Tuesday, 24 November 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —A petition has been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: (1) The Agreement between the United States of America and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap can be terminated from 19 October 1986. (2) In the event of war between the United States and the Soviet Union, access by the United States to Pine Gap's facilities makes it a probable nuclear target. (3) Access by all nations to Pine Gap's capacity to monitor and verify compliance with existing and future nuclear limitations treaties could contribute to world peace and security. (4) The people of Australia are entitled to be consulted, through their representatives in Parliament, on any extension or modification of the Agreement affecting their lives, security and welfare. And your petitioners humbly pray that: (1) Notice be given by 19 October 1986 that the Agreement between the United States and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap be terminated by October 1987. (2) Public discussion and inquiry be instituted into the feasibility of negotiating a new agreement with the United Nations during the International Year of Peace offering the verification facilities of the Pine Gap base to all nations. (3) Any agreement concerning the future use of Pine Gap be referred to Parliament for ratification. by Senator Vallentine (from 12 citizens). Petitions received. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to provide for the reporting of certain transactions and transfers to establish a Cash Transaction Reports Agency and to impose certain obligations in relation to accounts, and for related purposes. 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 to 7, 9 to 15 and 17 standing in my name for this day of sitting for disallowance of certain delegated legislation appearing on the Notice Paper. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —Over the past few weeks and particularly over the past few days the Regulations and Ordinances Committee has been engaged in a quite extensive and intensive scrutiny of a very large and very significant batch of delegated legislation. In total, today and yesterday, the Committee cleared up 19 matters where protective notices of motion of disallowance had been given. I understand that never before in the history of the Committee has it dealt with such a volume of notices in such a short period of time requiring five meetings in just over one week. I remind honourable senators that the Committee is simultaneously dealing with a reference from this chamber to examine a Statute Law Bill amendment to the Acts Interpretation Act and hopefully that report will also be tabled this week. The Committee has not recommended disallowance of any of the legislation that has come before it since we have obtained a large number of important undertakings from a range of Ministers to amend legislation to ensure that it conforms to the Committee's bipartisan principles for the protection of civil liberties and the role of Parliament. I would like to mention just a few of the significant concessions the Committee has obtained in the past few days. In regard to bounty regulations, Australian Capital Territory taxation ordinances and citizenship regulations, relevant Ministers have been persuaded to provide additional internal reconsideration procedures, and Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) review rights, where officials are involved in important discretionary decisions. In another case, an appeal jurisdiction will be transferred from the Supreme Court to the AAT, where it more appropriately lies. A provision that requires all contracts of employment to be terminated without compensation when a co-operative society is compulsorily taken over by an administrator will be amended to allow this to happen only where the financial viability of the society demands it. An appeal right to the AAT on this issue will provide an avenue of redress. Official visitors, who will replace magistrates as visitors to Australian Capital Territory remand centres, will, by an amendment to the law, be required to be persons who are independent of government. Another amendment will ensure that official visitors legally enjoy some measure of security of tenure and hence freedom to act in accordance with their conscience and duty. A number of unnecessary strict liability offences will be removed and replaced by requirements to prove intention or recklessness. A number of legal and drafting flaws will be corrected. A sub-delegated legislative determination will be made subject to tabling and disallowance in Parliament. In one case under a taxation ordinance the privilege against self-incrimination will be tightened up significantly to provide for use-derivative use immunity in keeping with conventional standards. The recently revised environment impact statement procedures which have been amended for the first time in 10 years have been further amended to reflect the Committee's concerns about public access to information and openness in the procedures to be followed; certain inspectors with powers to enter private property will be required to carry and produce photographic identity cards; finally, a provision will be removed which could have resulted in firms of attorneys being made liable for the taxation default of companies. The Committee is grateful to all the Ministers involved for their willingness to protect the rights of individuals and the role of the Parliament when it was pointed out to them that these rights could be affected by delegated legislation being made. There is in this Senate a long established tradition of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee persuading Ministers to act decisively to avoid undue trespass on rights in subordinate law. The Ministers in these cases have been no less responsive than their predecessors in recognising how important some of these matters are and how easily inadvertent flaws can creep into the delegated statute book to the detriment of ordinary people. The Committee is also indebted to its acting legal adviser, Professor Dennis Pearce of the Australian National University, for his timely and dependable advice. He has again, in this latest round of scrutiny, proved himself to be a skilled and true friend of Parliament. Finally, Mr President, as I said yesterday, the Committee will be watching carefully to ensure that departments act promptly to implement ministerial undertakings that have been given. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard, for the information of honourable senators, a short statement setting out the course of the Committee's scrutiny of these particular instruments. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Scrutiny by the Regulations and Ordinances Committee Bounty (Ships) Reservation of Bounty Regulations (Amendment) (Statutory Rules 1987 No. 116) Bounty (Ship Repair) Reservation of Bounty Regulations (Amendment) (Statutory Rules 1987 No. 117) Bounty (Ship Repair) Registration Regulations (Statutory Rules 1987 No. 53) Customs Regulations (Amendment) (Statutory Rules 1987 No. 140) In the Bounty Regulations above, the Committee asked the Minister whether he would consider providing for AAT review rights in regard to various discretions, the unfair exercise of which could possibly cause commercial loss. The Minister for Science and Small Business, the Hon. Barry Jones, M.P., has agreed to provide for review rights concerning: refusals to reserve bounty which is a precondition of actual payment of bounty; and refusals of eligibility to certain subcontractors nominated to perform bounty-related work. In a most significant gesture indicative of his concern for rights in this area, the Minister has further agreed to make review rights concerning refusals to reserve bounty retrospective to the date of commencement of the relevant regulations under scrutiny, i.e. 15 June 1987, to ensure that all applicants for bounty have been protected. The Committee also examined the legality of aspects of the Customs Regulations which were designed to provide for certain payments to be made by customs warehouse licensees on lodging certain customs documents in a computer compatible form. The Minister has given the Committee an