expressed- honourable senators can make their own judgment about that, because I have just cited them- the Department regarded the dates set out in Mr Amann's letter of 12 January as being approximations only. Following the award of the contract, Mr Amann was requested to provide specific dates as a basis for arranging a handover of operations from Skywest to Amann Aviation. That is the answer I got on 19 October. That is the answer that was given by people who have now presumably been reformed by the shock of this whole thing. Admittedly, they had not then received the Menzies report; nevertheless, it is clear, as Mr Menzies pointed out in the report, that there was quite sufficient precision about these dates for subsequent negotiations to have taken place and to have had them absolutely firmed up. I suggest that, even if that had not taken place and the letter had been incorporated into this contract, the terms offered by Mr Amann-he makes it very clear; he said `we would become operational'; there was a clear, definite offer being made to assume an obligation for a staggered series of start-up dates-are quite sufficiently precise for any court to have enforced those start-up dates. If that had been done, the Government would have been able to get off the hook at a much earlier stage than was possible. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(5.08) —If not exactly flogging a dead horse, I think it has to be said that the poor old quadruped that is suffering under Senator Durack's blows at the moment is pretty much on its last legs. There is no dispute about the particular matters to which Senator Durack is now referring. With the benefit again of that 20:20 vision that hindsight always confers, it is perfectly obvious that there should have been a full negotiation. Senator Walters —It is not hindsight. Senator GARETH EVANS —It should have been obvious to those at the time. Senator Walters is absolutely right. I agree with her that it should have been obvious to those at the time. It is obvious now that it should have been obvious to them at the time. Regrettably, it was not obvious to those who were actually in the position of responsibility for this immediate matter. Because of that, we have this present debate, as we had the debate last week. Of course, there should have been sequenced dates which gave us the possibility of triggering much earlier remedial contractual action rather than having to wait for the full six months that we did. Of course that should have been so. The Menzies Review of Tender Procedures for the Coastwatch Contract is quite right to draw that out and to draw attention not only to the weaknesses in the way in which the tender documentation was framed and the failure to set it up as part of the original contractual requirement but also to the weaknesses and failures obviously in the non-pursuit of this matter to the point of hard, negotiated interim start-up dates of the contract once the tender had been awarded. I am not disagreeing with what Senator Durack said. I can understand his wanting to have yet another day in Parliament on this one. This matter has had a few outings already and no doubt will have a few more before the Committee is finished. Senator Durack is not buying an argument with me because I agree that there were obvious problems in exactly the way in which he has described. Senator Durack —Why is the Department still defending this failure on 19 October? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Department is not defending it. It is saying that that is the best answer it can give as to the circumstances. If Senator Durack looks at the note that immediately follows the answer given to that particular question, he will see that it stated: Complete answers . . . are not able to be provided due to the unavailability through serious illness of the senior contract officer involved in the tender assessment and contract preparation work. It is not completely evident from the material on file why these matters were not followed up in the way that they manifestly should have been. The reason for that is not able to be elicited in the circumstances I have described here by that reference a moment ago and last week. So it is not a matter of trying to conceal anything or trying to perpetuate any administrative failings in this respect; it is simply an inability to give more information than that which has been provided. Could I just add one word in relation to Senator Durack's opening remarks about my colleague Mr Morris. His statement of 18 March should, of course, be seen in context, and the context was clearly enough disclosed by the opening line of that statement when he said that there is no substance to any allegations of impropriety in relation to the tender process. The whole thrust and flavour of that particular Press release is devoted to contesting allegations which were circulating at that stage, and subsequently, of impropriety. There has been no subsequent substantiation of any such suggestion and it is clearly not being pursued by the Opposition now because the Menzies report and others earlier have clearly intimated that there is just no question of any impropriety so far as the Department is concerned. Failure of administration, yes; impropriety, no. I think what Mr Morris is referring to is his confidence, essentially, in the arm's length tender process which was in operation. If there is anything that Ministers will perhaps now be a little bit more alert to, it is the traditional reluctance that Ministers have had to involve themselves in the details of tender processes because of the danger of that being seen as untoward ministerial interference in what should be an absolutely objective administrative process? There was certainly a lot of consciousness about that on the part of all the Ministers concerned, thus the emphasis in Mr Morris's Press release about the separateness and the qualifications and so on of the Tender and Contract Board. In retrospect, of course, it appears that his confidence in the expertise and experience of the Tender Assessment Committee was misplaced. I do not blame him, and the Menzies report certainly does not blame him, because he had no material before him on which he could have made any other judgment. On the documentation that was available, certainly on 18 March when that statement was issued, it is perfectly understandable that he should have expressed the confidence that he did, not only in the lack of impropriety but also in the necessary expertise being vested in the committee and the necessary processes having been followed. I was getting assurances of that kind myself as recently as July and August this year in circumstances which, by then, had given rise to much more legitimate grounds for concern than those that were legitimate for Mr Morris to have had as early as a week after the contract was originally awarded. Remember that this statement was made on 18 March; that meeting with the regional officer of the Department of Aviation, which jangled a few alarm bells, was not had until three days after that. So all this attempt to make much of the terms of that particular Press release is, I think, an unwarranted assault on the integrity, competence and everything else of my colleague and I am sure that Senator Durack in fairness will acknowledge that and not pursue that particular point. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(5.14) —I have a number of questions to ask the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) which I was prevented from asking at the appropriate Estimates committee hearings because I was informed by the Secretary of Estimates Committee B that transport was on the agenda for Tuesday, 20 October but, in fact, the Committee finished the previous night. I was therefore prevented from asking the questions. I then wrote to Senator Evans to inform him that I had a number of questions which I would have addressed to his departmental officers, in particular those representing the Australian National Line, and provided him with a list of the questions I would have asked. Senator Evans did pass those questions on to the Department. I have here a series of written answers, for which I am grateful. However, written answers are never entirely satisfactory because there is no opportunity to follow them up at the time. Further questions inevitably arise from the answers given. Senator Evans would be delighted to know that I have a number of these questions. Before I ask these questions I wish to make some comments on the format of the explanatory notes for the Department of Transport and Communications estimates. These are comments which I would have made at the Estimates Committee had I been given the opportunity. I really see no reason for the explanatory notes to be filled up with motherhood statements which have nothing to do with the financial statement of income and expenditures of the Department. These bland blancmange-style statements are very spurious. One wonders whether the only reason why they are there is to fill up the document with useless information which is designed to conceal rather than reveal actual financial information. It is possible, of course, to do the sums ourselves, but the format in this document makes that very difficult indeed. It is difficult to determine the revenue and costs for individual items, the variations against the previous Budget and any reasons for the variations. The more we hunt for the figures in the documents, the more they elude us. In any case, why should we have to hunt around to do the sums ourselves when we are provided with explanatory notes which should provide the information on the Department's finances? Why can we not have a clear and detailed set of accounts of income and expenditures and variations of the estimated budget, with clear reasons for the variations? Individual items are also scattered throughout the document. For instance, items referring to the Bureau of Transport Economics-now, I regret to say, the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics; I hope its value as a bureau will not be damaged by this widening of its terms of reference-are scattered throughout the explanatory notes and breakdowns are very difficult to find. In the written answers I was told that Budget allocations for the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics are included in program elements 1.4, 2.4, 9.1.1. and 9.1.4. Senator Gareth Evans —That is what program budgeting is all about. Senator HAMER —Yes. I was also told that this Bureau cost $3,619,000. Senator Evans has just interjected with a rather curious comment, but I was not told the reason for scattering the elements of the Bureau throughout the explanatory notes. There is no breakdown of the operating costs of just over $500,000. This has been provided in the past. Would the Minister please-if necessary he may take it on notice-provide a breakdown of the operating costs of the Bureau? Now I come to my specific questions. My first question is on the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme (TFES). As I said a couple of minutes ago, I accept that these are, in some cases, detailed questions and I would be perfectly content for them to be taken on notice. I am asking them now because they were questions which should have been asked when this matter was before the Estimates Committee. The Government implemented a number of changes to the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme in September 1985. These are brought in with a great fanfare at the time. The Government claimed that there would be considerable savings under the new scheme. However, two matters concern me. In the written answers that I was provided with I was told that the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme for 1986-87, under the revised scheme arrangements, totalled approximately $4m which, compared to what it would have been if the old scheme had been operating, is a reduction of 14 per cent. However, in the attachment of the written answers, I read this: 1985/86: Northbound payments: $25.8 million. 1986/87: Northbound payments: $24.7 million. That is a reduction of $1.1m. But in the southbound payments there was an increase of $1.1m in the same period. So the overall cost in 1985-86 was $27.5m and the overall cost in 1986-87 was $27.5m Where is the saving? Why is there no real reduction in the scheme so far? When can we expect to see these reductions as promised by the Government? The next point is that since the new arrangements were introduced in September 1985 I have been given no detailed reasons for payments still operating under the old scheme which continue to appear in the estimates. What is the reason for payments under the old scheme in these estimates? Is it that the claimants have been late in lodging their claims, and how long after the event can they lodge their claims for payment under the TFES? Or is it that the claims are outstanding and the Department has been very slow in providing the payments? There have also been reports in newspapers during the year that the future funding of the TFES is uncertain after a Federal inquiry. Can the Minister provide information about any inquiry into the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme? What is the future of the scheme? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(5.20) —Might I say at the outset that I am sure my departmental officers will be indebted for Senator Hamer's release of them from the obligation to provide bland, blancmange-like statements in the consideration of estimates in the future-something that I think they sometimes feel obliged to produce in order to satisfy the changing demands of this chamber. But if Senator Hamer is speaking generally for his colleagues in this respect, I would be only too delighted to accommodate him. The particular points he made about the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics are slightly unfair, given the long history of assaults on the mode of presentation of Estimates accounts because of their lack of clarity as to what the money is being spent on. For years we have had people saying, `Do not give us the cost of the paper clips, the pencils and the bureaucrats. Tell us what the money is actually being spent on'. Thus it is, by dint of heroic efforts, that we have moved to a system of program budgeting where everything is allocated to the particular functional role that various people and units play within a department, allowing a much more meaningful analysis. And we get Senator Hamer being stroppy because we have not gone back to the old pens, paper clips and salaries line and item approach to the components. I would be happy to give him the information he seeks so far as the Bureau is concerned if he wants that pulled out as a whole rather than being divided among functional programs, as it is in the estimates document. So far as the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme is concerned, I am afraid that I will have to take on notice the matters of detail. We are dealing here with a very large and very sprawling department and, since there have not been any controversies erupting so far over the actual administrative operation of the scheme, I have not had regard to the particular detail of it. But I will ensure that Senator Hamer gets the answers that he seeks. I respond only to the very last part of his question regarding the future of the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme by saying that its future is guaranteed, and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) indicated as much during the last election. There are no plans whatsoever to undermine, to change, or in any way to modify significantly, the operation of the scheme. It is rolling along and it is intended that it should do so for the foreseeable future. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(5.23) —A subject that has concerned me very deeply is the question of the manning efficiency of the Australian National Line (ANL). One of the difficulties one has in analysing the Budget reference to the ANL is that the annual report for the ANL normally reaches this Parliament in December. Last year's financial report was tabled on 1 December and the year before the report was tabled on 4 December. This year there is still no sign of the annual report, although there have been statements in the Press on its financial position and its present staffing levels. Only this week there was another report that the ANL was about to cut its fleet yet again to 15 or 16 vessels, or perhaps less. My follow-up questions to the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) regarding the ANL are these: There seems to be a fairly clear indication that the ANL is planning to shed a large proportion of its shipping operations. In the written answers that I received, I was told that the ANL shed five of its vessels during 1986-87 and 319 sea-going personnel. However, I was also told that the number of sea-going personnel per ship remained unchanged at 64. That means that the ANL is still operating with crews averaging 32 per ship, or certainly over 30. Of course, this is a disgraceful situation when the rest of the world-including those Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries at least as developed and as rich as we are-are operating ships with crews of less than 20. When will the ANL take some drastic action to reduce crew levels to something that is even approaching the levels of ships of other countries? Senator Michael Baume —When it is privatised. Senator HAMER —That may well be necessary. Now that there is a report that the ANL is about to shed more ships, will there be a comparable reduction in sea-going personnel? The written answers that I have received on ANL's capacity to reduce crew levels are very vague. I will quote from the answer that I was given and I will again ask the Minister whether he can provide some more information about the crew levels in ANL ships. This is what was said in the answer: The maritime industry generally is marked by long established industry-wide agreements, in matters such as manning and work practices, which are generally enshrined in industrial awards of wide industry coverage. There is a limit to what an individual operator can achieve in variations from these `norms' particularly on older ships. We know the problem. But what we need in our current economic circumstances is not problems but actions to solve these problems. When will the much vaunted crew reductions take place as a result of the report of the Crawford Committee on Revitalisation of Australian Shipping? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(5.26) —The question of crew reductions is something that has been addressed and brought to accomplishment under the Maritime Industry Development Committee (MIDC) program, set in train by my predecessor, which has produced some quite dramatic crew reductions in terms of new ships coming into both coastal and international Australian trades. Those bulkers and tankers that have already either come into service in recent times or have been announced have been accompanied by really quite dramatic crew reductions as compared with the norms that have prevailed in Australian shipping previously. The difficulty that the Australian National Line (ANL) has experienced is that over the period to which Senator Hamer is referring, which is the subject of these answers, it has not brought any new or replacement ships into operation. In fact, it has been going through a period of very significant run-down, as one of the answers makes clear, from 23 to 18-a total of five vessels-over the last couple of years. Although there has been some decrease in sea-going personnel, that decrease has been as a result of the run-down in the number of vessels rather than achievements in crewing reductions on existing ships. I suppose that it is an essential part of the network of agreements that were reached and those agreements represented a really very major achievement for a traditionally very difficult industry in this respect. It is an essential ingredient of those agreements that the crew reductions be achieved in the context of changes to the industry-new ships and so on being brought into service-rather than being able to be accomplished overnight. Against that background of a run-down without a replacement program so far having been able to be put into effect-and that is a function of the worldwide over-capacity in the shipping industry which Senator Hamer will no doubt be well aware of-it has been very difficult for ANL to show up, in terms of its own internal operations, the benefits of the really quite fundamental changes that have been wrought. So I make no apology for the way in which things have been going in this respect. To the extent that we have shipping costs problems these days, I suppose this will be clearer once the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on coastal shipping is completed. But the mounting evidence-for example, in the trans-Tasman review conducted by the Bureau of Transport Economics and its New Zealand counterpart recently-suggests that the real problems with shipping and transport costs are for the shore-based components rather than being strongly attributable to the sea-going component. I fully acknowledge that although it is in everybody's interests that we should get those crewing levels down to the currently prevailing international norms, I think the nature of that problem ought to be put in context. The nature of the achievement that has been chalked up by my predecessor through the excellent MIDC program ought also to be acknowledged and one ought not to be too grumpy about the failure, so far, of the benefits of that achievement to be showing up very dramatically as far as ANL is concerned. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(5.30) —Following up on the statement of the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) that the results are not showing up very dramatically, I must say that not only are the results not showing up very dramatically, but they are really rather hard to perceive. In the written answers I received I was informed that some 17 ships were replaced during 1986-87-17 replaced by 10. I was given the names of these ships and the crew numbers-not, by the way, all Australian National Line. I am distressed to find that the crew numbers on these new ships are still 26, 27, 28 and 29 for all the ships except for two small ones with crews of nine and five. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table which is really the answer I was given by the Minister. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Ship Crew numbers Operator Owner Australia Star... 29/27 Caltex Operator (+ syndicate banks) Hull 1048 Leasing Pty Ltd. (+ syndicate banks) Australian Advance... 28 ANL United Arab Shipping Co. Australian Spirit... 29 BP (Aust.) BP Shipping Ltd. Canopus... 29 Howard Smith R. W. Millar Era... 29 Howard Smith R. W. Millar Stolt Australia 29 Howard Smith Stolt Nielsen Freeway Australia... 26 Ocean Freeway (Fremantle) (Cocos Island) Prosperity Shipping Line Sandra Marie... 22 Howard Smith Intercontinental Shipping Ocean Trader... 9 Perkins Shipping (Darwin) Rederei-Interessent-Skabet Sitka... 