explanation of the purpose, rationale and legality of the new regulations. Remand Centres (Amendment) Ordinance 1987 (Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 30 of 1987) This Ordinance provides that magistrates appointed by the Chief Magistrate for the purpose of visiting remand centres and hearing and investigating complaints, are to be replaced by Official Visitors appointed by the Minister. The Committee considered that this role was an important and sensitive one and that Official Visitors should, therefore, enjoy, under the law, independence from government and protection from arbitrary removal from office. The Minister for Territories, the Hon. John Brown, has agreed to amend the Ordinance to provide for this independence and security of tenure. Postal By-Laws Amendment (Amendment No. 3 of 1987) The Postal By-laws enable a person to offer a minimum of $500 worth of postage stamps in reduction of postage debts by allowing for their repurchase by the Australian Postal Commission provided the applicant can satisfy the Commission by whatever means the Commission may determine that the stamps were in fact purchased from the Commission or its predecessor the Postmaster-General's Department. The Committee enquired about the means available to protect stamp purchasers from any possible abuse of the exercise of this discretion. The Committee was also concerned to ensure that the way in which the Commission would seek to satisfy itself about the bona fides of an applicant would be lawful under the terms of its by-law making powers. The Commission informed the Committee that access to the Ombudsman would be a possible remedy for abuse of power. The Committee has decided in this case not to press for AAT review rights because of the increasingly commercial orientation of the commission's activities in a competitive environment. This does not mean that the Committee does not consider that AAT review of Commission decisions will never be appropriate, merely that it may not be appropriate in this case. The Committee considers that a doubt may remain about the lawfulness of the way in which the Commission has provided for decisions on repurchase to be made. The By-law provisions may arguably be an unlawful subdelegation. However, where, as here, the arguments on the law are finely balanced, the Committee will merely be advising the Commission that their legal opinion may need re-examination to ensure the avoidance of legal problems in the future. Meat Inspection (South Australia) Orders (Meat Inspection Orders No. 2 of 1987) The Committee's principal concern was to determine the legality of a reference in the Orders to the incorporation into the Orders of instruments ``made from time to time pursuant to a relevant State Act.'' The State Act itself and regulations made under it could be lawfully incorporated as they existed ``from time to time'' (i.e. as periodically amended) without further legal provision under the Orders. However, the incorporation of a periodically amended ``instrument'' was not similarly provided for. Only such ``instruments'' in existence when the Orders were made could be incorporated. The Minister for Resources, the Hon. Peter Morris, M.P., has advised the Committee that there is a flaw in the Orders and the reference to ``instruments'' will be removed by an amendment. Wool Marketing Regulations (Statutory Rules 1987 No. 132) The Committee was concerned about the adequacy of appeal rights against discretionary decisions under these Regulations. The acting Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, the Hon. Peter Morris M.P., has satisfied the Committee that review rights are extensive under the Act and a reference to such rights in the regulations, which could have the unintended effect of reducing the scope of appeal rights, will be removed. The Minister has also undertaken to remove from the regulations 2 provisions which have the effect of reversing the evidentiary onus of proof. He will also provide that certain information which may be demanded by the Wool Corporation is to be supplied only ``within such reasonable period as is determined by the Corporation''. Further promised amendments will relate to the use of proper identity cards by inspectors, protective procedures when inspectors enter premises by consent and the removal of confusing drafting. Gaming Machine Ordinance 1987 (A.C.T. Ordinance No. 34 of 1987) The Committee has persuaded the Minister for Territories, the Hon. John Brown, M.P., to amend the Ordinance to provide that determinations under section 17, which provide for the percentage payout on A.C.T. gaming machines, will be made subject to parliamentary oversight since they are, in effect, quasi-legislative instruments. The Minister has also agreed to provide either for an express requirement of ``knowledge'' or for the defence of ``reasonable excuse'' to be available in provisions that could otherwise impose too strict a criminal liability. Inspectors with power to enter private property will be required to produce photographic identity certificates to deter imposters. Finally, the Minister has proposed to transfer from the A.C.T. Supreme Court to the AAT jurisdiction for appeals under the Ordinance in such a way as to provide for an additional appeal right which the Committee sought concerning extensions of time. A.C.T. Taxation Legislation The Committee raised with the Minister for Territories a wide range of issues in particular the existence of AAT review rights in connection with the exercise of discretionary powers. The Minister has agreed to provide for additional review rights in connection with section 28 of the Stamp Duties and Taxes Ordinance 1987 and subsection 10 (10) of the Payroll Tax Ordinance 1987. These decisions relate to refunds of duty and taxes. They fall fairly and squarely within the class of judgmental discretionary decisions customarily subject to AAT review and the fact that they arise after a tax assessment is not regarded by the Committee as being relevant to the issue of reviewability. The Minister has also agreed to provide for review of decisions under section 77 of the Taxation (Administration) Ordinance 1987 in connection with the status of a person as a member of a business group for tax purposes. The Minister has also promised to amend section 86 of the Taxation (Administration) Ordinance to ensure that inappropriate persons, like firms of attorneys, are not proceeded against and made liable in taxation proceedings that would properly be taken against a defaulting company. The Minister has also agreed: to replace with objective formulations a number of provisions which are unnecessarily cast in the form of subjective discretions; to table in Parliament the annual report of the Commissioner for A.C.T. Revenue Collections; to provide receipts for tobacco seized in the course of searches and place it in secure custody and empower the Court to order its disposal; to limit to licenced premises only, rather than, as at present, any premises, the power of authorised tax officers to demand that a person's name and address be supplied to the officers; to expressly limit to that which is ``reasonable'' the time and place at which evidence may be demanded by the Commissioner, and the assistance that a person may be required to give an officer exercising his or her powers; (this latter point provides an important declaratory reminder that official power originates under reasonable laws and must, pari passu, be exercised reasonably;) to provide for the more modern protection against self-incrimination in its use-derivative-use formulation (i.e. indemnity from the use of information acquired as a direct or indirect result of incriminating information lawfully demanded by the Commissioner contrary to the common law privilege against self-incrimination). Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Ordinance No. 3 1987 (A.C.T. Ordinance No. 42 of 1987) The Minister for Territories, the Hon. John Brown, M.P., has agreed that if the Committee advises him that it requires it, he will amend the Ordinance to provide (i) that Ministerial approval will be required for revocation by the Administrator of a direction to a society to transfer its engagements to another institution; (the initial power to issue a direction is itself subject to ministerial approval (which should always be given in writing);) (ii) that the Administrator's power to terminate employment and service contracts without compensation will not be exercised except where the Administrator is of the opinion that it is necessary to so terminate the contracts to preserve the viability of the society; and (iii) that the Administrator's immunity from suit when discharging in good faith his or her functions, not extend to confer immunity for acts of negligence. The Committee sought from the Minister each of these undertakings to amend the Ordinance to allay concerns it had put to him about these matters. By this statement to the Senate the Committee indicates its desire that the Minister should act to amend the Ordinance to deal with each of these matters. National Parks and Wildlife Regulations (Amendment) (Statutory Regulations 1987 No. 139) The Committee was concerned about provisions in these regulations imposing strict liability for certain offences. The concept of strict liability is one which imposes criminal liability on individuals who have not intended, either directly or recklessly, to commit criminal actions. There are some common law defences to a charge of having committed a strict liability offence, in particular the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact. The Committee has adopted the approach of querying strict liability offences to ensure that the consequences of unintended criminality that flow from them have been thoroughly researched by the Minister and his officials and that adequate justifications are forthcoming. The Committee is not unswervingly opposed to strict liability offences. The imposition of such liability in certain regulatory situations is sometimes inevitable and necessary. This has arisen in the course of the Committee's scrutiny of the Wool Marketing Regulations (Amendment) (S.R. 1987 No. 132) where the Committee accepted the imposition of strict liability concerning the timely submission of certain returns in circumstances where an administering authority had to process 90,000-100,000 refund applications and the provision of the information in the returns was critical to this process. In the National Parks Regulations strict liability was imposed in circumstances where, without intent or negligence, protected species or plants were killed, injured, damaged, taken or kept or nests were interfered with. The Minister has agreed to amend the regulations to provide that an offence will arise only where killing or injuring or interference is intentional or reckless. A defence of reasonable excuse will be made available to a charge of taking or keeping. However, the Minister has indicated to the Committee, and the Committee has agreed, that commercial dealings, such as the sale or purchase of protected animals, will remain the subject of strict liability. A schedule of scientific names for some protected species will be redrafted to include common names to ensure that the public is more aware of the species involved. The Committee also asked that police officers not in uniform be required by the regulations to produce their usual police photographic identification when acting as wardens. This will help secure the enforcement system and deter imposters. Senator COLLINS —I also seek leave to table copies of the correspondence exchanged on these matters to ensure that they are publicly available and accessible to honourable senators. It would normally be sought to have this correspondence incorporated in Hansard, but it is far too lengthy for that to be done. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —I table the documents. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) -I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration: An itemised costing and ongoing review until project completion of the proposed satellite monitoring and communications station at Geraldton, and the reasons for the increase in estimated costs from around $25m to around $300m. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) -I give notice that, contingent on the President proceeding to the placing of business on any day, I will move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Vallentine moving a motion relating to the order of business on the Notice Paper. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) -I give notice that, contingent on the Senate on any day concluding its consideration of any item of business and prior to the Senate proceeding to the consideration of another item of business, I will move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Vallentine moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate. 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 seek leave to have the list incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation- Annual Report 1986-87-Together with the Auditor- General's Report-Pursuant to Section 52 of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act 1970 and Section 63h of the Audit Act 1901. 2. Health Insurance Commission-Annual Report 1986-87-Together with the Auditor-General's Report-Pursuant to Section 42 of the Health Insurance Commission Act 1973. 3. Government Response to the Schedule of Outstanding Government Responses to Parliamentary Committee Reports-Tabled by the President of the Senate-5 June 1987. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I seek leave to have paper No. 3, which is the Government response to the schedule of outstanding Government responses to parliamentary committee reports, incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES Constitutional and Legal Affairs (i) Commonwealth Law Making Power and the Privilege of Freedom of Speech in State Parliament (Tabled 30.5.85) The Government's response to the Committee Report was presented to the Senate on 5 December 1986. (ii) The Commonwealth Ombudsman's Special Reports (Tabled 4.12.86) The Committee's Report addressed two Special Reports by the Commonwealth Ombudsman entitled the ``Special Report No. 1-The Cotton Case involving the Australian Broadcasting Commission'' and ``Special Report No. 2-The Industrial Sugar Mills Case involving the Department of Defence''. Special Report No. 1: Cotton case. The Government has reviewed the Act in the light of the Committee's report and recommendation. Although it does not believe it is crucial to the Ombudsman's operations the Act will be amended when amendments are next introduced, to provide that the Ombudsman is able to participate in or initiate remedial action should special circumstances arise after the formal reporting process is complete. The Government has noted the Committee's view on possible action by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) but in view of the agreement reached between the Ombudsman and the ABC, two independent statutory bodies, does not believe there is a case for further Government action. Special Report No. 2: ISM case. The Committee recommended that the Minister for Finance reconsider his decision in the Industrial Sugar Mills Case in the light of the further examination of this matter by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. My colleague, Senator Walsh, the Minister for Finance, in accordance with the recommendation, has reviewed his decision in this matter. After due consideration of the issues, Senator Walsh has decided that an act of grace payment is not appropriate. (iii) Role of the Parliament in relation to the National Companies Scheme (Tabled 24.4.87) As indicated in the Governor-General's speech at the Opening of Parliament, the Government will be implementing the recommendation of the Report that the Commonwealth should assume sole responsibility for the field currently regulated jointly by the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory under the Co-operative Companies and Securities Scheme. The details of the Government's program for implementing the recommendation will be developed in negotiations to be held in the near future with the State and Northern Territory Governments, and in light of consultations with business groups and other interested persons. Education and the Arts (i) Tenure of Employment of Academics (Tabled 9.9.82) The former minister for Education indicated that the Government would be considering the issue in the context of its consideration of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC) Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness. The review's report was released publicly on 24 October 1986. The report contained a number of recommendations on academic staffing in higher education with respect to the tenure issue. The CTEC Report for the Triennium 1988-90, volume 1, which was tabled on 4 June 1987, endorsed the recommendations on academic staffing issues. The Government notes that, with recent national registration of academic unions, salaries and terms of conditions are now matters under the jurisdiction of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Government will take account of the recommendations of the Senate Committee and the CTEC Committee of Inquiry when these issues come before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Because of these changed circumstances the Government will need to give further consideration to how it can influence matters such as those included in the report. While the Government continues to be very concerned about these matters a specific response to the report now appears unnecessary. (ii) A National Language Policy (Tabled 21.2.85) The Report raised a number of complex issues, and because of the need to ensure that the policy reflects the views of all interested parties, the minister decided that further careful examination and consultation was required. On 20 April 1986, the Minister announced the appointment of a special consultant, Mr Joseph Lo Bianco, to undertake this task and to formulate a National Languages Policy for the Government's consideration. Mr Lo Bianco's report `The National Policy on Languages' was tabled by the Minister for Education on 4 May 1987. The Prime Minister in a speech on 26 April 1987 stated that the Government endorsed the Lo Bianco report, and a detailed submission on the report is to be developed to provide an integrated funding package in the 1987-88 Budget. The Lo Bianco report constitutes a full and final response to the Committee's Report. (iii) Examination of Annual Reports-`Another Look at Children's Television' (Tabled 20.3.86) The report by the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts provides comprehensive information on the Government's role in support of children's television and is a timely reminder of our obligations to Australian children in this important area. The Committee's sole recommendation is that the Minister should review funding of the Australian Children's Television Foundation, a company incorporated in Victoria in 1982. The Commonwealth, States (excluding Queensland) and Territories provide funding for the foundation on a matching basis. The Foundation presents annual reports to participating governments and also reports to the Cultural Ministers Council each year on activities and funding needs. The Foundation has received the strong endorsement of the Council for its project initiation and production efforts as well as for script development of children's television programs. This year the Commonwealth's contribution will be $0.54m taking its total allocation since the Foundation's inception to $3.29m. Given the shared financial arrangements and established reporting measures, the Government believes that it would be inappropriate for the Commonwealth to conduct a unilateral review along the lines suggested by the Standing Committee. The Foundation has made good use of the Government's Taxation Incentives for films Scheme under Division 10ba of the Income Tax Assessment Act with its production of the $3.8m ``Winners'' series which has been screened Australia-wide and the $7.5m ``Touch the Sun'' series to mark the Bicentennial. The Foundation has also received substantial indirect Commonwealth funding for its productions through programs administered by the Australian Film Commission. The Senate may be assured that the Government recognises the importance of children's television drama production in the context of maintaining the Australian film industry at a high level of production. This is reflected in continuing Commonwealth support for the Foundation and its work, and an increase of $40,000 in this year's grant. (iv) Examination of Annual Reports-`The ABC's Radio Racing Service in Queensland (Tabled 17.9.86) As the recommendations of the Report are of major concern to the Queensland Government, the Government does not intend to respond to the Committee's Report. (v) ABC/SBS Amalgamation (Interim Report) (Tabled 24.2.87) ABC/SBS Amalgamation (Tabled 5.6.87) The Prime Minister announced on 26 April 1987 that the Government did not intend to reintroduce the legislation concerning amalgamation. Since then the Minister for Transport and Communications has asked his Department for some papers on a variety of national broadcasting policy issues including options for the development of SBS as a multicultural and special interest broadcaster. The Minister expects to be in a position to respond to the Committee's reports following his consideration of those papers in the Autumn sittings. (vi) Education of Gifted and Talented Children (Tabled 17.11.86) The Committee tabled a progress report on this Report on 17 November 1986. The Government has noted the report but reserves its response pending receipt of the Committee's final report. Finance and Government Operations (i) Statutory Authorities of the Commonwealth-Fifth Report (Tabled 16.9.82) The Minister for Finance made a major statement on 10 June 1986 concerning Government policy on statutory authorities encompassing the ambit of this Report. (ii) Non-Statutory Bodies (Tabled 7.10.86) Examination of the Committee's recommendations has involved an extensive process of interdepartmental consultation. The Government expects to be able to provide a response to the Committee's Report this Sittings. (iii) ABC Employment Contracts and Their Confidentiality (Tabled 3.12.86) The Government tabled a response to this Report in the Senate on 17 November 1987. (iv) Report on the Delay in Disposal of the Customs House, Wiltona Hostel and Rifle Range, Williamstown, Victoria. (Tabled 7.5.87) Williamstown Customs House A Consultative Committee was established by the former Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services to advise him on the possible future use of the Williamstown Customs House. The Committee has not presented its final report to date. Wiltona Hostel Revenue of $631,570 was received from the disposal of this property in 1986/87. Williamstown Rifle Range The property has now been sold to the Urban Land Authority for $11.7 million. The Commonwealth received $6.0 million in 1986/87 and will receive a further $3.0 million in 1987/88 and $2.7 million in 1988/89. (v) The circumstances surrounding the various court actions relating to the film ``Captain Invincible''. (Tabled 5.6.87) While the Committee has made no specific recommendations for Government action, it does draw conclusions from the material which it had before it relating to the court actions and, more generally, on the defence of decisions under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. The Government has noted the Committee's conclusions. Foreign Affairs and Defence (i) Australia-China Trade (Tabled 23.8.84) The five recommendations contained in the Report in effect endorse existing Government policy and it is not intended to respond to the Report. National Resources (i) Development of the Bauxite, Alumina and Aluminium Industries (Tabled 25.11.81) The Government responded to this report on 16 October 1984. (ii) Adequacy of Quarantine in the Torres Strait Area (Tabled 19.11.86) The Government's response to the Committee's report was presented to the Senate on 5 June 1987. Science, Technology and Commerce (i) Technology assessment in Australia (Tabled 29.4.87) Preparation of the response has required extensive liaison with other Government bodies, as it proposes legislative action and changes to some Government arrangements. Comment has now been received from most of these bodies and preparation of the response is under way. The Government expects to be able to respond to the Committee's report during this Sittings. Science, Technology and the Environment (i) Land Use Policy in Australia (Tabled 21.2.85) The Committee recommended that the Australian