5 Lord Howe Island Shipping Co. Lord Howe Island Shipping Co. Source: Department of Transport and Communications and the Parliamentary Library. Senator HAMER —These numbers are very high. We have to remember that with Australian ships there is an obligation to provide at least two crews per ship, to provide six months leave per crew member. No other country has anything approaching that provision for leave. This makes for very expensive manning. These crew numbers of 26, 27 and 29 are also very high. In Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries the norm is about 20. Can the Minister give any further explanation of when we will get down to 20, which is what other countries at least as wealthy as we are are providing now? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(5.31) —I said that that will happen as soon as new ships come into the Australian trade. Senator Hamer —These were the replacement ships. Senator GARETH EVANS —When did they come into service? Senator Hamer —Last financial year. Senator GARETH EVANS —Is the honourable senator talking about the doubling-up factor or the base load of 20? Senator HAMER(Victoria)(5.32) —Perhaps I should explain. The table I was given was for the replacement ships that came on to the Australian coastal trade in 1986-87 and the crew levels are as I listed them. The table, which has been incorporated in Hansard, was provided by the Minister's Department. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(5.33) —That was for 1986-87. The Maritime Industry Development Committee level is to operate from 1987-88, I think. My shipping gun has just turned up and nods in accordance. That was the last year of an ancient regime. Revolutionary achievements will be forthcoming at a rapid rate of knots once we get into the new financial year. The only thing is that this is contingent upon some new ships coming into service. In the present environment, which I have described, it may be difficult in the immediately foreseeable future. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(5.34) —Perhaps when the Minister is answering those questions in detail, as I hope he will, he will refer at the same time to the six new technology ships which are much more economic to run and which were introduced in 1986-87. Perhaps, on notice, he would like to provide the crew levels for each of these six new technology ships and also which, if any, of these ships will receive financial assistance under any Federal government financial program. Senator Gareth Evans —I will take that on notice. Senator HAMER —I have nearly finished. I have two more lines of questioning then I will hand over to Senator Boswell, who I see is getting rather edgy in his seat. Some time ago we introduced regulations, which I moved to disallow, which give the required safety and health conditions on board foreign ships visiting Australia. I was alarmed to find that we had gone beyond what we were obliged to do by international standards and we had imposed some standards of our own in a fairly random way. I was concerned that these additional standards which are imposed on foreign ships trading in Australia, conditions with which they are not required to comply under international agreements, might be used to hamper and harass foreign ships visiting Australia. In the answer I was given to a question, I was referred to a number of disputes that have held up foreign ships visiting Australia. For instance, one ship, Sun Piers, from Panama, was banned in Fremantle because of the ship's unsafe condition. The ship was delayed while repairs were undertaken. I am sure the Minister cannot provide the answer now but, on notice, would he provide a list of all foreign ships detained in Australian ports for repairs under the new regulations, and what was the nature of the condition requiring the repairs to the ships? Senator Gareth Evans —I will take that on notice. Senator HAMER —I am interested in the modernisation of the ANL's fleet. Obviously aging ships are less efficient. Perhaps with more modern ships agreement could be reached to provide them with more reasonable crew numbers. Senator Walters —That might be 1988-89. Senator HAMER —Or it might be at some indefinite date in the future. We would really need action now; nevertheless it would be better in 1988-89 than never. But I will believe it when I see it. I would like elaboration on some comments in the written answer. One of the comments was: In general, however, ANL's policy is to re-equip and expand its fleet whenever commercial opportunities and prospects warrant such action. Later in the answer I was told: As the ANL replaces its existing fleet in accordance with industry agreements developed by the Maritime Industry Development Committee, considerable progress will be made towards increasing its international competitiveness in crew levels, crew costs and the amount of on-board work performed by ships' crews. That is the essence of what Senator Evans has said. In last year's ANL report Captain Bolitho, the Chairman, said: The average age of the ANL fleet, excluding vessels managed on behalf of other parties, exceeds ten years so that a very substantial fleet replacement program is necessary in the immediate future if ANL is to remain in business in the longer term. Is the Minister able to give any information about the intention and financial capacity of ANL to replace its aging fleet or will it continue to do what it appears to be doing now-shedding ships, rather than acquiring new ones? I even ask the Minister: Is ANL actually phasing out its shipping operations? If so, what will be the thrust of its operations in the future? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(5.36) —Senator Hamer has already put a question on notice about what the replacement program for ships in the ANL was, to which I responded by saying that that information was commercially sensitive and I was not prepared to divulge it publicly. All I can say to Senator Hamer is: good try. I am not prepared at this stage to divulge that information publicly. I will see what might be able to be said in the context of the current evaluation of all the government business enterprises in terms of relief from government constraints and things of this kind which may improve their commercial viability. I will do so also in the context of closer economic relations discussions that are proceeding over the next few months into 1988. Associated with that are some new commercial opportunities potentially arising in trans-Tasman shipping. Maybe further things could be said on the record at that stage but at the moment I am afraid I simply cannot add anything to what Senator Hamer has already been told. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(5.37) —Perhaps the Minister could add something on this point: Is the Government satisfied that ANL has the capital resources necessary to provide the essential modernisation of its fleet? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(5.38) —The Government is presently looking at that matter. ANL does not have much in the way of resources that it could find totally from internally generated revenue. That in itself would not be sufficient. The question is whether borrowings are enough or whether capital injections are needed here, as elsewhere, from the Government as a shareholder. That is one of the questions that, as I indicated a moment ago, I will be addressing over the next few months. It would be premature of me to make any concluded statement about that at this stage. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(5.39) —Tonight we are discussing the vote for the Department of Transport and Communications. This allows me to bring on some questions to which I need answers. In 1984 the Government, under the ministerial responsibility of Mr Peter Morris, promised that rural telephones would be installed by 1990. Telecom Australia backed up the Minister of the time and advised everyone that by 1990 everyone in rural Australia would have a telephone, that it would provide a first class service and there would be no party lines. I asked Senator Evans a question a couple of months ago about the 15,500 people who did not have remote telephones. Twelve thousand of these people are in Queensland and the remainder, I think, are in western New South Wales. The 1986 May mini-Budget imposed sales tax and import duties on Telecom. Telecom's response to save money was to cut out the rural telephone program. I have made inquiries of Telecom and it has told me that it would cost $25m to complete the program by 1990. The sales tax and import duties that the Government will collect by the decision taken in the May mini-Budget have netted the Government $380m. I warn Senator Evans-because I do not want him to get into the same trouble as did Mr Morris, the previous Minister for Transport-that it is no good coming into the Senate in 12 months time with mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, pleading that he is guilty and that he wants mercy. I am asking him now: If the Government receives $380m from its decision to impose sales tax and import duties on Telecom, why can the Government not allocate $25m from that amount received to give those people in rural and remote Australia their telephone services? These people will have to wait another five years. When they were told that they would get telephones by 1990 they let their own lines run down. The local exchanges have closed. They have bought computers which they cannot use. They have no subscriber trunk dialling available. There are up to 12 people on a party line. I tell Senator Evans that if one represents these people in Parliament sometimes one gets calls at 10 or 11 o'clock at night. One asks these people after they get one out of bed `Why don't you ring at a normal time?'. Their answer is, `There are 12 other people on the line trying to get out'. They cannot use the phone during the day because the congestion on the line is so heavy. They are forced to make all their telephone calls at a ridiculous hour of the night. The Government has spent $500m on the steel industry, $300m on the car industry and it has just kicked in $40m to prop up the coal industry because there is a New South Wales election coming on. Yet the Government cannot give $25m to allow rural people to have a telephone. Surely the Government must accept that if there is a government monopoly that imposes on it a responsibility to ensure that every Australian has a telephone. Every farmer is paying about $10,000 in tariff protection. There are 170,000 farmers paying tariffs. There are $1.7 billion in transfers from the country to prop up secondary industries in Melbourne and Sydney. Country people cannot get a telephone, they cannot get an air service because the Government has taken $7m off the inland air services of Queensland and they cannot get commercial television. What can they get? Very little from this Government. But when it comes to helping the Government's friends in the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), the Government supports the car industry, the steel industry and the coal industry. But it will not support the people who provide so many export dollars. I refer to a cutting I have taken out of the Australian newspaper, I think it was, of last Thursday. The article is entitled `Riding high again on the sheep's back'. It states that the wool industry has now become the top income earner in Australia, producing $5.2 billion in 1987-88. Yet the Government does not take any cognisance of what these people do for Australia. Our mineral and agricultural exports combined amount to at least 75 per cent of our total gross foreign earnings. Senator Panizza —It would be more than that. Senator BOSWELL —In net terms agriculture alone accounts for 60 per cent of our export income. I know that Senator Panizza, who is a rural producer from Western Australia, is concerned about this too. I do not know whether people in Western Australia have the same problem with rural telephones. The Government will not even give these people an opportunity to run a business. They cannot make telephone calls except at night. The lines are down most of the time and this leads to inefficiency. A promise is a promise. The Government made the promise in 1984 and it has not kept it. It has also taken $7m from rural air services in Queensland and that has resulted in Australian Airlines pulling out. It also resulted in a number of smaller companies pulling out of air routes in western Queensland. Of course, the Queensland Government had to step in and prop up an inferior air service. The planes are smaller. I am pleased to say that Talair, the company that took over the service, is providing a reasonable service but certainly not a service comparable with the previous one. If it had not been for the Queensland Government the people would have had no service. I would like to know whether Senator Evans feels some sort of responsibility to provide these people with an air service because of their contribution to the economy of this nation. If he does, would he be prepared to join the Queensland Government in providing a subsidy, perhaps on a dollar for dollar basis? Senator Evans on 2 June said that everyone would receive the remote commercial television service. When I asked him on 23 October when it would come in, he expressed regret. I have his answer before me. Senator Evans may express regret but I do not think his sympathy will go a long way with the 100,000 rural and remote people in northern and western New South Wales and western Queensland who have only one television service, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation service. On three counts the Government has failed miserably the rural and primary producers of Australia. It has a two-tier policy, one for its friends in the ACTU and one-a totally opposite policy-for the primary producers of Australia. The Government has given $500m to the steel industry, $300m to the car industry-that is $800m-and $40m to the coal industry. Yet it cannot provide $25m to give everyone in rural Australia a telephone service. Getting back to the remote television service, the Queensland Government through Q-Net will subsidise Parry Corporation Ltd to the tune of $3.5m. Because of this Government's procrastination, it has now forced the Queensland Government into doing its work. Despite the fact that it reduced the Queensland Government Budget by $172m or 6.3 per cent of taxation allocations, this Government is making the Queensland Government shoulder this Government's responsibility. I again ask the Minister whether he is prepared to honour his commitment that he made on 2 June and go in on a dollar for dollar basis to assist the Queensland Government in giving rural Queensland a commercial television service. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(5.49) —I will quickly respond to Senator Boswell. I think he has been a little rough on me in all the circumstances although he made a good drum beating performance on behalf of his rural constituency. As to the telephone issue, he asks the Commonwealth Government to spend $25m to bring to fruition the rural telephone program which was previously anticipated. That is being delivered through Telecom Australia itself rather than from the Budget, and it is not reasonable to ask the Commonwealth to take advantage of the $380m, or whatever the figure was, that we derived from Telecom in the last Budget, because that money was directed towards bringing the deficit back to balance and securing the obvious macroeconomic advantages that the Australian economy needed from that. If we had had $25m to spend here and there and had been able to do so consistently with that larger policy objective, we would have been very happy to accelerate this program, but it is something that, in all the circumstances, it is not reasonable to ask us to do. These decisions are essentially ones for Telecom. It is being freed up and is operating on a more commercial basis, even though it has had these additional charges placed upon it. I remain hopeful that it can complete the program in question within a reasonable time. All this should be put against the context that metropolitan telephone subscribers already cross-subsidise rural subscribers to the tune of at least $600m to $700m a year. The precise amount of that cross-subsidy is a matter for argument, I suppose, but it is unquestionably of that order of magnitude. It is not a matter of the rest of the Australian community or the Parliament or the Government turning their backs on the rural producers who do so much for this country; it is a matter of recognising, as Senator Boswell in honesty and fairness should, that there is already a massive subsidy to those people and commercial entities. I am not saying for a moment that that cross-subsidy is not deserved or justified. It is one of the things that Telecom exists to do. It is one of the things that would be very much at risk if the Opposition policy of privatising Telecom were to take root. It is not something that we have been prepared even to contemplate, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has made manifestly clear. The cross-subsidy and the community service obligations at large of Telecom are a crucial part of its social responsibility, and that should be acknowledged in any debate on these matters. So far as air services are concerned, it is a matter for regret that Australian Airlines had to terminate its involvement in the Air Queensland operation, formerly Bush Pilots Airways, and I know that that has created some difficulties on certain routes in Queensland. These again are matters that one regrets, but if commercial imperatives are to drive these business enterprises, as the Opposition constantly urges that they should, they are just the sorts of hard decisions that sometimes have to be made. I remain confident, particularly in the kind of deregulated environment to which we are moving, that it will be possible for operators to run successful commercial operations, perhaps with less ambitious equipment in some instances than was the case with Air Queensland on a number of these routes. Provided that there is any chance at all of their viability being ensured, that will happen. Beyond that, it is difficult for me to make any comment about the matter. I was a little perturbed by Senator Boswell's opening lines about the remote commercial television service as it affected his remote Queensland constituents, because he seemed, at least in those opening remarks, to be totally oblivious to the fact that, as I hoped would happen, the relinquishing licensee has successfully sold the interest in the company in question to the Parry Corporation Ltd. It is true that the Queensland Government has indicated a willingness to assist in a way that is appropriate; although not to the tune of $3.5m. Senator Boswell has already added $1m to what I remember Minister McKechnie saying only a week or two ago was the offer. I do not know whether everything else exaggerates in the telling on quite that scale or whether it is just a congenital disposition of Senator Boswell to stretch a yarn a point or two. We have been asked to look at ways in which we can help this service along. I am certainly doing that in the context of possible extensions of the audience reach of the satellite in question, so as to give a larger advertising revenue base than would otherwise be the case. Whether we should be able to go beyond that-on the assumption that we will go even that far-is something that raises difficult policy questions in which I cannot imagine Senator Boswell will be terribly interested, because they extend on a national scale and are not confined to Queensland. If we get into the business of subsidising, one particular remote commercial television service (RCTS) operator will immediately be confronted with similar demands from Impaja Television in central Australia, and perhaps from the Golden West Networks Ltd, operators of RCTS in Western Australia, as well. I know that that sort of thing would leave Senator Boswell profoundly unmoved because it extends beyond his backyard, but it is not the sort of thing about which I can be unmoved. Even if it were a responsible budgetary or economic management practice to fork out further subsidies of the kind for which he is asking, while in the same breath belabouring the Government for squandering the money here and there, there are standing in the way policy difficulties which the Queensland Government is entirely familiar with and which I have made known to Mr McKechnie in the many dealings I have had with him on this subject. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.56) —I would like to ask questions about the charges that are made for landings at primary airports and two or three other airports around Australia. I understand that a review of these charges is going on and I would like to know what stage it has reached. The development of aerial tourist sightseeing has been quite significant in Queensland in the last five years, all the way from Cairns to the border, the Whitsunday group, and particularly at Coolangatta, the Gold Coast airport, which is the only one where these charges apply. They are running at a high level and are causing quite a problem to the operators who are operating commercially out of there. I instance the case of one operator who contacted me in the immediate past. He pays $13.73 per landing, which is made up of a $7.04 airport movement charge and a $4.05 terminal navigation charge. One can understand that in general, but in the particular case here, the operator never being out of sight of the field, it is a bit much. There is also $2.64 for the rescue and fire fighting levy, bringing it up to nearly $14 per landing. That $14 does not sound very much but, looked at in aggregate, on that basis the operator paid in July and August over $4,000 in charges for each month. September was not a terribly good month and he paid just below $2,000 but, on his projection, he will be paying the Department $5,000 in December for landing rights at his home airfield. That is on the basis of doing only eight flights a day. There are in the industry competitors who operate from private fields on the Gold Coast, and they do not meet these overheads. In addition to paying these charges, which can be of the magnitude of $5,000 a month, he pays 3.9c a litre extra for avgas-a charge which the Department has recently imposed in lieu of levying air navigation charges. Behind that is the basic excise that we pay on avgas. I do not know what it runs at now, but I guess that it would be the same as that on motor spirit, about 22c or 23c. On every litre, the operator is paying around 26c in excise. Those operating out of the Gold Coast airport are paying heavily. This operator who is paying $14 per landing on the basis of about eight flights a day charges $35 a seat and has a two-seat aircraft, so his maximum income per flight is $70. An impost of $14 on a $70 return is an impost of 20 per cent and the margins in the operation are just not there. I have never operated aircraft commercially. I have unfortunately never made a claim against the Australian Taxation Office for operating them, but I have owned and operated aircraft for over 20 years, and I know quite a bit about the industry-and the margins do not permit an impost like that. I believe that those operators serve a very useful function for the tourist industry. Queensland has a very big tourist trade, a large part of which involves overseas travel. We can offer people coming to the State a variety of entertainment. This matter is getting to the crucial stage and I would welcome any advice from the Minister. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(6.00) —I have been conscious of this problem since early in my occupancy of this portfolio. The problem was that a proposal that landing charges not apply at three airports-Launceston, Essendon and Coolangatta-was not supported by the relevant industry associations in the context of the general changes that were introduced some months ago, the reason being that a higher avgas fuel surcharge would have been necessary to recover the revenue forgone. The rest of the industry was not very happy to subsidise what it saw as the differential advantages accruing to the operators at those high standard facility airports. Nonetheless, it quickly became apparent that there was a very serious financial penalty associated with those operators, many of which were very small and many of which were running little tourist operations or small flying schools and so on of the kind to which Senator MacGibbon referred. It has become apparent that there is a very substantial and quite disproportionate financial burden being borne by them. We have tried to get a consultative solution to this matter with the industry and it is now the case that at least two of the relevant industry associations have changed their position and support a higher avgas surcharge being generally applicable in order to cover costs. There is still some disagreement within the industry and it is now a matter for the Government as to whether or not, notwithstanding that disagreement, we will increase the surcharge or take some other step-other mechanisms have been proposed to alleviate the situation-to solve the problem. It has been the subject of discussion as recently as the last 48 hours between myself and my ministerial colleague who is handling this matter. I believe that it will be possible to make in the next few days an announcement which will be regarded, certainly by the operators at those airports and, hopefully, most of the industry, if not all, as satisfactory. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(6.03) —I raise another matter in relation to the Department of Transport and Communications. I received a notam dated 7 June 1984 about the activation of military low jet routes. The publication of low jet routes was suspended at about that time; that is, 1984. This is a matter of some importance. The notam that promulgated this said: Central Office is in the process of producing a complete re-issue of AIP-LJR. This document will be in a new format and distribution would not be completed before late 1985. It is now getting pretty late in 1987 and I am not aware that anything has been done. Can we have some advice as to when that document will be produced? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(6.04) —I will have to take that question on notice. I am afraid that I cannot answer it now. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.04) —On 18 November the Minister indicated that the location of the Aviation Central Training College may be subjected to further internal discussions and that there may not be a place for it in Canberra. Does the Minister have any further information on that? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(6.05) —I gave a further answer on that matter a day or two after Senator Reid's original question to me, which simply retailed some of the history of the matter, the reasons it was being considered by the Government, and I indicated that it should be possible to make some announcement within the next week or two. That is certainly my intention. Beyond that, I am afraid that there is nothing I can say at this stage. Senator Walters —Will it before the Senate rises on 18 December? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is certainly my intention, yes. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(6.05) —I wish to return to the debate on the Amann Aviation Pty Ltd contract. I begin by drawing the Committee's attention to page 10 of the Menzies report on the Review of Tender Procedures for the Coastwatch Contract, which was brought down the other day. The report states: Recognized risk analysis techniques are available, but in the ultimate, it falls to the decision maker to decide what is an acceptable risk to the Commonwealth. We have established in the contract debate so far that there was an unholy mess in the then Department of Transport regarding the issuing of the contract and the investigations that led to that. That has been well acknowledged by the Government and that was the reason the Menzies committee was established. The committee brought down a report in line with its terms of reference. The terms of reference did not include questions as to ministerial involvement and ministerial decisions that might have been taken, or indeed any investigations by Ministers that they may have undertaken during the process of deciding on the issue of the contract. I point out to the Minister that the contract was originally granted on 12 March this year. Some weeks later-I think on 23 April-the Department apparently acceded to a change in the aircraft that Amann was to use under the contract. It was established at the outset that a certain type of aircraft would be provided by Amann to undertake the surveillance service, but that was subsequently changed. As I understand it, the original aircraft was not available. I do not wish to go into the detail of the complaints about the second type of aircraft; I merely observe that the second aircraft adopted and agreed to by the Department had substantially different engines. I understand that they were turbine rather than piston driven aircraft and that that may have led to increased cost of operation, raising substantial questions as to the viability of the contract and the tender price by Amann. Senator Michael Baume —Particularly as there was only a one per cent margin. Senator MESSNER —As Senator Baume points out, there was only a one per cent margin. I think that Mr Menzies also referred to that in his report. As the changes occurred after the date on which the contract was granted, I ask the Minister whether Ministers had their attention drawn to the changes by the departmental offices and, if so, at what time their attention was drawn to those matters. I can understand that it might not have been something that departmental officers wished to draw to the attention of Ministers, because obviously it would have displayed some kind of weakness in their judgment. If those matters were not drawn to the attention of the Minister, why were they not drawn to his attention? Conversely, I would like to know what advice was sought by the Minister as to the progress of the work that was going forward while the contract was being set up; that is, from the time the contract was granted, what inquiries were made of the Department by the Minister as to the progress that was being made towards getting aircraft into the air by the required date? It seems to me that nowhere in the course of our inquiries so far has there been any indication of any exchange between the Department and the Minister, who at that stage was Mr Morris, as to the progress of the implementation of the contract by Amann. I want to know why that was so and I seek information as to what transpired between the Department and the Minister at that time. I raise that because, during the questioning of the Minister and of the Department in the Estimates Committee on 19 October this year, in response to a question which I had addressed to the Minister-I refer to page B85 of Estimates Committee B-the Minister said: It may have raised questions- and we are talking there about the question of certain changes that occurred in the contract- . . . it undoubtedly did-in people's minds. The Minister goes on to say: It did in the Minister's mind. But the truth is that the Minister, the Department and the Commonwealth were quite unable in strict legal terms to terminate the contract at that point. I reiterate the point, Mr Chairman, that at that stage during the Estimates Committee proceedings Minister Evans revealed to the Senate that, in fact, there had been questions as to the viability of Amann in the Minister's mind. I refer back to the questions that I addressed to the Minister a little earlier to discover what exchanges did occur between the Department and the Minister on the various stages of implementation of the contract. That appears to me to be the vital link which has not yet been satisfied in this whole saga and on which the Opposition certainly seeks a reply from the Minister at this time. It is also useful to observe that, during the processes that were then occurring-that is, the various inquiries and discussions that were going on between Amann, the Department and various officers, whether in New South Wales or in other places-we were making inquiries of Minister Gietzelt in this place about the deficiencies in the contract and in the operator's performance; and yet we in the Opposition were at that time being accused of introducing material that was defamatory; we were accused of all sorts of improper motives, of being stool pigeons for the Skywest company in Western Australia; and we were generally blackguarded by the Government for genuinely trying to raise legitimate questions. We now have the situation that the Minister has admitted all the deficiencies which we disclosed at that time and about which we raised questions. Of course, no apology has been made to the Liberal and National parties for having been so blackguarded in such an unfair manner by Senator Gietzelt at that time. Certainly, we do not expect apologies in this business; but the fact is that we were proven right. I bring myself back to the point made by Mr Menzies at page 10 of his report where he said-and I quote it for the Minister's attention. Recognized risk analysis techniques are available, but in the ultimate, it falls to the decision maker to decide what is an acceptable risk to the Commonwealth. In the end, that is the vital question. It is the Minister who takes responsibility for all matters concerning the finalisation and implementation of the contract. The point I seek to make is simply that information was available to the Minister's Department about the progress of the implementation of that contract. The Minister was in charge, as Mr Menzies has pointed out in his report. I therefore ask. What information did transfer between the Department and the Minister and vice versa, what questions were asked by the Minister during this phase, and what was the conclusion reached by the Minister about the state of progress of the implementation of the contract? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(6.15) —I suppose it was inevitable that Senator Messner would join the ranks of the floggers of dead and wounded horses in this matter. It is a pity that he wants to occupy the very scarce time of this chamber on matters that can obviously be pursued through the Senate committee to which this matter has been referred. Nevertheless, I will endeavour to answer him as best I can. The finding on this matter of the Menzies inquiry is best summarised on page 74: Amann's inquiry on 19 February 1987 whether he could use a different type of aircraft for the service was treated more lightly than it should have been. He should not have been informed orally that he could, subject only to the requirement that the aircraft met performance specifications. Such a proposal required full financial investigation. That is not disputed; but it is disputed and will continue to be disputed that the change of aircraft, albeit insufficiently examined, in itself could have given grounds for the termination of the contract. To think so is to miss the point about the nature of this contract. It was not for the supply of particular, specified goods; it was for the supply of particular, specified services-services pursuant to a standard of performance that was set out in the tender document. Provided that the aircraft met those performance standards, there was no ground for thinking that the change of aircraft would in itself change the basic ground rules of the contract and thus provide a basis for termination. That is what I have said consistently on this matter. That is the truth of the matter and I am sure that is how it would have appeared had any Minister at the time given attention to this matter. I am not briefed as to what transpired between the Minister and the Department or the Minister's office and the Department, except that my brief is quite silent on the matter. I believe all relevant documentation has been tabled. There has been no attempt to conceal anything of this kind in that documentation. If Senator Messner has not been able to turn up anything in it, he is welcome to pursue the matter further in the Committee, as no doubt he will be inclined to do. I am not in a position to give an absolutely confident statement about this because I am not fully briefed, but for what it is worth my understanding is that there were only questions asked from time to time by the Minister's office on the progress of the contract, and the issue was not squarely brought to the attention of the Minister-certainly not brought to his attention in a way that would have raised questions about the credibility of the whole likelihood of the contract being performed. So that is really what it boils down to. I have no reason whatsoever to suppose, on the basis of the briefing and the documentation and everything else that I have seen, that there was any particular ministerial involvement in this matter. The more important point I make is that, even if the Minister had been aware of the change in aircraft, that in itself would not have given him grounds to act. To the extent that there was a failure to follow through the financial implications and to test in detail the question of whether the trade-off to which I previously referred between maintenance reliability and higher fuel costs and so on really involved net gains or losses, that question should have been followed up; but, to the extent that it was not and that there was not a full financial examination of the implications of that, that was merely a compounding of earlier errors in the process rather than some brand new and exciting error being added to the list. If the people administering this tender approached it wrongly with the view that all they had to be satisfied about was that the price was lower than anybody else's price and that the performance criteria were satisfied on the face of the material before them, they also should have acknowledged a responsibility to thoroughly evaluate the likelihood of the whole performance of the contract being followed through. If they did not do that properly in relation to the earlier stage of the contract, it can hardly come as a surprise that they did not do it when the question of variation arose. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.20) —I wish to raise with the Minister several matters not on the same topic but matters in which I have taken an interest recently. I asked a question about the staff and those who had been offered jobs with the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC). The Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) may recall that I pointed out to him that some members of his Department were unhappy with the situation. His answer was that a certain number of them were to be offered jobs, but the ones about whom I am particularly concerned are those not being offered jobs with the FAC. Those people are concerned to learn about their future and whether they will still be in the Department, or lose their jobs. The other matter I raise concerns the future of the aviation college. It is apparent that discussions were going on last week with the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, Mr Duncan, concerning a matter that had already been determined-that the college would be in the national capital where it should be for good and proper reasons that have been determined by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works-only to find that behind our backs somebody was busily trying to overturn that decision. It is important that these facilities should be in Canberra so that we can extend the range of opportunities for our young people. I want to know what is going on; what was the outcome of the meetings that took place last week? Is the Minister now in a position to confirm that the aviation college will be in the national capital, where it should be? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(6.21) —I am not in a position to say any more on the subject than I did in my second answer last week. Discussions are still proceeding. A time was specified within which another interested party, a Tasmanian college, could put some detailed proposals to the Government. That time has not yet expired. I am proposing to have a meeting on the subject early next week. Senator Reid —With whom? Senator GARETH EVANS —All relevant people in my Department and my ministerial colleague, to talk through the issues and make some judgment on the pros and cons of standing firm on the existing decision that had previously been made, or whether there should be some change of course. I appreciate that it is necessary to have the matter quickly resolved once and for all. I hope it will be quickly resolved. I can say no more about it. I am inclined to let Senator Reid and Senator Walters slug it out themselves, and let the decision be made on the basis on which of the two is left standing. It would make my life a lot easier in a number of respects if that were to happen. Some interesting questions that need to be addressed by the Government in the public interest have been raised, and I propose to do so before proceeding straight away with those issues in respect of what is manifestly an expensive project. I understand the interest of Senator Reid and Senator Walters in this matter and a number of other people also have an interest in it. I am conscious of that and will try, as always, to do the right thing by the Australian people. The second question concerned the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) staffing arrangements. I understand the concerns that are continuing to be felt by a number of officers of my Department who are uncertain about their long term future as a result of the decision taken to establish the FAC in Sydney, which has been the primary cause of the difficulty, and the relocation associated with that. All I can say on that subject matter is that I am conscious of their concerns. I have taken careful note of the correspondence I have received from them as well as Senator Reid's interest in the matter. Ongoing discussions are taking place, which I hope will produce an outcome that is not too unsatisfactory for everyone concerned. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(6.24) —Mr Temporary Chairman, I was wondering whether, with your indulgence, I could get the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) to answer a specific question on Telecom Australia. I refer the Minister to an answer that he gave to Senator Boswell about the inability of Telecom to supply telephones to outback areas, as was promised in 1984. The Minister referred to cross-subsidisation of country areas by metropolitan areas. I ask the Minister: What would the net result be if the metropolitan areas were changed to the system of charging telephone calls by time for every three or five minutes or so? For example, besides the idle telephone calls that occur every day on a three-minute charge, there is proliferation of computers that can hook on to a line from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on a three-minute call with only one charge being made. I would like the Minister to respond to that position. Another point concerning outback areas relates especially to places where telephones are not available but two-way radios on the high frequency range are used. The Government has taken a big increase in licence fees over the past few years, mainly because of the fact that although the licence fee has not increased very much, the Government has charged on the base set by frequencies. It is now $185 each year for a licence for each frequency, so two frequencies amounts to $370. If a third frequency is needed, a person is up for another $185 and for a fifth frequency he is up for five times that amount. A multitude of frequencies is needed because up to a distance of 100 miles a certain frequency is needed. For the next 300 miles a further frequency is required, and up in the extremely long distance area, something like nine megawatts is useless when a person is in close. I ask the Minister why such an exorbitant fee was imposed on each frequency for outback areas, and specifically why there has been a charge for the privilege of having a frequency on the Royal Flying Doctor Service, which is regarded as a service to people in case of emergencies or accidents. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(6.27) —I shall take on notice the questions about the basis of the charges that have been set for radio licence fees of the kind referred to by Senator Panizza. It is part of the general cost recovery exercise that Telecom Australia has embarked upon, together with just about everyone else in the community. The Government has been concerned to maximise its revenue from a whole variety of sources that ideally it would have liked to have been a little more lenient with. I shall take on notice what Senator Panizza said about people with multiple licences to ascertain whether I can provide some better rationale for those fees. In respect of the timing of local calls, it is generally acknowledged that there are some real problems with the untimed local calls, given the increasing usage for computer hook-ups of this kind. One has only to see the recent advertisement that was circulated widely in newspapers and magazines about how, for the price of a single local call, one could send across town a huge 12-foot pile of facsimile paper. I am sure that can be done if one plugs into the telephone and lets rip all day and night, and some people are doing that. As part of the general consideration of pricing structures and revenue streams and the way in which the subsidies balance out, Telecom has been looking at this issue. I understand that an announcement on the subject indicating the intentions of what might be able to be done in this respect is imminent. Beyond that it would be premature for me to make any judgment, although the whole point of any imposition of any call charge and the many different ways in which that can be done, with many different kinds of impacts will, I hope, be fully explored before any system is introduced. One of the necessary corollaries of that is that shorter local calls will be cheaper. A potential corollary is that some of the STD charges for longer distance calls might be modified as well. I am not sure whether that is so, whether it is part of the package or whether it will stay as it is, timed as they are, and the charge will be only in respect of local calls. All of those issues obviously will give scope for flexibility and Telecom is very closely considering this matter. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(8.00) —At one stage before dinner we were discussing the Estimates Committee Hansard of 19 October 1987 in which the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) indicated that the former Minister for Aviation, Mr Morris, had in his mind some information as to the state of play concerning the Amann Aviation Pty Ltd contract and the likely inability of Mr Amann to complete the contract. We had some response from the Minister before dinner on that point when he indicated that there had been some communication between Minister Morris's office and the then Department of Transport as to the state of play with Mr Amann. This is an important point to note because up until now we have not had any indication that information concerning the state of play as to whether Mr Amann had the ability to continue or complete the contract had been communicated to the Minister's office. In fact, we had been led to understand that the Minister was completely in the dark in regard to the situation concerning Mr Amann's contract and, consequently, was not able to exercise any decision-making capacity in respect of the termination of the contract or otherwise. Having noted that, I would like to draw the Committee's attention to the situation that I think reveals itself in the course of events over the couple of months surrounding the time at which the contract was first granted to Mr Amann. Firstly, the contract was granted on 12 March 1987. Around about 21 March an interview with Mr Amann was conducted by the New South Wales Regional Inspector of the then Department of Aviation into Mr Amann's ability to continue and complete the contract. Many matters came to light as a result of that interview that displayed a very great lack on the part of Amann Aviation to be able to complete the coastwatch contract. About a month after that, on 23 April as far as we know, Amann Aviation advised the then Department of Aviation that it intended to change the type of aircraft that it would use for surveillance purposes. We know that in the original tender documentation the aircraft specified was a piston-driven aircraft. The new type of aircraft which Mr Amann advised the Department that he would utilise thereafter was a turbine-driven aircraft. It is well known that these two types of aircraft have different levels of performance and, consequently, the second type of aircraft may not have been able to perform the same functions as the first. Some time elapsed while the Department apparently gave consideration to whether or not the second type of aircraft would be adequate for the surveillance contract. As I understand it, from information that the Minister tabled in the Senate at an earlier time, there is a record of a conversation between a Mr Reece, who is Minister Morris's senior private secretary, and a Mr Richardson in the Department, concerning a letter that Amann received from the Department of Aviation which ended: Mr Reece asked me to express the Minister's grave concern- I repeat `grave concern'- at Amann's ability to fulfil his contractual obligations and the danger of a subjective view being taken of the ability to carry out the task. That occurred on 21 May 1987, about one month following the time when application was made by Mr Amann for the change of aircraft. The point I wish to draw to the Committee's attention is that obviously there was communication between the Minister's office and the Department, and Minister Evans did admit that before dinner. The second point that ought to be made is that, that communication having occurred, the indication was that Minister Morris at that time was expressing grave concerns as to the future of the contract. We already know, by way of evidence given to the Estimates Committee by Minister Evans, that, indeed, there were matters of concern about the contract in the mind of the then Minister for Aviation. We can only assume that that started some time before 21 May 1987. Yet, we find that the Department was quite happy to go along with the arrangement that the new aircraft be allowed to be operated by Amann. The point I am making here is a simple one: Minister Morris, having been aware of the difficulties of the contract-the aircraft change was discussed within the Department and apparently approved between 23 April and 21 May-had an opportunity to stop the contract at that point by refusing the change of aircraft to be undertaken by Amann. The point is quite simple: the Minister had the power at that point to refuse the carrying on of the contract from that point. The question that has to be asked is: Why was not action taken at that time to stop the contract by refusing to allow the change of aircraft? It is in this respect that Minister Evans's defence on that issue falls to the ground. If we accept the point that that request could have been refused at that time, the defence of Minister Evans, who has apparently relied on the point that no action could have been taken until 12 September 1987 when the contract apparently expired, falls to the ground. I believe that the Minister has to satisfy the Senate and the people of Australia, and certainly the Liberal and National parties, that Minister Morris did not know of any of these matters and that he did not convey to the Department his grave concern about the future of the contract. If he did have that grave concern, why did he not take immediate action to stop the progress of the contract at that vital moment? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(8.09) —We have heard such a farrago of misconceptions and misapprehensions-I will not say that what was said was deliberately misleading because I do not think Senator Messner could help himself-that I do not really know where to start. However, let me begin with some of the opening assertions. Senator Messner said that there had been some suggestion made previously or some intimation given previously that the Minister was kept completely in the dark about the progress under the contract, such that he was not able to exercise any decision-making with respect to the termination of the contract. After the contract was awarded and in particular after the meeting on 21 March with the regional aviation inspector which, as I have constantly said-I do not know whether Senator Messner was in the chamber each time-jangled some alarm bells, there is no doubt that there was some concern expressed and felt in the Minister's office and by the Minister himself thereafter, concern which had certainly not been expressed or felt up until the time of the tender being granted, the contract being awarded, in effect, on 12 March because, as we have constantly said, the Ministers then were not fully apprised in any significant way as to the doubts and problems that might arise in relation to this contract. But after 12 March, and in particular after that meeting on 21 March, a number of grounds arose at a number of subsequent times that did give arise to that concern. The concern had risen to a crescendo by the time I came into the job in July and August looking ahead at the contract date of 12 September. But concern had obviously arisen, with the history of slippage of performance against the sort of tentative dates-they can be described as no other than that-that had been identified progressively by Amann Aviation Pty Ltd as the start-up dates for particular aircraft in particular places. There is no question at any stage, nor is it remotely being denied, that there was some monitoring of the situation going on in the Minister's office and that there was some degree of concern. That concern, I think, probably waxed and waned over that period. There was certainly a very considerable amount of genuine confidence within the Department itself, as I understand it, that, notwithstanding the various difficulties that kept being encountered, the ultimate start-up date would be met. No doubt some of that infectious enthusiasm also carried itself from time to time into the Minister's office and perhaps into some of the answers that were given in the chamber. There is no doubt that concern was expressed and it does no service to Senator Messner's political cause to wave triumphantly the minute of 21 May that I tabled in this place. There is a reference there to Mr Reece, Mr Morris's secretary, asking Mr Richardson to express the Minister's grave concern at Amann's ability to fulfil its contractual obligations. Of course there was concern. The question is: What could the Minister do by way of translating that concern into termination of the contract? Senator Messner —Couldn't he have refused? Senator GARETH EVANS —The short point is that he could not do anything. It is the judgment that he made at the time on advice. It is the judgment I made. I had concerns of my own when I came into this job on 24 July and was briefed about it a couple of weeks later as to where it was at. I had concerns. I looked at the possibility of terminating the contract against the history of the performance up until then and I made exactly the same judgment as he made, that it was not an essential term of the contract-- Senator Messner —This was before the change of aircraft was agreed to by the Department. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Messner has utterly failed to understand what this particular contract was all about. This contract was about the supply of services. It was merely incidental to the essential terms of that contract how those services would be delivered. Provided the aircraft in question were capable of performing the particular requirements that were set out in the contract, it did not matter-in terms of the strict letter, the strict terms, the essential terms, the fundamental terms, if you like, of the contract, a breach of which would entitle one to terminate the contract-which aircraft were flown, whether it was Tiger Moths or the Concorde. It did not matter, provided the operator could satisfy the performance criteria. Obviously only a limited range of aircraft manifestly were capable of performing, but clearly the turboprops that were finally chosen and the original piston-engine aircraft were each equally capable of performing the task. We have acknowledged that there should have been greater investigation as to the financial implications, but prima facie there was no reason why anyone would have supposed that that would make the contract non-performable in the terms in which it was originally entered into. There was an interjection earlier from another quarter of the Opposition which suggested that there was no contract at all at that stage. Of course, there is no formalised contract entered into to fully embody and lay out in systematic form all the particular terms that have been agreed to at various stages along the way. But there was, of course, an enforceable contract that was entered into once one had the basic elements of the offer, the acceptance, the consideration and so on involved in the submission of the tender and the Commonwealth's acceptance of that. Nobody has ever doubted but that there was a contract. A lot of people have taken the view-I have certainly shared it myself-that that should have been translated into a formal, clean contractual document embodying all the subsequent variations as to the particular clauses and so on that occurred along the way. But there was a contract. It was a contract which the Commonwealth was bound by. It was a contract which could not be terminated unilaterally by the Commonwealth, except at the risk of paying very considerable damages, unless the contract was breached. The difficulty about the way in which the contract had evolved was that no particular firm test of breach was available up until 12 September, or very close to it, when it became apparent, I suppose a few days before 12 September, that it was wholly unlikely that the strict letter of the contract was going to be carried through; and notice was accordingly given of the Commonwealth's intention to terminate there and then on 12 September unless it was observed. But one could not make that judgment right back at the end of March; one could not make that judgment in April; and one could not make that judgment in May. The pre-conditions were simply not there. It is a total misunderstanding of the position in which the Commonwealth found itself, with the particular terms of the contract that it had before it, to think that, with all the concern in the world, that concern could have been translated into action to terminate the contract. That is the truth of the matter. What I have said has been absolutely consistent in this place, publicly and in every other way since the very first day that this matter got into the public domain or that it involved me. Really I just cannot understand-unless Senator Messner has just completely misapprehended the basic points in issue here-as to why he should be going off with such confidence down a totally blind alley. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.18) —I did not propose to come back into this debate, but having listened to Senator Evans for the last few minutes I really am impelled to do so. What appals me about this whole exercise is this: where does this leave the Commonwealth Government, which is dependent to a large extent upon a Public Service that does not seem to be able in this case to do its job and upon Ministers who certainly cannot do their job either? This whole exercise comes back to Ministers who do not investigate, ask questions about and probe whether they are getting advice which gives them grave concern, which Mr Morris clearly felt by the middle of May. Senator Michael Baume —And after being nagged by us. Senator DURACK —Nagged by everybody. I made it clear this afternoon that by 18 March, that is, five days after the contract was let, the whole world was crying out about this contract. Not just the Opposition and Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd were trying to pressure the Commonwealth; it was everybody. The Minister and his departmental advisers knew that something was radically wrong with what had occurred. It was known to be radically wrong by 18 March. In fact, only a short time after that, as revealed by a minute from Mr Beale which Senator Evans tabled in this Parliament some time ago, it was quite clear that the Department of Aviation knew what was wrong with this contract. It may well be that the Department of Aviation had some responsibility because it did not properly brief its representative on the Tender Assessment Committee and it certainly was guilty of a number of failings. At least the New South Wales official of the Department, the regional director, realised within a very short time-long before the minutes about which the Minister was concerned-that something was radically wrong with this whole exercise. So from the end of March or early April the potential failure of this contract clearly was known to all the world. Over and again we are getting evidence of how all the world knows what is wrong with something except the Commonwealth Government and its Minister. It is a pathetic revelation of what is wrong and it goes right to the very heart of Commonwealth administration. In the minute that Senator Evans has already tabled we had some revelations, even within the Commonwealth Public Service, of what was wrong with this contract. As Senator Messner has already mentioned, this even percolated through to the then Minister for Aviation, Mr Peter Morris, who up until this stage was on the public record as saying that nothing was wrong with it, that everything had gone off according to Hoyle and all the rest of it. But by May we had not only the revelation that everybody else had seen that this was a shonky show but also the Minister and his senior private secretary and some senior members of at least one of the departments had realised that this whole exercise was going to be a failure. It is in this context that the contractor seeks to change the aircraft, to change a term of the contract. Now we have involved academic lawyers like Senator Evans, who I suppose did not even lecture in contracts. He certainly never practised in contracts because anybody who has had any experience in commercial law would know that the exercise is not one of pure legal theory. It is a question of what people may be able to prove as damages. It is a question of what people believe in the end will be commercially justifiable or acceptable, not of some pure theory of law-or some academic lawyer that states that there is no contractual obligation until September. It is a question of the advice given in the reality of the commercial world and in commercial law, because commercial law is not as remote as Senator Evans thinks. It is a question of how people will react to a particular situation. Here we have a situation where a new aircraft is required. If Mr Amann could not have got a new aircraft it would have thrown his plans into utter confusion. He would not have been able to proceed with his plans and he might have sued the Commonwealth for breach of contract. But he had already said that he did not want to make any profits out of this contract. What would have been the point of suing the Commonwealth, at great expense-because lots of legal arguments would have been available to both sides-for breach of a contract out of which a person did not intend to make a profit? The argument that Senator Evans has been advancing here is just ludicrous. The Commonwealth had Mr Amann over a barrel and it was too stupid, too ignorant and too helpless to do a thing about it. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(8.24) —I want to raise a couple of matters which have nothing to do with the Amann Aviation Pty Ltd fiasco. I want in particular to refer the Committee first of all briefly to the report to the Senate of Estimates Committee B as there were some complaints about the manner in which this new program budgeting arrangement was presented to honourable senators during Senate Estimates committee hearings. The report states: . . . a number of Senators found the new format hard to follow. These difficulties were exacerbated by the restructuring of departments and the fact that components of some Departments-such as the elements of the former Department of Aviation within the Transport and Communications portfolio-and some statutory authorities retain the old appropriation format. I hope that the Government is taking note of this objection from the Committee. There is no doubt that there were difficulties in dealing effectively with departments during the Senate estimates because of the changed format. As was pointed out in the debate on the estimates considered by Estimates Committee A, some of these changes involved a reduction in the information available rather than an increase in or a simplification of the system. I mention in passing that Estimates Committee B also identified one major concern in relation to the new program budgeting format. I quote from the report, which states: Although the intention is to identify the true cost of particular programs by aggregating all elements of expenditure in practice the allocation of Departmental responsibilities prevents this. In particular the costs of purchase and construction or rental of buildings all come out of the appropriations of the Department of Administrative Services. This arrangement is apparently under review . . . but the Committee suggests that, even if that review results in no change to the present arrangements, Departmental Explanatory Notes should in future indicate the costs associated with the rental or purchase of the buildings utilised by the relevant Department. That certainly seems a very sensible conclusion from that Committee. I hope that the Government takes it on board so that one can get a real view of the cost of individual departments. I would now like to draw attention to some matters that Senator Hamer raised earlier in another manifestation. He asked a question in Senate Estimates Committee B which I believe was inadequately answered. The question was: How many and which ships have been held up in Australian ports as a result of industrial disputes? What was the reason for each of the disputes? What is the cost to revenue of these disputes? What is the nature of the cargoes which were delayed? What are the details of export cargoes which were delayed? The answer, which goes into some detail, stated that the details of the ships delayed at Australian ports due to industrial disputes from 1 January 1987 to 30 September were attached and that that nine-month period was very informative. However, the answer went on: The Department's records cover the number (and names) of ships affected, the reason for the dispute and the number of ship days lost . . . as a result of the dispute. Because of a large number of variable factors involved, the direct and indirect costs of such disputes to the various parties which may be affected cannot be reliably estimated. For similar reasons the statistics do not attempt to distinguish between various types of cargo which may be either delayed or more indirectly affected by such disputes. On the question of costs I must say that I cannot understand why some reliable or reasonable estimate cannot be produced. I have seen estimates produced regularly by various bodies of the costs of holding up a shipment of anything. I recognise that the delay costs would vary depending on the expense of the shipment but I imagine that a count could be made, in pretty general terms, of the average range of items being shipped. But, as I understand it, the reality is that the Australian Shippers Council has estimated that about $30,000 a day is the cost of an average ship being delayed for one day in an Australian port. I do not know whether that figure is reasonable; it seems to tie in with some other figures that I have seen. When I looked through this list given in reply to Senator Hamer's question I found that 800 ship days were lost in those nine months. If that is at a cost of $30,000 a day, it appears as though $24m was lost because of industrial disputation delaying ships in Australian ports alone, let alone the cost in respect of the cargoes involved or the lack of payment of bills. On an annual basis, that is something like $32m a year as the present cost of delaying ships because of industrial disputation in Australia. I ask the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) whether further information could be made available-and I am not embarrassed about asking him to provide more information because, quite frankly, had these sorts of details been available at Senate Estimates hearings we could have asked subsequent questions, which