Environment Council establish a Standing Committee on Land Use to draft a National Land Use Policy statement and to undertake other associated tasks relating to improving land use information, coordination and management. The Government has accepted the thrust of this recommendation by agreeing to seek to establish, through the Australian Environment Council, the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers and Planning Ministers Conference, a working group to develop cooperative arrangements between the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory with respect to rural and urban land use strategies and policies. Consistent with the Committee's recommendations, the Government will establish a National Land Use Information Network, drawing on the existing CSIRO data base and involving a national register of land use information and a manual of definitions and standards. The Government has also accepted the recommendation to complete an inventory of Commonwealth owned land and guidelines for the management of such property. (ii) Examination of Annual Reports-Australian Libraries and Information Council (Tabled 11.9.85) The proposed response is being considered in the context of a National Information Policy. This policy is under consideration by a number of Departments. (iii) Shelburne Bay (Tabled 4.12.86) In the recommendations of the Shelburne Bay report, a majority of the Committee took the view that the mine should not go ahead and recommended that, if the project were allowed to proceed, Commonwealth Government approval be conditional on the establishment of a Shelburne Bay Environmental Monitoring Committee. The Committee also took the view that a Land Use Plan for Cape York Peninsula is an urgent priority. Taking account of the Committee's views and the results of an environmental impact assessment of the proposal, the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the then Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, announced on 20 March 1987 the Government's decision not to approve the Shelburne Bay silica sand mining proposal. In these circumstances, the Committee's recommendation concerning a Monitoring Committee is not applicable. In assessing the Shelburne Bay proposal, the Government's attention was drawn to land use pressures that are developing in Cape York. In addition to pressures to conserve areas for wilderness, parks and Aboriginal land, there is an increasing demand for development. Tourism in the area is also growing. It was with these matters in mind that the former Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment granted $8,000 to enable a research project to be conducted into conservation initiatives on Cape York Peninsula. Among other matters, the project will be directed towards the examination of major land use factors on Cape York and the preparation of proposals for land reserve systems on the Peninsula. The study is to be completed by the end of December. Since the election, the Shelburne Bay joint venturers have discussed with Ministers a revised proposal to construct and operate a silica sand mine at Shelburne Bay with the outloading facility at Margaret Bay, approximately 8km south west of Shelburne Bay. However, no formal proposal has been submitted and the joint venturers have been given no indication that the Government might reverse its decision. Should a further formal proposal be received, the Committee's report will be taken into account in the Government's consideration. SENATE SELECT COMMITTEES Animal Welfare (i) Dolphins and Whales in Captivity (Tabled 29.11.85) Preparation of a response to the Committee's report has required consultation with all States and the Northern Territory as the report raises a number of matters for which the States have major responsibility. All Premiers and the Chief Minister have responded to a letter from the Prime Minister, seeking their particular State's views on the report, and a response is now being prepared. Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 (i) Report No. 1 (Tabled 8.10.86) The subject of the Report deals with issues in respect of which the Commonwealth does not have direct legislative power. Accordingly, a co-ordinated response with the States is desirable. The report raises both health and legal issues. The Attorney-General placed the matter on the agenda of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and it was discussed at its meetings on 5 March 1987 and 21 May 1987. The matter was also placed on the agenda of the Australian Health Ministers conference and was discussed at their meeting on 13-14 April 1987. The discussion in both forums was designed to ascertain State attitudes towards the implementation of the Report by a co-operative approach between the Commonwealth, the States and Territories. Both bodies agreed that there was a need for a national advisory body having a broadly based membership to consider bio-ethical issues including embryo research and reproductive technology as they develop. The Health Minister's Conference has an officers committee developing proposals for the National Advisory Body and it will be assisted by Standing Committee officers. The Attorney-General expects to be able to present the response to the Parliament during these Sittings. Statutory Authority Financing (i) Volume One (Tabled 8.9.83) Volume Two (Tabled 13.10.83) The Minister for Finance made a major statement on 10 June 1986 on Government policy on statutory authorities encompassing the ambit of this Report. The Government does not intend to make any further response. Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes (i) Private Hospitals in Australia: their conduct, administration and ownership (Tabled 28.4.87) The Government expects to be able to provide a response to the Committee's report these Sittings. Video Material Report on Video Material (Tabled 28.3.85) (i) As the Joint Select Committee on Video Material is continuing the work of the Senate Committee with the same terms of reference, the Government does not propose to respond to this report until the Joint Select Committee on Video Material has tabled its report. JOINT STANDING COMMITTEES Australian Capital Territory (i) Hospitality in the A.C.T. (Tabled 25.11.86) The Government's response to the Committee's report was presented to the Senate on 26 May 1987. Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings (i) Inquiry into Television and Radio Broadcasting of Both Houses of Parliament and Their Committees (Tabled 4.6.86) (ii) Provision of Sound and Vision Services in the New Parliament House (Tabled 14.5.87) The two reports from the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings raised wide ranging questions about the nature and operation of facilities for audio and visual broadcasting in the new Parliament House. It has become apparent that the Government will not be in a position to respond in detail to the Committee's recommendations relating to the establishment of a separate Parliamentary network, ABC involvement in the establishment and maintenance of an Audio Visual Unit, and related matters until after the completion by the Department of Transport and Communications of its in-house policy development about the role of national broadcasting. It is expected that this exercise will be completed early next year. In the meantime, the Government endorses the view of the Committee in its May 1987 Report about the need to ensure that action is taken over the provision of broadcasting facilities in the first 2 years of occupation of the new Parliament House. The responsible Departments will gladly co-operate with discussions between the Parliament, the ABC and other relevant parties to ensure that the contingency work that needs to be done to supply Parliament with the appropriate broadcasting, audio monitoring and closed circuit television facilities in the new building is put in hand this year, without prejudice to the longer term outcome of the above mentioned policy review. Foreign Affairs and Defence (i) Australia and the Philippines (Tabled 20.11.86) The Minister for Foreign Affairs expects to be able to respond to the Committee's Report in these Sittings. (ii) Disarmament and Arms Control in the Nuclear Age (Tabled 26.11.86) The Minister for Foreign Affairs informed the Parliament on 17 March 1987 that it had not been possible to respond to the report within the three month period, referring to the extensive nature of the report and the importance of the issues it addressed. The Minister expects to be able to provide a final response these Sittings. (iii) A Visit to Papua New Guinea (Tabled 27.11.86) The Committee's Report was substantially a report on a visit by a delegation of the Committee to Papua New Guinea. The sole recommendation of the Report concerned future Parliamentary delegations-a matter for the Parliament to consider. The Government does not intend to respond to the Report. Publications (i) Review of the Cost and Distribution of the Parliamentary Paper Series (Tabled 26.11.86) The Government has considered the Committee's report and has taken measures to implement a number of the recommendations. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate that Senator Richardson will be absent from the chamber for Question Time today and the rest of this week as he will be on sick leave. Any questions in the chamber which would normally be directed to Senator Richardson in relation to his portfolio or those he represents should be directed to Senator Robert Ray. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I preface my question by welcoming reports that the Government is moving to adopt yet another Opposition policy, this one being the need to privatise the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC). The Minister will be aware that in its 1987 annual report the AIDC says it has examined a number of techniques to raise private capital from the market and that recommendations have been made to the Government in this respect. Given the apparent shortage of capital faced by AIDC, I ask: Is it the Government's intention to partially or wholly privatise the AIDC, or will the Government continue to starve the Corporation of the capital it requires? Senator BUTTON —I am grateful to Senator Lewis for telling us the latest Opposition policy on the AIDC. Senator Chaney —I announced that in my policy last year. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator announced that he would sell it, yes. That is a quite different thing from what Senator Lewis is talking about today. He said today in his question, quoting from the Australian Financial Review-- Senator Messner —`Moving to privatise the AIDC'. Why don't you listen to the question? Senator BUTTON —I listened to the question. Honourable senators opposite ought to listen to the terminology and try to understand it a bit better before they ask those sorts of questions. Senator Chaney —He always blusters when he is on the back foot. Come on, let us have the reasonable man. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney is very flattering to me. He says that he wants a reasonable man. He concedes that I can do both. I can do the bluster, when necessary, and I can be the reasonable man. I will not be blustered by a sillily worded question from Senator Lewis. The Government has received recommendations from the AIDC about the matters which are referred to in the Australian Financial Review. They are being considered and an announcement will be made at an appropriate time when the Government has considered them. In terms of the AIDC being starved for capital, I do not think that is quite a correct allegation. The AIDC has had a very substantial growth rate this year in terms of returns on funds invested, returns on profits and the actual money lent by the AIDC to industry. This has been a record year, which is reported in the annual report; and I take it that that is the document from which Senator Lewis was rea-ding. The question is more whether the high growth rate which the AIDC has enjoyed can continue into the future at the same rate. If it is to continue into the future at the same rate, it will require an injection of capital, which, because of the Government's fiscal policies, is unlikely to come from the Government. Senator COLSTON —Can the Minister for Home Affairs provide any further information on allegations of electoral malpractice which appeared in some Queensland newspapers over the weekend? What are the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act in relation to voter impersonation and false enrolment? Can the Minister assure the Senate that cases of malpractice are prosecuted with firm resolve? Senator ROBERT RAY —The allegations reported over the weekend, one of filling out ballot papers and the other of voter impersonation, are still under investigation by the Australian Federal Police on request from the Australian Electoral Commission. Until those investigations are finalised I regard it as inappropriate to make any comment on the specific allegations. There are specific provisions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act relating to these sorts of malpractice. Section 338 prohibits anyone unlawfully marking ballot papers. Section 339 (1) deals with fraudulent behaviour, including voter impersonation and false declarations. In both cases, the maximum penalty provided for is a $1,000 fine, or imprisonment for six months, or both. There is no evidence that any large scale malpractice occurs in the Australian electoral system, although recent investigations in Queensland are of some concern. Usually, isolated incidents are uncovered by the Electoral Commission in its routine checking of the electoral roll following each election. If it emerges that organised malpractice has grown up in some areas, the options facing the Commonwealth are not easy. Computerised voting could lock in all polling booths in a division to one central electoral roll, but would be an expensive change. Otherwise, we might need to consider various expensive and intrusive forms of voter identification, voter enabling slips or voter identification cards. However, the system of justice provides some deterrence to law-breakers. Yesterday the National Party of Australia MLA for Broadsound in the Queensland Parliament, Mr Denis Hinton, was found guilty of a breach of section 339 (1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Mr Hinton made a false signature on a joint Queensland-Commonwealth voter enrolment card shortly before the Queensland State election in 1986. He was fined $400 and ordered to pay costs totalling $8,145.25 or spend 120 days in prison. This is the first time in my time in politics that I can recall a member not so much being charged with forgery, but at least being convicted of such a charge. Whether this conviction will qualify Mr Hinton for inclusion in the new Queensland Cabinet I cannot really say. Senator STONE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. In the interests of `wider public understanding of the issues involved' can the Minister tell the Senate the likely capital needs of both Qantas Airways Ltd and Australian Airlines in the near future? Can he also tell the Senate whether, in the light of obvious competing pressures for resources and the level of the total public sector borrowing requirement in Australia, he thinks that the huge amount of investment, which I understand to be involved, realistically can be provided while both organisations remain in total government ownership? Senator GARETH EVANS —All my pronouncements on that subject were embodied in a speech I made in Sydney last Monday. I commend the reading of it to Senator Stone. I will be happy to send him a copy. Senator STONE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. While noting the smartness of the Minister's reply, I ask whether he will address my question, which was: In the interests of `wider public understanding of the issues involved' can the Minister tell the Senate of the likely capital needs of both Qantas and Australian Airlines in the near future? I also asked whether he could tell the Senate whether, in light of obvious competing pressure for resources and the level of the total public sector borrowing requirement, he thinks that these huge amounts of investment, which I understand to be involved, realistically can be provided while both organisations remain in total government ownership. Will the Minister respond to the question? Senator GARETH EVANS —In the interests of wider public debate on this matter I will be delighted to produce a report, as I undertook to my Caucus colleagues today to do, early in the new year which will address those questions in greater detail than I have already in the speech to which I referred Senator Stone. When I have completed that report I will be delighted to put the matters at issue in it into the public domain and have a debate about them. Senator COONEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Justice. I refer to an article on page 2 of yesterday's Age newspaper, reporting an address by Mr Justice Vincent of the Supreme Court of Victoria in which he referred to an estimated 500 deaths in the prison system and in police custody since 1980. Since 1980, have there been any deaths of prisoners while in the custody of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) or of any other Commonwealth officials? If so, how many have there been and did they occur while in police custody or in the custody of someone else-and if so, in what department's custody were they? Were they deaths of blacks or whites or others, and who were they? How many of the deaths were suicides and how many resulted from some other cause? Senator TATE —Senator Cooney was kind enough to give me a little advance warning of this question. I have taken some advice from the Australian Federal Police to the effect that no persons have died while in AFP custody during the period specified by the honourable senator; that is, since 1980. I am advised that questions regarding details of deaths in custody of Commonwealth officials other than those in the AFP should be directed to relevant Ministers. There is a problem with the definition of the word `custody' which may have to be further refined before I can pursue that matter with other Ministers on behalf of the honourable senator. Senator Cooney will be aware that Commonwealth officials other than those in the Australian Federal Police, such as immigration officers and officers of the Australian Protective Service, rarely have a need to take persons into custody. Even if they do, the custodial period is usually of short duration. People, other than those detained in the Australian Capital Territory remand centres, are passed into the custody of the appropriate State or Northern Territory officials. With the exception of migrant detention centres and the Australian Capital Territory remand centres, the Commonwealth does not have penal or detention centres. I understand that one person has died in the Belconnen Remand Centre. This recent death of a male caucasian is the subject of a coronial inquiry and therefore it is not appropriate for me to discuss the matter further. Senator COULTER —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. What is meant by economic growth? Is the Minister happy with the use of gross national product as an index of national welfare? Is the Minister aware that gross national product or net national product fails to count many things which contribute significantly to economic activity and counts the real costs of growth as benefits? Is the Minister aware that as long ago as 1977 the United Nations suggested that nations keep, as well as income statements, balance sheets showing the stocks of tangible assets of each year? The latter would, of course, accord value to renewable and non-renewable resources before exploitation and would show a debit as these resources were consumed. Does the Minister recognise that a balance sheet together with an income statement would give a more accurate picture of progress in Australia? Finally, will the Minister institute this more comprehensive national accounting system? If not, why not? Senator WALSH —Economic growth probably means different things to different people but, under the accounting conventions accepted by, I think, all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries and a number of non-OECD countries, it means increases in real gross domestic product. It is true that it is arguable at the margin what should be included as gross domestic product and what should not. Certainly, some things are excluded-household services, for example. With a meal that is cooked in a household, although the costs of the cooking process, the fuel and the raw materials, the food, would be counted somewhere in GDP, the labour for preparing the food is not counted, whereas if the food were prepared in a restaurant the labour component of preparing it would be counted as well. So there are some imperfections, if you like, about the way in which gross domestic product is recorded. If anyone is interested, Hugh Stretton had another much more colourful example of what is and is not recorded as gross national product a few years ago when he pointed out that, if everybody were to sleep next door every night and pay massage parlour rates, GNP would probably double overnight without anything else being changed very much. I do not remember the United Nations putting out anything on this matter as early as 1977 but from time to time-indeed, going back to at least the 1960s-the United Nations does make attempts to get uniform compilation of national accounts and therefore of measurements of gross domestic product and so on. On the other couple of questions which Senator Coulter raised, I do not know how he believes mineral discoveries, for example, should be treated in a system in which income statements and balance sheets show the stock of tangible assets for each year. I do not know how he proposes that mineral discoveries or ore bodies should be treated. For example, if the existence of an ore body is unknown, presumably it would have to be recorded in a balance sheet with a value of zero. Further to that, if an ore body is discovered, or the market value of the minerals in the existing ore body skyrockets, or new technology allows a previously marginal ore body to be profitably mined, should it be recorded in that year's balance sheet as a one year increase in wealth? Alternatively, if a particular mineral becomes obsolete because of technological change or technological progress, should what might previously have been recorded as an asset be immediately written off? It is undeniably true that there was more coal in Great Britain in King Arthur's time than there was in Queen Victoria's. But the coal in King Arthur's time did not add to the wealth of Great Britain, whereas in Queen Victoria's time it did. I think that remains true no matter how one likes to measure wealth. In regard to the question of national accounting and the propositions which Senator Coulter has canvassed, if he is really interested in those questions and if he has any serious propositions to put forward on how they might be improved or how valuation problems might be treated, I will be very happy to submit them to the Treasurer with the suggestion that he pass them on to the Commonwealth Statistician, Mr Castles. Senator COULTER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I am very pleased to hear Senator Walsh's reply. Am I to take it that, if the sorts of suggestions he has outlined could be included in a balance sheet, we might adopt the keeping of balance sheets, and that he would be prepared to keep balance sheets for Australia, in the same way as is required of every private company and every government department? Senator WALSH —I do not think the situations are analogous. If there is not a market for something, it is very difficult, to say the least, to see how it should be valued. This, of course, is a problem in existing national accounting conventions. Where a service is not sold in the market-place-and that, of course, applies to most government services-because no actual charge is levied, some value is, I believe, and correctly so, imputed for that service. But I do not think that a national stock of wealth, if you like, as Senator Coulter appears to regard wealth, is comparable to the assets which might be listed in a company report. The Australian Bureau of Statistics is constantly making efforts to improve the quality of Australia's national accounts. For example, only last year the treatment of depreciation of government owned assets was significantly changed, as was the treatment of leasing transactions. I understand that the treatment of employee fringe benefits is currently under review. If Senator Coulter, as I said before, has specific