is the function of Senate Estimates committees. Unfortunately, this question was taken on notice and so there was not the opportunity to ask follow-up questions. The clear question that seems to emerge from all this is: How many delays in this nine-month period were due to strikes that did not have an industrial base but were strikes for political reasons or strikes against decisions by State governments, in other words, that had nothing to do with shippers or shipping and that basically involved a secondary boycott in respect of things that took place in New South Wales, where strikes over the State Government's decision on invalidity and retirement payments closed ports, even though the shippers were not parties to that arrangement? It would also be nice to see how many ship days were lost as a result of industrial disputes which were genuine and related to industrial problems. Just flipping through the list, it seems to me that an enormous proportion of the strikes that produced these 800 lost shipping days-that is, delay days in Australian ports-were not for industrial reasons at a time when we are doing what we can to boost our exports to try to save Australia. At this time when there has never been so much pressure on us to export, we have this kind of nonsense going on. The first page of the list contains six instances of disputes delaying ships. Five of those delays relate to political, not industrial, disputes. The list goes back to January 1987 and the disputes related to protests against apartheid in South Africa, a matter which bears no relationship to any industrial matter affecting those ships. I notice that the names of the same ships come up repeatedly in the list, particularly Dutch ships. Nedlloyd ships, for example, come up again and again on this list as the victims of protests against South Africa and apartheid. There was a nuclear protest at a visit of three United States navy vessels with nuclear capacity. So it goes on through the 800 examples. The list shows that support for State dockyard workers regarding the closure of a dockyard and a State government decision in New South Wales resulted in seven vessels being delayed in Newcastle for a day. There are more and more South African apartheid protests. There was a New South Wales dispute, as I mentioned earlier, relating to proposed changes in workers compensation. Twenty-eight ship days were lost in Sydney in April on that score. Disputes in April delayed ships in Sydney and Port Kembla. These were disputes which had nothing to do with the shippers and were basically secondary boycotts. There was a protest against Press statements about the operation of a coal loader in Port Kembla. That lost two days export time at a time when we are desperate to maintain our reliability as an exporter of coal. This dispute involved a Korean ship. Fancy protesting about a Press report in such a way that the loading of a ship which would help Australia solve its desperate balance of payments problems was delayed for two days. There are other extraordinary reasons why some of these strikes took place. One was detailed in response to a question from Senator Hamer and concerned a dispute which arose from a claim by the Seamen's Union of Australia for the payment of an $85 taxi fare for one of its members to join his ship, the ANL bulk carrier Flinders Range. That strike over an $85 taxi fare cost the Australian National Line-that is all of us here-$8,000. That was for eight hours delay. It seems to me incredible that this sort of thing can go on. Perhaps some people do not understand that Australia is in a time of crisis. We see that overall ANL lost 112 shipping operating days in 1986-87-that is, the last full financial year-which, at an average cost of $30,000, would have been about $3 1/3m. The cost may not have been so great for ANL because some of the ships may have been smaller, although, as Senator Hamer pointed out, ANL seems to employ so many more people in its ships that perhaps the cost would have been as great as for overseas ships. The point is that despite the Government's alleged special relationship with the unions, we have a continuation of a level of industrial disputation, on political grounds, which seems to be difficult to justify at a time of economic crisis. So I ask the Minister whether he can make available these statistics broken up into political strikes and strikes that do not relate to the parties suffering under the dispute-in other words, the shippers or shipping companies-and outline how many of those 800 days were lost in such disputes and the cost, if he is prepared to make a guess at the cost, of genuine industrial disputes. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(8.37) —I am advised that it would be possible to respond to the request to extract the number of disputes which are attributable to political factors and do not immediately impinge upon the economic interests of the two parties concerned, and to attribute the number of days lost because of strikes so characterised. However, it would not be possible to attribute any kind of reliable estimate of the costs of such industrial action. The reason for that is really very simple. If Senator Michael Baume knew half as much about the shipping industry as the length of his recent contribution would have us believe, he would know perfectly well that when one talks about costs one must ask, `Costs to whom?' Costs to the shipowner are reasonably easily attributable because, unless the ship is on its last legs with everybody already paid off, every extra day in port obviously will have implications for the use of that vessel elsewhere. A relatively easy attribution can be made in that case. But what about the costs to the exporter, importer or port operator? They are enormously variable, depending on the circumstances of the case. To pull out those circumstances would involve much more data than the Department can be expected to keep. In the case of the exporter, for example, whether he loses ultimately, by virtue of the delay, in terms of the deliverability of the goods, would depend, among other things, on the perishability of the cargo. In the case of the importer whether, by virtue of any delay that occurs at the other end, he is left lamenting at the end of the day would depend on such things as the inventory condition of that importer. For the port operator, it would depend to some extent on whether other ships which are due in are being kept out as a result of the continuation of the industrial action. And so on. There are many variables of that kind. The information to put flesh and bones on the dollar signs involved simply is not available. I know that a lot of statements are made periodically by industrial spokesmen in various sectors when industrial action occurs as to the cost to them or to the community as a whole. I will not go so far as to say that those statements tend to have a sort of self-serving quality. But there is a sense in which one could be forgiven for treating them with a degree of circumspection. I make exactly that judgment about the claims made by the Australian Shippers Council in the context of the cost to the shipping industry of days lost. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(8.40) —I refer to division 660, Administrative, sub-division 1, Running Costs, General Stores. The explanatory text of the Department of Transport and Communications lists the replacement of issued jackets with flame proof jackets involving $33,000. Why was that deemed necessary? I am not aware that the pace of life in the headquarters of the Department is so fast that officers need flame proof jackets. I note that fire crews and rescue crews are excluded from this expenditure. I wonder what it is about. There is not much point in issuing only a flame proof jacket to someone; if one is going to go into an environment requiring flame proof clothing one needs overalls and, above all, some sort of covering for the head, face and hands. I would appreciate the Minister telling me why expenditure of that $33,000 was necessary. I have another question in relation to running costs under the same sub-division. An item provides for flying training including ground courses, Royal Australian Air Force simulator training, conversion flying courses and the rest of it. All that is listed in the estimate is the increase. We do not get any listing of the actual cost of training itself. I rather suspect the Department is persisting with the nonsense it has persisted with for quite a few years now of sending examiners of airmen across to the United States to get an endorsement on a type of aircraft on which they do not hold an endorsement, principally the Boeing 747. Having put tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars into the training of such people for an endorsement on that type, they are then sent back every six months or every 12 months to maintain currency on type. This is an absolute nonsense. We do not need to train people from scratch to be examiners of airmen to sit in judgment on professionals who are flying the aircraft every day for their living. It might be one thing if the cost involved were only a few hundred dollars but when it runs into hundreds of thousands of dollars to provide this facility the question has to be asked: Why is it done? For people who do not have much experience on a type, who maintain currency of five or 10 hours-they may do only a few hours flying time and the rest of the time is done on a simulator-to sit in judgment on people who fly such aircraft for a living is just an absolute, indefensible nonsense. The airlines of Australia, particularly Qantas Airways Ltd, to which high costs are involved in the 747 endorsements, are well able-and have proved themselves to be well able-to exercise their own operational standards for the safe and correct operation of their own flying crews. (Quorum formed) Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(8.44) —As to the first question, about flame proof jackets, I have officers chasing that up. I am afraid that we were not able to find the reference. Senator MacGibbon gave me notice of the matter before dinner and we cannot find it now, but as soon as the answer comes to hand, whether it is during the course of the proceedings or otherwise, I will let Senator MacGibbon know. My own explanation is a new Minister arriving on the scene breathing fire and brimstone. As to the subject of flying training and whether or not it is a nonsense that Qantas pilots or other domestic aviation operators be sat over in judgment by examiners who are trained to keep up their credentials in the way in which Senator MacGibbon has described, whether there are any policy problems associated with that which have not been satisfactorily answered in the past, is a question to which I will give some consideration in the light of Senator MacGibbon raising it. But I cannot respond sensibly to him now. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(8.45) —I go on to the delay in the opening of the Brisbane Airport. We have a magnificent airport in Brisbane that is almost completed and I would imagine that if it had had some dedication put into its completion we could have seen it open six months ago. The tragedy is that we have put $380m, $420m, maybe $450m, in moneys already spent into building the airport. The internal, domestic side of it is already completed but it has not been opened. I would like to read to the Senate a letter I received about eight weeks ago from one of my constituents. It reads as follows: Dear Sir, Our company is soon to start an exporting programme of strawberries, fruit, and some flowers. The strawberries are currently being produced in fourteen (14) greenhouses that are already constructed and in most cases producing fruit. The export programme is to start in October, although we have already despatched successful trial shipments to New Zealand, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Because of our company's well established export plans, it was with very great concern that I discovered the new Brisbane Airport was not to be opened and operating in October 1987 as promised, but had instead been postponed until February 1988. To compound the problems associated with no new upgraded capacity, I was further informed that Qantas is actually considering cutting their total uplift of fresh product out of Australia, with all of this reduction to be effected in Brisbane! This reduction is presumably related to Department of Aviation temperature restrictions. Any reduction of airspace out of Brisbane by our national carrier is deplorable, particularly when we are all being encouraged to increase exports. However, if the reduction in capacity is not implemented on a pro-rata basis with other airports such as Sydney and Melbourne, it is absolutely inexcusable. The fact that the flight might originate in Sydney or Melbourne does not alter the fact that shippers in Brisbane are being disadvantaged. To add substance to what this reduction could mean, I would outline the personnel involved in the . . . operation and our potential export sales as follows: Personnel People 14 greenhouses with permanent and casual staff ... 114 . . . permanent staff ... 6 . . . casual staff (minimum) ... 20 140 These 140 people are merely those directly involved and do not include ancillary personnel such as freight forwarders, sub-contractors in the transport industry, airline ground staff, and public servants in areas such as the Department of Primary Industries and Austrade. Our company's anticipated export sales for the period October 1987 until June 1988 are approximately $2,000,000 to $4,000,000 in Australian currency. Any reduction in available freight space out of Brisbane airport would severely limit our export capability and result in an unhappy and possibly disastrous situation for everyone concerned in this operation, from the growers right through to our company. Horticultural products are very promising export earners for this country, and failure to match airfreight availability to product available for export can only have an adverse effect on the economy . . . So the decision to defer opening the Brisbane Airport has had a major influence on the export of horticultural products as well as other products from Brisbane. No explanation has been given to the public as to why the opening of the terminal, which is largely completed, has been delayed. While I am on my feet, I might as well ask what the position currently is in relation to a new international terminal. The position at present is that the old international terminal is totally inadequate. It was built as a warehouse in the longer term. Right from the design concept it was going to be a warehouse and it was temporarily, for a few years, to be a passenger terminal. That terminal now is totally inadequate. Anyone who goes out there on a Saturday when there are something like 30 overseas wide bodied aircraft using the airport throughout the day will find the situation chaotic. The worst part about it is that the current international terminal, inadequate though it might be, involves an eight kilometre taxiway from the new terminal. So eventually, when the Minister and the Government get around to opening this great airport, which will be the best in Australia, the international aircraft will have to taxi eight kilometres up a narrow taxiway. There are very big penalties in that. There is a penalty in fuel burn. There is also a penalty in respect of brakes, which reflects on the safety of the operation. Aircraft which weigh many hundreds of tonnes and which have to be steered down an eight-kilometre taxiway-this is far longer than any other airport in the world of which I am aware, except for some of the taxiways in Honolulu-will be subject to a great deal of brake heating. Because heat is transferred to the tyres, and bearing in mind the high gross weights at which these aircraft operate, there is a real possibility of tyre blow-out either on taxiing or on subsequent take-off. Furthermore, the taxiway is narrow. This means that while the aircraft is taxiing at walking pace for eight kilometres, no other aircraft can enter or leave from the international terminal, which is on the old field. So there are some very big penalties involved here. In 1982, the Public Works Committee looked at the provision of a new international terminal for Brisbane Airport and recommended against it. But in those days there were very low traffic movements through Brisbane. Only five airlines were coming through-Qantas Airways Ltd, British Airways, Air New Zealand, Air Pacific and Air Nuigini. Today, at least 14 different overseas airlines operate through Brisbane, and I think another two will come in in the new year. The traffic has more than trebled since that Public Works Committee survey in 1982. There is a demonstrable need for that new terminal. All we get from the Government is some vague protestation that we will get that terminal in the 1990s. The fact is that we need it now. Inevitably, it will have to be built in the next three or four years. It should be built now, so that the asset that we have already developed and paid for can be utilised and amortised. It is good business sense now that we have got the domestic side of the airfield built and the runways and the taxiways in, to have a terminal on site and develop Brisbane as a port of entry and exit for Australia. Given the huge congestion and the curfew at Sydney Airport, the fact that Qantas operates out of Sydney costs Qantas tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars a year in increased overheads. We have a port that is ready to go, but the Government seems just not to want to know about it. (Quorum formed) Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(8.55) —Senator MacGibbon raised three points. The first concerned the reasons for the delay in the opening of the new domestic terminal at Brisbane. Although the Commonwealth construction and fit-out program would have enabled the airport to open in September 1987 as planned, the airport commissioning has had to be delayed until the fit-out of terminal areas leased by the major airlines is complete. Planned to start in February this year, airline fit-out has only recently commenced, and that has been due to the protracted negotiation of lease terms and conditions. In short, my understanding is that this situation has been a result of the airlines playing hardball to maximise their commercial advantage in an environment in which they have no sense of urgency about moving into the much higher cost environment of the new Taj Mahal that the Fraser Government bequeathed to them. Both airlines now advise that they are aiming for an operational ready day of January 1988, and the expectation is that it will be early February 1988 when the airport will be opened formally. As to the question of landings by Qantas Airways Limited and the freight issue raised by Senator MacGibbon, I am pleased to be able to advise him that arrangements have been agreed to allow Qantas to operate flights on the new runway from 30 November-a week's time. This will be subject to certain conditions-that is to say, visual flight conditions only, daylight only and take-offs only. Qantas aircraft will land on the existing runway but, because of heavier freight loads, they will be able to take off along the longer runway, which will be to everyone's advantage. I hope that Senator MacGibbon will now cease persecuting me for the rest of the evening as I have accommodated him on at least one point. Finally, as to the international terminal building, all that I can say is that it is a matter for the new Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) to make a judgment about the art of the possible in that respect. The deficiencies of the existing building are acknowledged, but so much money has been spent on the domestic terminal that it has rather distorted the capital works environment in Brisbane. I just hope that appropriate funding can be found through the funding methods and investments strategies of the FAC to enable that to take place within a reasonable timeframe. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(8.57) —I want to make a number of comments and ask a number of questions of the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) in relation to the votes relating to broadcasting and television services under division 662, including payments to the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), the so-called multicultural broadcasting service, to the regulation of broadcasting and television under division 665-that is in respect of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT)-and, finally, in a rather different area of the Minister's portfolio, to the vote for the Inter-State Commission under division 664. I start by referring to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). When I was very much younger than I am now, the ABC was, I genuinely believe, one of Australia's great national institutions. It was an institution of international quality. It could hold up its head in the international community as a great broadcasting organisation. Today, that is no longer the case. Nevertheless, even today at its best ABC radio can be a constant source of enjoyment and a real companion, particularly for all those many Australians who, for one reason or another-for example, because they are home looking after children-are occupied but nonetheless are able to listen to a radio. Therefore, it is a matter of considerable regret that, notwithstanding those high encomiums which I have uttered about the performance of ABC radio at its best, it is necessary to say that these days it is by no means always, indeed not generally, at its best. I suppose I address my remarks principally to the performance of what is, I think, colloquially known as Radio National. The style of the programming on that channel of the ABC seems to have changed a great deal over the last several years and, I have to say, by no means for the better. The prevailing and overwhelming impression that any consistent listener to Radio National must have is that there is too much talk. Whereas one could once find some good music-at least three times out of four-during the day, it now seems as if discussions, commentaries and the like predominate. Obviously, that would not matter if the quality of the talk were up to it, but the truth of the matter is that the quality of the talk is not up to it. Senator Gareth Evans —Are you suggesting it is not up to Senate standard? Senator STONE —There simply is not enough high quality talk available to be up to Senator Evans's standards. So inevitably much of it is repetitious and, I might add, second rate. Senator McKiernan —Just like here. Senator STONE —Just like Senator McKiernan's interjection-second rate. Even when that channel turns to music, it seems to be uncertain as to what is required. Jazz, modern music and classical music are provided in a higgledy-piggledy fashion. Surely listeners would prefer clearer separation of the types of music to be obtained on that channel when musical programs are being performed. Does anyone in the ABC ever monitor audience reaction to the programs provided? If they do-as I was assured they do by a very high source in the ABC this afternoon-do they ever take any notice of the results? As well as finding an answer to the question that I have just posed on the composition of the ABC's musical programs, the ABC might learn whether anyone listens to The Coming Out Show, for example. Senator Giles —Indeed they do. Senator STONE —Senator Giles's tastes may be so perverted as to remain glued to the ABC when The Coming Out Show is on. I am glad to have her declare her allegiances to that program. I can assure Senator Giles that the program does not command mass appreciation from the Australian people. For the last decade The Coming Out Show has been working and re-working topics that delight radical feminists, such as Greenham Common-Greenham Common, for God's sake!-and nuclear disarmament, which is another matter on which Australia has not the slightest impact. The views of Australians have no influence whatsoever on the whole future of nuclear disarmament, notwithstanding the presence, or the occasional presence, in this chamber of two senators elected on that premise. They do not happen to be here at the moment. Senator Knowles —Not too often. Senator STONE —I agree entirely with Senator Knowles; they are not here too often. They are normally flying around the country at taxpayers' expense to lecture on the subject. Affirmative action is another topic which has been done to death-reiterated and reiterated-on that program. Incest is another. Our ears have been assailed month in and month out by programs about incest. I am prepared to agree that, obviously, incest is an ugly practice and is to be wholly frowned upon in our society. But to listen to that program one would think that the Australian family was made up of nothing but incestuous relations. Senator Giles —Yes, you would not be very mistaken. Senator STONE —Senator Giles interjects to say that one would not be very mistaken if one thought that the Australian family was mainly taken up with incestuous relations. Is that what the honourable senator really believes the Australian family is all about? By her interjection she has entirely disqualified herself from commenting any further in the debate. Senator Giles —The incidence is a great deal higher than any of us ever expected. Senator STONE —That was not the point I made. Either Senator Giles was not listening or she is given to making intemperate interjections. I suggest that either she withdraw from the debate or listen more carefully in future. Another favourite topic of The Coming Out Show is child abuse. Again, child abuse is a totally discreditable, totally anti-social, totally malevolent practice. But does anyone really believe that the Australian family experience is made up of, to pick up Senator Giles's proposition, incest and child abuse? If one listens to The Coming Out Show one would think that Australian family life was composed of nothing else. Women's shelters is another favourite topic of that program. I think that Senator Giles ought to be in a women's shelter, but that is by the way. No, I withdraw that remark. I will not pursue the point because I do not wish to level any personal comments in the honourable senator's direction. I have the highest regard for her. I simply draw the Minister's attention to the fact that this program goes on about issues which, while individually extremely important and significant in themselves, are totally distorted, totally drawn out of all reference to reality, by this program on the ABC week in and week out, month in month out and year in and year out for the past decade. And it is still going on. Abortion is another favourite topic. Senator Giles —If you were a regular listener you would have a great deal more variety-- Senator STONE —Senator Giles is interjecting on the subject of abortion. Apparently, she also believes-I look to her to disavow the proposition if she wishes to do so-that the program's views on abortions are wholly admirable and desirable. The point I am trying to make over the inchoate interjections of the rabid senators opposite me is that this program has nothing to do with Australia, the Australian community and the generality of the great majority of Australians-the decent people who make up our community. It is no good Senator Giles sitting there and sniggering because she has had the bad judgment, as well as the bad taste, to interject these kinds of remarks into the debate. The program is totally unrepresentative of anything that purports to be representative of Australian life. Only Senator Giles and some of her colleagues opposite would attest otherwise. Let me turn to another of ABC Radio National's pet programs-First Edition-a program which puts itself forward as a book reviewing program. If one depended on First Edition for one's knowledge of the books that were to be reviewed in our community, one would imagine that nothing was ever written on subjects other than women's issues, the environment and the peace movement. Those are the only things the program ever talks about. The Coming Out Show and First Edition, while gems of their kind, are only, so to speak, a little more extreme than the ABC's current affairs programs generally. Generally, the ABC's current affairs programs lack balance. They fail to set up true debates between equal opponents. Either they do not set up debates at all-they simply allow opinionated people, usually of the Australian Labor Party persuasion, to put forward their views-or, if they do purport to strike a balance, they usually do so by setting up some very competent spokesman for the Government. I am perfectly prepared to concede to Senator Evans that there are competent spokesmen for the Labor Party, and I am sure he would like to put himself forward in such a capacity. They match him or her against some dud purporting to be a spokesman for the Opposition. It takes me back to the early days of the Fraser Government when usually they had Mr Whitlam or some other spokesperson for the then Opposition and they would put Billy McMahon up against him, for God's sake, so that they had two speakers against Mr Fraser! Really, that is the kind of thing that the ABC calls balance. An example of the kind of thing I am talking about is the weekly discussion, the little Mutt and Jeff show on the ABC program PM, between the compere or producer of that program, Mr Paul Murphy, on the one hand, and Mr Ken Randall, on the other hand. These two go at it hammer and tong for five or seven minutes in the latter part of that program each Friday night, and naturally they agree with each other tremendously. They do nothing else but agree with each other. It would be hard to find two more like-minded people. That is what the ABC no doubt calls balance. On another aspect of that general topic, I refer to interviewers not merely on radio but also on television. In some cases on ABC television it is most glaringly obvious that interviewers simply fail to ask crucial questions of their interviewees-unless they happen to be members of the Opposition. I am entirely in favour of all politicians being asked hard questions, tough questions, by interviewers; and I have been subjected to a fair few of them in the past few months, and quite rightly so. I make no complaint about that, but I do point out, however, the total absence of such hard questions being addressed to this country's Treasurer (Mr Keating) or its Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who is usually handed the most patsy questions. Senator MacGibbon —He is not in the country to be asked them. Senator STONE —No, he is not here most of the time, as Senator MacGibbon reminds me, and he is about to go off on another overseas trip at the end of this week. But when he is here and when he actually appears on television he is never asked a question that would cause him any embarrassment in responding. All politicians should be quizzed hard and pressed really hard-with appropriate courtesy, of course, and that is something that ABC interviewers interviewing people of a different political persuasion generally fail to provide. Of course, trade union leaders are almost never quizzed. I am sure you would agree with that, Mr Temporary Chairman. Instead, interviewers usually fall over themselves to be gentle and polite to the Simon Creans of this world or to Bill Kelty when he occasionally appears on a program. Almost never do they put to these same leaders the public point of view, the kinds of questions that the ordinary fellow in the street wants asked. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Burns) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. (Quorum formed) Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.15) —That was a fascinating speech from Senator Stone. It seemed to be a bid for recognition of a new, rounded John Stone-not just a one dimensional economic man but an absolutely all-round troglodyte, on the basis of the evidence of that speech. The nub of his attack concerned, of course, Radio National. His first grievance was that there was too much talk. Too much talk, he said; not enough music-profoundly oblivious to the creation, since he was a lad, of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's FM channel which, of course, exists for the sole purpose of broadcasting to the nation at large good music of a kind that one assumes Senator Stone would appreciate. We have a much wider diversity of programming and a much higher proportion of talk to music on mainstream Radio National as a result of that. Senator Stone —My point was that there wasn't too much good talk. Senator GARETH EVANS —Then we have the second grievance-not enough good talk; too much Coming Out; too much about nuclear disarmament; too much about incest; too much about child abuse; too much about abortion. All I can say to Senator Stone is that he had better be careful because, on the evidence of the recent Townsville meeting of the Queensland branch of the National Party of Australia, the Party is leaving him behind. His final cry from the heart was that there is too much matching of first-rate, competent spokesmen from the Government against dummies of one kind or another from the Opposition. I could not believe my ears, but that is what Senator Stone said. The only chapter and verse he offered by way of confirmation of that was the relatively ancient example now, although a compelling one, I acknowledge, of Billy McMahon being matched up in opposition against Gough Whitlam in government. But obviously Senator Stone has a very deep and compelling sense of grievance about the current state of affairs whenever he hears Bob Hawke being matched against John Howard, or Paul Keating being followed by Andrew Peacock. All I can say to Senator Stone is, `John, I know how you feel. I appreciate the deep sense of wounding that that must give you and I know what leads you to say these things'. All I want to say is that, extraordinary speech though it may have been, it is one that I do not think is fantastically appropriate to burden the chamber with at this time of night, not least given that we are so far behind with the Estimates because, of course, we have no particular capacity to determine-nor should we have as a Government or as a Parliament-the content of the programming of the national broadcaster. We can fund it and perhaps set priorities for funding. Perhaps that is something that we should consider in the period ahead in broad program categories, in terms of broad objectives; but the notion of being able to pick and choose between what we as a Government or a Parliament should allow to be broadcast in terms of our peculiar definition of what may or may not be good talk or what may or may not be an appropriate balance between talk and music seems to me to be fairly extraordinary; and, as a result, I hope we can press on with other items. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(9.17) —I feel compelled to start my brief remarks with four confessions to Senator Stone. The first is that I happen to be an Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) enthusiast, and perhaps that reflects my second confession, that I am in fact interested in the peace movement, as presumably are those who voted for the Australian Democrats and the Nuclear Disarmament Party. I am also a conservationist and I have some interest in women's matters. So some of us out there do in fact support the ABC. However, I really wish to make criticism and I was hoping to pose a question to the Minister who has now left the chamber, but presumably someone will report my criticisms and questions to him. Senator Jenkins —He is sitting on the back bench. Senator McLEAN —I am sorry; I understand the Minister is on the back bench. That is fine. I would like to make my comments quite specific, unlike Senator Stone who seemed to wander over the whole course of the ABC's adequacies, or inadequacies in his views. I would like to make my comments quite specific to the publication of one book and the advertising of that publication which has presumably involved the expenditure of several hundred thousand dollars. The book I am citing is Ashes of Vietnam-Australian Voices published by William Heinemann Australia in association with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Honourable senators may have seen the advertisement on ABC television in recent days encouraging Australians to buy and read this outstanding piece of military history and social commentary. It is true that I have received widespread reaction from members of the Vietnam veterans community, many of whom are deeply offended by this document and puzzled by the fact that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation would have been involved in its production, publication and now advertising in appealing to Australians to purchase and read it. They are teased also by the fact that the publication of this book and its promotion coincided, sadly, with the welcome home marches. I urge honourable senators to address themselves seriously to this contradiction. In support of my argument I shall cite passages from the book. I have read the book and I have seen the advertisements, as other senators have. The publication Ashes of Vietnam-Australian Voices was the subject of a Mike Willesee segment in which he brought together the author of the book, Stuart Rintoul, and the national President of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia, Tim McCombe, in debate. Subsequently the book has been reviewed by Colonel Rick Haines, who is a military historian, who for 20 years was a regular army officer, who retired with the rank of lieutenant-colonel after completing two tours of duty in Vietnam and who has visited the country on several occasions since. I emphasise the fact that this publication has evoked much negative reaction from Vietnam veterans. I pose the question: What brought the ABC to publish and now advertise such a document, and at what financial cost? Colonel Haines begins his review of Ashes of Vietnam-Australian Voices by stating: Ashes of Vietnam is neither a good piece of military or social history nor is it a good piece of journalism. It lacks academic objectivity and contains no obvious evidence of any effort on the author's part to obtain corroborative evidence for the statements recorded by him. It is little more than a one-sided, sensational piece of reporting dressed up to look like good journalism. He then cites some of the mechanisms to dress up this document: The book has all the imprimaturs of good journalism, such as the ABC logo on the front cover and acknowledgments to all the right organisations including the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia and the Australian War Memorial. These tend to give the book an appearance not justified by the contents. Unfortunately, some readers may accept the contents as being a factual account of what the Vietnam experience was for the nearly 50,000 Australians who served there; but it isn't. It is not a factual account of the experience of many of the 50,000 Australians at all. The review continues: This book contains excerpts from some 105 interviews which Rintoul selected from `over 100'-to quote from the dust jacket. In most cases, the first excerpt from each interview is accompanied by a few lines from the author to provide a little background to the interviewees. The excerpts or statements, are preceded by a preface in which Rintoul summarises the Vietnam experience for Australians. I now refer to some of the phrases used to summarise the Vietnam experience: In this preface, he makes such statements as: `The lives of many Vietnam Veterans are characterised by violence, alcoholism, divorce, self destruction'. `There was bitterness first for the way they came home.' `Instead they found themselves the untouchables.' `Australians in Vietnam were guilty of acts of barbarity. There were Australians whose morality was so eroded that they murdered villagers, raped women, tortured and killed wounded enemy soldiers and mutilated corpses. But they were not like that before they went to Vietnam.' There are many such examples in the review. I have received strong negative reaction from veterans who say that there are no substantiated cases of this type on record, and if there had been, Australian governments of the past 20 years would have been obliged to take action under the War Crimes Act. No such action has been pursued. In fact, these statements that are published under the auspices of the ABC are unsubstantiated. In fact, I believe they are possibly libellous. This document of unsubstantiated supposed evidence was being promoted at taxpayers' expense precisely at a time when the Government was encouraging and financially supporting the welcome home marches. The timing was bad. The decision to conjointly publish this book was bad. The advertising of it at present is tasteless. I call upon the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) to justify those actions on behalf of the ABC and to answer the many Vietnam veterans who are grossly offended by its publication and by its promotion. I turn to the final pages of this rather long review by Colonel Haines in which he states: There are Vietnam veterans and their families who have suffered from the problems detailed in the last chapter in this book, and they deserve all the support and help they can be given. To be fair to Rintoul, perhaps he was trying to help them by explaining what Vietnam meant to these men and women. If this was the case, he has failed because of the distorted conclusions he has reached in the preface to this book. Some of these conclusions are almost insulting to the majority who served in Vietnam with honour, returned home without problems, and have carried on to make a significant contribution to Australian society since then. Many of these are in veterans organizations such as the RSL, the Korea and South East Asia Forces Association, the VVAA or the AATTV Association; actively helping those of their comrades who have suffered because of Vietnam. Some will feel that the allegations will not help those veterans for whom they have cared and worked so hard; others will feel that the allegations may reflect unfairly on them. It is unfortunate that just as many Vietnam veterans finally `came home' last month in Sydney, this book was published. Some of the allegations it contains made it impossible for some veterans (including some of Rintoul's interviewees) to really come home 15 or 20 years ago. I hope that none once again begin the `long retreat' talked about by Rintoul because of this piece of poor journalism. I call upon the Minister to justify this publication under the logo of the ABC and to inform honourable senators how much was spent on the publication and how much is being spent on its promotion. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.28) —The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is an autonomous organisation, and long may it remain so. I am happy to supply information about the cost of the publication but I am not going to stand in judgment on publishing decisions of the kind that obviously have been made in this instance. I must confess that I find it extraordinary that an Australian Democrat, passionate as allegedly the rest of his Party are, concerning values of free speech and non-censorship and letting it all hang out in a variety of ways, should get up and mount an attack on some publication, urging that it should never have been published. Senator McLean —I'm putting the other side of the argument; that's all I'm doing. Senator GARETH EVANS —The honourable senator can put the other side of the argument to his heart's content, but if he knew anything about the responsibility and the relationship of the Government and the ABC, and anything about what these Estimates discussions are supposed to be about, he would not be wasting the time of honourable senators with a little bit of breast beating of a kind that may go down well with particular constituencies whose support he is obviously trying to attract. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything this chamber is presently embarked upon. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(9.29) —I support Senator McLean and the thrust of his argument. I regret that the intelligence of the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) is such that he cannot follow what the honourable senator is saying. Senator McLean made a point that illustrated what Senator Stone was talking about earlier. It is not a matter of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. The question Senator McLean is asking, and Senator Stone is asking, is why taxpayers' funds are being expended on a perverted lifestyle in the form of things like The Coming Out Show and those other programs? Why is history being bowdlerised the way it is in this regard? Freedom of speech is one thing, but the use of taxpayers' funds for dishonest programs is another. The great cross that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has to bear is that current affairs programs have not been in the hands of the far left, they have been in the hands of communist sympathisers for decades. I have had enough of it. I have had enough of paying taxes to support those people. If they want to prosecute that point of view, let them go out and raise their own funds; do not let them ask me to tax the Australian community to put a one-eyed, perverted view of what the Australian community is about. I support to the hilt what Senator McLean said. I have several questions for the Minister in the field of aviation. Firstly, how many apprentices is the Department of Transport and Communications training this year, and has there been any significant change in its apprentice intake from previous years? In a different area, in relation to the firefighting services. I understand that some years ago there was a dispute between the Australian Federal Police and the rescue and firefighting services regarding who is in control of emergency procedures if an accident or emergency occurs at an airport. Was this dispute resolved and who officially is in control? Secondly, do these two services, the Federal Police and the rescue and firefighting service, exercise together? Are there any full-scale emergency exercises in which these two services are involved? Is there any requirement for these exercises to be carried out? How long is it since the last exercise was carried out? In a different field again, in relation to the duty free concessions at airports, I have been advised that the Minister has ordered an inquiry into the granting of an extension by three years of the five-year contract for the present concessionaire at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Is that true and, if so, why was the inquiry mounted? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.32) —As to the questions about apprentices and firefighting, I do not think I am in a position to give the honourable senator any answer. I will have to take those questions on notice and respond as soon as I can. As to the question about the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport concession, the situation is that I have asked a senior member of the Department, Mr Rainbird the Deputy Secretary of the Department, to review the circumstances of the departmental decision that was made to extend the tender by a period of three years from, I think, October or November next year. On the face of it there would not appear to be anything other than a sound commercial justification for the decision, that being in essence that very substantial disruption was caused to the business of the present duty free occupant, Allders International Pty Ltd, which not only involved it in potential claim of compensation against the Commonwealth for loss of business and so on associated with that disruption during the present period but also involved it, from another perspective, in very substantial fit-out costs of some $3 1/2m to re-establish itself in the new location within the present terminal complex-an expenditure which would manifestly not be able to be amortised over the remaining very short period of the present five-year contract which expires in the latter part of next year. It was in those circumstances and against that background that the decision was made at a departmental level, with, I think, the Minister simply being notified after the event. It is on that basis that the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) I think said when this matter was raised in the other place that he believed that there was no ground for query. However, since the question has been the subject of some assault from various quarters and some suggestions that, come what may, there should have been a tendering process-I do not think that those claims have been made with a full appreciation of what was involved in the disruption over the present period-and because there are some questions which have arisen about the proper construction of the statute and so on as it affects this kind of circumstance, I did ask for a review to take place; not a boots and bells and whistles sort of a review, just a review of the circumstances of it in order that I could be fully apprised and make my own judgment as to whether any more substantial action subsequently needed to be taken. The results of that have not yet come to hand. I expect that within a few days. We will look at it and make a judgment accordingly. I do not think that I had better comment on the first part of Senator MacGibbon's speech or we will be here all night. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(9.35) —I had not intended to speak on this part of the Appropriation Bills but I am afraid that onhearing what Senator Stone had to say, I felt that I must at least say a few words in defence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and some of its programs. Senator Gareth Evans —Don't start them, please. Senator JENKINS —I will be very brief. Programs such as The Coming Out Show do deal with subjects that perhaps are not dealt with in other programs. That is no reason why they should not be dealt with in that particular program. I suggest that Senator Stone, who is not here at the moment, is most fortunate indeed if he has no personal connection with issues such as, child abuse, incest or the terrible sadness and loss associated with abortion. However, having 10 days or so ago launched for the Australian Capital Territory its new emergency telephone service for domestic violence I was quite horrified at that launching at the figures that are available in regard to domestic violence right here in Canberra. There is a need for this service and the refuges which are set up in Canberra. I would argue very much against what Senator Stone had to say on these matters. Just briefly on one other matter, Senator Stone mentioned at the start of his speech that people who are occupied at home and able to listen to the radio do enjoy the radio. Therefore, I would have thought that the delightful mix that the ABC gives us in the music line, of jazz, classical music and light modern music, would be enjoyed by all. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.37) —I do intend to speak very briefly on the matter addressed by Senator Jenkins. The Coming Out Show has been going for as long as I can remember-for 10, 12 or probably more years. I know that when the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT) came to Hobart a number of representations against this program were made. I made one representation against it, as did Senator Wriedt at that time. He thought it was a dreadful program. That is what Senator Stone was saying. I agree very much with what Senator Jenkins was saying; however, that is not what Senator Stone was referring to. I do not know whether Senator Jenkins has ever listened to The Coming Out Show. It is a dreadful show; absolutely appalling. It does not represent Australian women at all, not in any way. The only consolation that I have is that it has such a very small listening audience. This is what the Tribunal pointed out to us. It consoled both Senator Wriedt and me that the listening audience was so minuscule that really there was not much to worry about. I think that the people who listen to that program are to a large extent destroyed already. It could not destroy them any further. However, I will not move on to the main thing about which I want to speak in the Committee tonight. Can the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) tell me whether the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal had any view or has done any investigation on back masking. (Quorum formed) Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.42) —As to Senator Walters's worries, all I can say is that I will look into them and see what information I can find out to either substantiate or countermand the particular worries that she has. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.42) —They are not my particular worries. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal was sent a tape quite some time ago with allegations of back masking. Could the Minister let me know what inquiries the Tribunal has already made regarding the tape it has been sent? Would he let me know whether he feels there is any justification in the allegations? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.43) —Lots of people send the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT) tapes about all sorts of things and seek its intervention. I do not know what position the ABT has reached in relation to this matter, but I will certainly ask it, I will certainly find out and I will certainly let the honourable senator know. Senator Walters —When? Senator GARETH EVANS —As soon as I possibly can, but I do not think it will be tonight. Senator Walters —Before Christmas? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am certain we can manage that before Christmas unless it is a very subtle plot. Of course, then it might take longer to unravel. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(9.44) —During the last election campaign there was a great deal of criticism of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) for its political bias. In fact, it was estimated that in Tasmania some 90 per cent of the callers accused the ABC of bias in favour of the Australian Labor Party. I ask the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans), who is at the table: Will there be a better monitoring of bias during future election campaigns, or will this Government use the ABC as a propaganda machine in the next election at the expense of the taxpayer? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.45) —Some might say that sounds a pretty good idea, but it is not an idea that I would begin to countenance, Senator. I do not accept the allegation that has been made about bias during the conduct of the last campaign. Senator Walters —Could 90 per cent of the community be wrong? Senator GARETH EVANS —Anything is possible, Senator Walters. I know there is a continuing discussion about the proper mechanism for resolving complaints of this kind that go to programming, content and so on. That is a particular matter which was the subject of some assurances in this chamber in the context of the broadcasting debate. It is something in which I am taking an interest. We will see what can be done about it! I suspect that one difficulty is that when people make complaints about these matters there is a concern that the appearances of their resolution may not be fully satisfactory. It may well be, at least for some sorts of complaints, that if we had some greater degree of externality or independence there would be greater confidence in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's undoubted propriety in these matters. This raises difficult and sensitive questions which I will need to discuss with the ABC, as I am proposing to do. Beyond that, I have no further comment. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(9.46) —Accusations of bias were made in respect of the claim that the Australian Labor Party was running a low key campaign and that it had decided to run on its record. There was also criticism in respect of the reporting of the policies put up by the Opposition. These matters were raised at the Estimates Committee hearings. Does the Minister agree with what has happened, or does he agree that something should be done so that at the next election or at future elections-whether they be State or Federal elections-the ABC will not be allowed to give an inference of bias? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.47) —I do not know about the honourable senator's capacity to stop people creating an inference of bias in the mind of mindless and prejudiced rednecked sorts of observers, but my judgment is that it is a very difficult thing to stop. I do not think I would be capable of achieving that even if I wanted to, which I do not. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.47) —Would the Minister consider it an inference of bias for a rather prominent Australian Broadcasting Corporation commentator, when commenting on the election results as they came out, to say, `Oh we are not doing too well in this area', when the Australian Labor Party was not doing too well? I thought that might be considered even by the Minister to be a slight inference of bias towards the Labor Party. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.48) —Just as I might get up now and say, `Well, we made a rather silly contribution to the debate then, didn't we', so, too, it would be perfectly possible as a grammatical expression for a commentator describing a situation in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to be quite misunderstood in the way in which he was expressing a quite objective state of mind. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(9.48) —I apologise to the Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Evans, for making yet another plea for support for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), but I could not let Senator Stone's remarks pass without some comment. It surprises me that when certain subjects, such as peace, women's issues, the environment and nuclear energy are mentioned, Senator Stone becomes almost apoplectic. He really goes off the deep end quite remarkably. The claim that the ABC is, in any sense, a left wing body or displays left wing bias is rather surprising when one looks at the totality of broadcasting in the media in Australia. We must recognise that the media-with the exception of the ABC-is entirely in private hands and exhibits enormous right wing bias. One sees very little serious comment on public affairs which holds a mirror up to society on any of the commercial media or in any of the newspapers. In relation to the funding of the ABC, I point out that this country spends many billions of dollars on its media. Funding for the commercial media is raised by way of what is, essentially, a private tax. The profits which go into advertising pay for that media. Let us not forget that that money is entirely controlled by the owners and, therefore, there is nothing wrong at all with the ABC supplying a form of media for those groups in society which are not catered for by the commercial media at all. It seems to me that there are a number of excellent programs on the ABC. If it were not for the ABC we would not get these programs in this country at all. If Senator Stone were still in the chamber, I would raise the issue of Aboriginal deaths in custody and this issue of police corruption in his own State of Queensland which were initially raised on the Four Corners program. I think it behoves this Government and every other government to continue to support the work of the ABC more extensively because if it were not for the ABC many voices would not be heard in this country at all. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.49) —To say that the privately owned media are biased towards the conservative aspect is absolutely incredible. According to Bob Hawke, Packer, Bond and Murdoch are his mates. Senator Gareth Evans —Don't be jealous. Senator WALTERS —I am not jealous; I am just stating facts. Consequently, the bias is definitely towards the mates. It is ridiculous for Senator Coulter to try to say that the bias of private ownership is towards the conservative parties. It is absolute rubbish. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(9.51) —Since we are dealing with communications, I would like to take the Minister to the closure of station VNG, with its accurate time signals. VNG was the only station in Australia broadcasting accurate time signals-accurate to within one or two milliseconds, which was enormously useful for astronomers and seismologists and people involved in research where an accurate time signal was available. As I understand it, the Minister at the time asked the then Department of Resources and Energy to find out whether the station, which had started in 1964, should be kept in operation. The Department went to the Bureau of Mineral Resources. The Bureau of Mineral Resources, which was one of the major users of station VNG, did not consult fully with the Department. My advice is that the seismologists and the research staff who used the signal when it was available are incensed that it has now been cut. The impression in the scientific community in Australia is that the decision was based on totally inadequate research as to how much the station was used. There are a significant number of research institutions at remote sites in Australia where it is quite impossible financially to provide some caesium clocks or atomic clocks to give the timing accuracy needed for the sort of research work that is done. The existence of station VNG, which had been running since 1964, was extremely useful-in fact essential-for the work. My advice is that Telecom Australia claimed that it cost $100,000 a year to maintain the station. I think the transmitting site that it operated from had gradually run down and VNG was the sole operator at Lyndhurst when transmission ceased. On all the evidence I can find, there seems to be a very pressing case from the scientific community to have an accurate timing base available to it. The cancellation of this station has left it very much in the air. The scientific community is also very upset because, while it knew that the Minister was looking at whether the station should be kept any longer, apparently no advice was given to it. All it knew was that the station stopped transmitting either at the end of September or in the early part of October. I ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that, whoever the Minister was at the time, the best advice was tendered to the Government. Whatever happened, will the Government replace this signal or timing system in any way at all? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.54) —This was a matter in which I took an interest as Minister for Resources and Energy in seeking from the then Minister for Communications a guarantee that the station would be kept open. I then inherited the problem as Minister for Transport and Communications and proceeded to close the station, which was regarded by some as a rather churlish thing to do. But it was on the basis of good advice, or at least advice that I found persuasive at the time in terms of the availability of alternative methods and the timeframe within which people had been notified, I was told, and had been given an opportunity to make a plausible case against it. As a result, alternative arrangements were unable to be made. I have just been handed a bit of paper which was Telecom's announcement in September. Of course, the point is that Telecom no longer used the service as its own needs for time and frequency signals are met through its own terrestrial network. The reason for the closing down of the service is that the Lyndhurst property was expected to be offered for disposal early next year. But the key bit in Telecom's statement is this: Before deciding to terminate the VNG service, Telecom approached known major users of the service offering to transfer free of charge the existing transmitting equipment. Discussions and consultations over the past 12 months, however, were not successful in identifying another organisation- including my own; as it then was, the Bureau of Mineral Resources- prepared to take over responsibility for the VNG service. I think that probably needs some further supplementation because, as I recall it, there was a rather more substantial brief on the various issues that were involved and the alternative ways in which the time signal could be received by those organisations and enterprises that were dependent upon it. I will seek that information and make it available to Senator MacGibbon. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(9.55) —I would like to ask the Minister what can be done about the problem of reconnecting telephones that have gone out of order recently during the heavy rain in Sydney. Senator Gareth Evans —Ha, ha! Senator BROWNHILL —It is all very well for the Minister to laugh, but when Telecom cannot fix the phones of young people who go to work during the day before they go to work or when they come back from work, this Government is not giving any service to the people of the community through Telecom, its instrumentality. It is all very well for the Minister to laugh. I have not asked too many questions of him tonight, so he should be pretty thankful about that. These people who go to work should be entitled to have their phones fixed before they go to work or when they come back at night. Quite often, new installations are carried out at weekends when people get plenty of overtime and it suits them pretty well to do it. But when a private phone goes out of order, it is not always fixed at a time that is helpful to the people who have the problem. I think the Government should do something about that. I would like to ask about a matter that came out at the Estimates-the operator assisted service, the 011 service, and the fact that delays have now increased and the number of calls has decreased. That is also something that the Minister can laugh about, because that service-the 011 service-is not helping the people who are using it! Getting back to the installation problem, in reply to a question on notice about the average time for installations we are told that the flat rate charges for miscellaneous installation and removal work were $123 for business and $103 for residential. The answer states: At this stage the charges for customers under the new system are, on average, about 20 per cent less than the old flat rate and these savings are similar in both urban and country locations. I ask the Minister: How could the savings be the same when people have to travel 40 miles in the country to fix a phone whereas in the city they do not have to travel very far at all? How can the time charges be the same? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.58) —A series of questions was asked about particular operational matters involving Telecom Australia which seem to me to be a bit difficult to deal with in the context of an Estimates debate in the Committee of the Whole. It would be very much desired if phones that are out of order could be connected before or after work. I appreciate the inconvenience that is generated for consumers when their needs cannot be attended to at times when they are at home. It is a problem of sequencing generally in the provision of services. It is very difficult for any service organisation to so arrange its affairs as to be able to meet consumer needs to that extent, but obviously it is the kind of improvement in service that one would be hoping Telecom would be able to achieve in the period ahead as greater emphasis comes on alternative ways of communicating and a more competitive environment emerges in which Telecom will probably have to lift its game. In regard to 011 operator assisted calls, obviously there has been a deliberate policy decision to try to press consumers of telephone services into using direct dial techniques for both interstate and overseas calls. The technology and the ease of access into the system when doing it that way are such that that is an entirely sensible state of affairs. It is obviously much cheaper and in many ways more flexible and convenient for people to do it that way; but old habits die hard. It becomes a matter, I suppose, of building in some disincentive for people using operator-assisted calls. Staff numbers have been allowed to wind down very significantly in that area in the hope and expectation that only in exceptional circumstances in the future will people use operator-assisted calls and they will use the direct-dial mechanisms. As to the last point raised about the time components in service call charges, I am not in a position to give any response at this stage. I will take that question on notice. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales)(10.01) —I have an advantage in speaking on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) because, although I note that Mr Hill was unable to attend the Senate Estimates committee hearings, he was able to attend this morning at the Joint Committee of Public Accounts public hearings. They were of some interest and are worthy of hearing about in this debate. One of the things dealt with in the hearing this morning was the problems that the ABC has had on a continuing basis with inadequate accounting. The Auditor-General's report has drawn attention to this matter, as was pointed out in the estimates hearings. Mr Hill was able to shed some light on problems encountered in this period. They are fourfold. Firstly, he said that he had inherited a mammoth organisational change which, had he come to his position before he did, he would not have embarked upon. But he decided it was a wiser course of action to accept the breakup of the organisation into five separate operating entities and to proceed from there. He felt that to undertake further organisational changes would only have exacerbated the situation. It was interesting to hear that he personally would not have embarked on that change. Secondly, Mr Hill said that the changeover to accrual accounting had been a very large task to take on at the same time as this mammoth organisational change was taking place. Thirdly, he pointed out that it was very difficult in the ABC to deal with the management question. As the ABC is a creative body and, of necessity, attracts creative people, over the course of years the habits had developed whereby promotion into managerial positions had come from within the creative ranks. He pointed out that it is necessary so that people who are skilled in creative areas make good managers. He said specifically that he felt management within the ABC structure left something to be desired. Fourthly, Mr Hill pointed out that some 50 per cent of the people who work in the financial and computer areas are casual or consultant based and perhaps they are looking forward to having more permanent staff come in to take over this important area of getting the accounts in order. The Auditor-General had pointed out that there have been some serious breaches of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act. From asking questions about how the ABC had breached the Act, we found it was largely in two areas. The first was in the old system of accounting. Where expenditure would have exceeded a specific allocation for a particular project ministerial authority had to be sought. On several occasions this ministerial authority had not been sought and the expenditure thus had been unauthorised. The second and quite interesting area of the breach was where the ABC had incurred expenditure on behalf of a third party in an unauthorised manner. This third party turned out to be none other than the Parliament House Construction Authority. Costs in the range of $43m had been incurred by the ABC on behalf of the Parliament House Construction Authority, subsequently to be reimbursed. A further problem that was identified, and it is interesting to look at it in the context of this debate, concerned property of the ABC which is linked to board members and senior members of staff, for them to take home and use. This property seems to be in the nature of radios and televisions so the people may be able to look at or hear programs. Some $760,000-worth of equipment can presently be identified in this area. One of the criticisms in the Auditor-General's report was that there had been no proper inventory of this material. This is now being attended to. It was encouraging to hear that the ABC is now able to identify ABC shops as profit centres. Although there has been no costing, for instance, of the free television advertising that is available to the ABC to advertise those shops-no account has been taken of that-the ABC still chooses to identify the shops as profit centres. The concerns that came out of the hearings this morning were largely that although there seems to be a distinct effort on the part of management to come to grips with the problems of poor accounting and accountability in the ABC, it seems to be taking an inordinate amount of time to achieve a noticeable improvement. Many of the questions asked related to why the process cannot be speeded up and why the ABC cannot be brought better into line. I draw the chamber's attention to these matters because it is quite significant that the judgment would be that during the years since the ABC was changed from a commission to a corporation, far too much has been attempted at a time and, accordingly, the results have been less than satisfactory. The amount of work required to make the ABC an efficient body is something which management is quite concerned about but clearly is not yet on top of. Let us look at the options the ABC is now facing and the cuts of say $20m that it is facing immediately. The options it has to look at came out, as well, in the hearings this morning. I asked the question: With regard to national news and current affairs programs, particularly taking into consideration what is happening in New South Wales with the changes of personnel in a current affairs program, was it the intention of the ABC to have a more national face and look at phasing out State news and current affairs programs? Mr Hill answered that that was not a decision which had been made but it was unreasonable to think that the ABC, as a national broadcasting body, should not have national news or national current affairs programs. However, he recognised the constituency that it served, which had a particular concern for regional-based news and current affairs. He did state that should cut backs in funding for the ABC continue, that option would have to be put to the board for consideration. Furthermore, Mr Hill says that the only areas in the ABC that are left to cut, having thinned all the services that have been maintained, will be its representation in various parts of Australia. The importance of bringing this part of the information to the Senate's attention is that the ABC will have to make some tough decisions and the Government cannot shy away from them. It will finally have to answer for what decisions are made to cut back services or alter the shape of the ABC as it presently is. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.09) —I am not sure whether a response is required but let me just say this: I am sure that Mr Hill will be indebted to Senator Bishop for the relatively sympathetic way in which she read the minutes of this morning's Public Accounts Committee hearing. I think Mr Hill has had a pretty gruelling sort of day, starting with the Public Accounts Committee, then having lunch with me and then having a session with the National Party of Australia in the afternoon, culminating in Senator Stone's response to the- Senator Stone —The high point of his day. Senator GARETH EVANS —He presumably regarded it as going downhill all the way. To the extent that Senator Bishop is raising questions about the implementation of some of the audit matters that have been raised in the past, let me just say for the record that I report quarterly to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) on progress to fix up these things or prevent them from happening again. All the Auditor-General's references are taken very seriously in this respect. I am confident that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is in the business of getting its managerial act together. It is a labyrinthine, huge, sprawling organisation that has long needed a pretty rigorous managerial shakeup. I think it is getting that at the moment. How long it takes to get the process completed I do not know. The final point I would quickly make in respect to this morning's news, which was repeated by Senator Bishop, is that it should not be assumed that there will be cuts of $20m or anything like that to the ABC this year. That is a matter to be resolved in the Budget process. The particular figures that Mr Hill has referred to are just the forward estimates that have been flagged, forward estimates that are prepared on a pretty rigorous and sophisticated basis by the Department of Finance these days and in a way which rigorously excludes and puts in the basket of having to be negotiated or fought for all over again whole categories of expenditure which more reasonable people than Department of Finance officers might think are ongoing forms of expenditure but which, nonetheless, are regarded as ones that have a life when, say, a program of capital works is expended and have to be sought again as new policy. It is against that background that most of these cuts in the forward estimates have occurred. It bears no necessary resemblance to what the final budgetary outcome should be and it is a little early for scare tactics of the kind that some might be minded to implement at this stage. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.12) —I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) the changes that have occurred in respect of the remote commercial television service (RCTS), which I think he commented upon some weeks ago in the Senate. He drew our attention-- Senator Gareth Evans —And some hours ago, earlier today, too. Senator MESSNER —We are about to get another serve. This service was initiated by the Government back in 1987. It was supposed to be the answer to all-- Senator Gareth Evans —In 1987? Senator MESSNER —I beg your pardon, 1985. It was supposed to be the answer to all the problems of providing television in outback areas. It has all but collapsed under this Government's mismanagement. Not at any stage has there been a clear presentation as to how the RCTS will be put into place. Quite apart from that, we know that individual licensees have surrendered licences or transferred them to other licensees at very low values and consequently the system appears to be on the verge of collapse. Perhaps this is characterised best in an article which appeared in Australian Communications this month uner the heading ``The RCTS mess'. It displays a photograph of the Minister proudly talking to people who are running the Imparja television service in Alice Springs. It makes the point that there has been some change of ownership of the QSTV licensee, who is seeking to move the licence as I understand it, to the Parry Corporation Ltd, which is acquiring the licence to operate the Queensland network known as Q-Net as well. The situation that arises is interesting because it raises the question of how the technology is being fitted together. I noted in this morning's Australian an article which refers to innovation for communications and the ground work for the future. It deals with this particular problem. It states: Mr Parry is also the new owner of Q-Net the Queensland Government's private network. The problem with the deal is that the Q-net service is a dedicated 12 watt transponder whereas the RCTS licensees were to sign leases for 30-watt transponders. This is the technology of the satellite. Therefore, the lower the voltage, the larger the dish needed to receive the signal. The article goes on to state: If the QSTV proposal goes ahead, households that have already installed small dishes will have no option but to continue using the small dish and put up with poor reception, or buy a larger dish at a cost of $1500 or more. Mr Chairman, this indicates the problems that are arising with the Government's constant change of policy. Having headed in the one direction of providing a service apparently on a 30-watt transponder off the Aussat satellite, it has now allowed a change to a 12-watt transponder. Any people who have already purchased equipment in order to receive signals off the 30-watt transponders will now be unable to do so with any degree of efficiency and effectiveness. Consequently, they will find that they wasted their money and need to purchase another reception dish to fit the new system that will be provided by Mr Parry under the new arrangements. This brings into very close focus the ill thought out Government policy in this area. It also brings to attention the lack of co-ordination in the Government's broadcasting policy in the last few months. I will focus now on one of the applicants for a licence for the remote commercial television service-Imparja, the Aboriginal run station operating out of Alice Springs. It is apparently due to commence service on 1 January next year and will serve the Northern Territory, excluding Darwin, and the northern part of South Australia, together with the western part of South Australia. Obviously, those are very remote areas. Questions of viability must be raised about Imparja's ability to broadcast a commercial service through that whole immense but very sparsely populated area. The Government has apparently been in negotiation with the Northern Territory Government to provide a subsidy of $2m to Imparja to undertake the commercial service to be provided through that area. Recently, under pressure from Federal Government cutbacks, the Northern Territory Government reduced its funding for Imparja by $2m. Consequently, no subsidy will be coming from that source. Senator Gareth Evans —It wasn't anything to do with who got the licence that led to that reduction, was it? Senator MESSNER —Senator Evans may be able to inform us to some greater extent about this. The fact is that the service seems to be surrounded by a great deal of uncertainty at present because the funding simply will not be coming from the Northern Territory Government. But, of course, it is an open question as to whether or not the Federal Government will now seek to stand in the place of the Northern Territory Government and provide a suitable subsidy. My question is: Is the Government intending to do that? If it has no intention of replacing the funds that otherwise would have been provided by the Northern Territory Government, what other choices has it contemplated in terms of making sure that a service will be provided in those remote areas of Australia? This brings me to the point about what has recently transpired in my own State of South Australia. In a letter from the Minister addressed to the Chairman of the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations (FACTS), dated 7 October, it is made clear that the Minister intends to proceed with the aggregation of licences throughout South Australia and Western Australia. This follows the already passed legislation which provides for the aggregation of television services in the three eastern States. This, of course, runs contrary to the proposals that the Government put down last June when it indicated that there would not necessarily be aggregated television services for South Australia and Western Australia for some years to come. Yet, the Government has now changed its mind and is seeking to press local regional television services in South Australia and Western Australia into an aggregated situation. I instance the cases of the three regional stations in South Australia, one operating in the Spencer Gulf region, around Port Pirie, Whyalla and Port Augusta, another in the south-east based on Mount Gambier and serving the lower south-eastern districts of the State and the other a small service serving only about 38,000 people in the Riverland district, and based at Loxton. A question arises for those who are inquisitive enough to ask about this. If Imparja Television is going to find it difficult to remain viable, is it the Government's intention to enforce aggregation of the three regional television stations of South Australia with Imparja, or is there some other plan designed to bring about aggregation of those three stations with the three Adelaide based networks? Or is there a combination of those two plans to be implemented, which will bring about aggregation of all three different services into one network, presumably based on Adelaide? The Minister's letter addressed to FACTS is not clear on this point and does not provide us with any clues as to what the Government's final decision on this matter will be. It is an important matter because it challenges the question of localism in the various regional television services that are currently broadcasting in the Iron Triangle and the Green Triangle in the south-east and the Riverland districts. All people who are connected with those particular television services naturally have a very big interest in what local programs are provided and will be interested to know exactly what the Government's intentions are in this regard. One other matter that I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister is the question that I raised during the Estimates committees debates in respect of Australia Post and the practice of so-called re-mailing, which is a means by which letters can be directed to another country in bulk and remailed from that point to a second country, using concessional rates of postage available in that second country. Apparently, there are four Australian companies operating this particular kind of service for the benefit of Australians. The question arises as to whether that is legal or not. I am not certain about that, and I would like to hear from the Minister as to whether he considers that it is. From the reply that was provided by Australia Post, I see that some discussion is going on between international postal administrations as to whether or not this activity should be combated. The point is that it raises some doubts as to whether or not there are some ways being sought, and obviously obtained, by private operators in Australia to get around the postal laws that apply in this country. I would like to know the names of those four companies that were set down in the Minister's reply to my question in the Estimates Committee, as they are not set down in the answer provided to us. The answers are important to know as a matter of public interest, but I would also like to hear from the Minister exactly how he regards this kind of operation, and whether it is legal or otherwise. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.25) —That was a mixed bag of lollies for me to finish up-I hope-the Estimates with. To start with the remote commercial television service (RCTS). I do not think that the West Australian Golden West Network Ltd would be terribly impressed to hear Senator Messner's characterisation of the whole RCTS scheme as a mess. As I understand it is operating successfully in that part of the country. the central Australian licensee Imparja Television is off and running, or about to be. It has the wherewithal to get started. The basic problem is revenue flow. In the years ahead, that problem will be redressed, as I understand it, if the Northern Territory Government honours what was generally believed to be the undertaking that it gave. Certainly it generated a reasonable expectation of a flow of funds to the RCTS licensee for central Australia. It is a matter of some regret that there seems to be some reluctance to come through with that. I have certainly been trying to get the Northern Territory Government to honour what people reasonably believe was an undertaking at the time of the licence hearing and I am hopeful, as a result, that the central RCTS proposal will proceed. Senator Messner —Has it given you a final reply? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, as far as I am aware it has not. I cannot recall having seen one, so I am still awaiting it. In terms of the north-east, a transfer of the licence has been accomplished, subject only to Australian Broadcasting Tribunal approval, from the original licensees to the Parry Corporation and ICOM Satellite Services Pty Ltd organisation and I have every ground for confidence that the RCTS concept will proceed there, as I said about 3 1/2 hours ago in answer to a question, when this matter was first raised in the debate. We are turning full circle for the umpteenth time. I think that Senator Messner has got himself terribly muddled between his 12-watt and 30-watt transponders and his understanding of the technology involved. My clear understanding is that the RCTS licensee in the north-east is planning to use a 30-watt transponder. Certainly, that is the basis on which the RCTS licence was granted, and obviously there are difficulties if one sticks with the 12-watt transponder. If Senator Messner thinks of a weak beam needing a large dish to pick-up signal, he will realise that for a strong 30-watt beam, one needs only a little dish to pick it up, because it is strong. In the context of the 12-watt transponder, there would obviously be problems of getting people to buy larger dishes than they might have committed themselves to already. The Commonwealth Government would certainly not look to that with any enthusiasm at all. So far as the south-east is concerned, it is still a matter for resolution as to how the remote areas or those not presently served by licences in the south east will be served. I am hopeful that we can get some sort of solution, although hopefully not one that gives the saturation coverage that was originally proposed. Perhaps the north-east one can be made a bit more viable by extending down into the south-east area, and perhaps, too, the Imparja licence can be made a bit more viable by extending its coverage and revenue return accordingly into the south-east domain. As to the future of aggregation in South Australia and Western Australia, or other like means of getting extra services to country and regional audiences in those States, those two States were left out of the original aggregation scheme that is now being introduced down the eastern side of Australia. There are no particularly clear cut plans in mind about how to proceed from here. I recently wrote, on 7 October, to the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations asking for a program of consultation in Western Australia and South Australia, with a view to devising some mutually satisfactory means, perhaps in consultation with the metropolitan licensees as well, for getting improved and expanded services. I hope that we can report progress at this stage. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Chairman having reported accordingly- The PRESIDENT —It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(10.30) —by leave-I give notice that, 13 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Defence (Public Areas) By-laws as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 238 and made under the Defence Act 1903, be disallowed. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —The Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances has written to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) about certain strict liability offences in these regulations. The Committee has adopted the view that the imposition of strict criminal liability by delegated legislation should always be clearly justified. If inadequate justifications exist, the legislation should require proof of intention or recklessness, or allow for reasonable excuse defences. We are awaiting the Minister's response. I give this notice on the last day on which I can do so merely to protect the Committee's position. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.31 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Defence Act-Determinations 1987- No. 77-Temporary rental Allowance and others. No. 78-Settling In and Settling Out Allowance and others. No. 79-District Allowance and others. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders 1987 No. 7-Export Meat as amended (Amendment).