propositions to put forward, I would be very happy to have them passed on to the Statistician. Senator DEVLIN —Has the attention of the Minister for Finance been drawn to a report in this morning's Melbourne Sun that the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Haines, in a speech to her Party's national executive, had advocated abolition of the administrative charge for tertiary students? What would be the cost of removing the administrative charge for the next academic year? Senator WALSH —I did see the report. The Budget estimate for total receipts from the higher education administrative charge for the 1988 academic year and, therefore, the 1987-88 financial year, is a gross figure of just over $111m. After the offsetting payments for Austudy, Abstudy, post-graduate awards and so on, and the 10 per cent of the charge which is retained within the tertiary institutions, the net effect on the Budget is a reduction in outlays of $69m. I note that in the same report Senator Haines also made a number of other commitments, the cost of which is much more difficult to quantify. I refer, for example, to more funds for public housing-I suppose everybody supports that, just as most people support motherhood-a breakdown of media ownership, which I presume would also entail a reduction in revenue from licences for broadcasting, and the closing down of the three mines in Australia which are presently mining uranium. One of those mines is the Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (ERA) mine at Ranger. This figure is about two years old but it is worth noting that the ERA Ranger mine paid-I am not sure of the precise year, but two to three years ago-about one per cent of the total corporate taxation paid in Australia. So the cost to the revenue of closing that mine alone would be very significant. In the absence of offsetting revenue measures, government services would, of course, have to be curtailed, were that to take place. Moreover, if that mine or any of the other mines were to be closed down as a result of that policy, the revenue forgone to employees would be not only the company tax forgone but also, unless the employees were able to find other comparable employment-which is unlikely, at least in the short term-the pay as you earn tax paid by the employees and a smaller amount for such matters as sales tax. I would be keeping a running score on the cost of such promises as the Democrats develop their improbable programs-promising to spend money here and there, wherever it seems nice and wherever it might buy a vote, at the same time as they are trying to close down industries-but until the propositions which are put forward are stated somewhat more precisely, it is a bit difficult to do so. Senator SHORT —My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as the Minister representing the Prime Minister and also as the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Does the Minister believe that there is any point in retaining total public ownership of an enterprise which gets progressively weaker because it requires capital injections which the Government cannot afford to, or for other reasons will not, provide? Senator BUTTON —I find that a very difficult question to answer because there are all sorts of different types of enterprises which may be in mind. There may be public enterprises which fulfil some very important public benefit in one way, even though they are not profitable in the terms in which the honourable senator's question was asked. I cannot imagine or, off the top of my head, discover in my mind any such public enterprise, but it may well exist. So I am not going to give the honourable senator a blanket answer to what was a fairly blanket question. I think the best answer I can give is to say that it may be desirable to dispose of government owned enterprises which are not capable of being rejuvenated, if that is the appropriate expression, by government funding. On the other hand, it may not be possible to do that in some cases because nobody might want to buy some of them. Senator SHORT —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his answer, which is really that my question is a bit too broad and hypothetical. Perhaps I could be more specific. Does the Minister, for instance, believe that there may be a need for the injection of some private capital into an organisation such as the Commonwealth Bank of Australia? Senator BUTTON —The Commonwealth Bank Officers Association, which is the organisation of employees in the Commonwealth Bank, has said so in an options paper which dealt with the future of the bank. As I understand it, that is one of the options which it has canvassed. Senator Short —I was asking for your view. Senator BUTTON —I do not pretend to be expert on the question of the capital requirements of the Commonwealth Bank. If the honourable senator is asking me whether that is an issue which has to be considered, my answer would definitely be yes. Senator GIETZELT —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the opening remarks made by Mr Nobby Clark, the Managing Director of the National Australia Bank and Chairman of the task force of the Business Council of Australia on the role of government, at a BCA sponsored conference in Melbourne yesterday? Is the Minister aware that Mr Clark argues that the setting of Commonwealth Government budgetary policy would be facilitated if the States were to produce figures on their Budgets using an accepted common accounting framework? Does the Minister agree with Mr Clark's argument on this important matter of national economic policy-making? Senator WALSH —In regard to the last part of the question, I think the answer has to be yes, that if State government disclosure was both more disciplined and more comprehensive, it would assist in national economic policy determination. I have seen the text of Mr Clark's remarks. I wish to quote one paragraph, which states: The publication of proposed State net borrowing in all State budget papers may also assist in making public opinion focus a little more on the macro-economic implications of State budgets. Partly due to lack of information and the farce that most State budgets are published as if they balance, public attention at present in looking at State budgets is usually focused on the number of hand-outs, even if the budgets are grossly irresponsible in terms of the macro-economy. I want to make two observations in regard to that. I remember back in the 1970s that Sir Charles Court, as Premier of Western Australia, used to produce each year a Budget outcome with a surplus of half a million dollars which he used to describe as the `product of good housekeeping'. It was, of course, the residual of shuffling money at the end of the financial year in and out of hollow logs and trust accounts and had absolutely nothing to do with good housekeeping. Anybody who has the slightest knowledge of these matters would know that no government can estimate the balance of its revenue and expenditure with that sort of precision year after year. This farce that it was good housekeeping was, of course, always dutifully reported by the West Australian and the media in general without any common-sense observations such as that. A number of years ago a good friend of mine in Western Australia made a study of government Budget Papers. I remember him saying that Commonwealth Budget Papers were prepared and designed to disclose the maximum amount of relevant information; whereas State Budget Papers were prepared and designed to conceal the maximum amount of relevant information. Since that time there has been considerable improvement in some States. For example, South Australia currently publishes, as part of its State Budget Papers, figures which show its expected State public sector borrowing requirement in terms of the internationally accepted accounting conventions which are used in the Commonwealth Budget Papers. That is to be welcomed. None of the other States go as far as South Australia, but some provide more information than others. Without doubt, Queensland is the worst State, judged on the amount of information it does not provide or, if one prefers, conceals. I agree strongly with Mr Clark's argument for more common accounting standards and ipso facto more disclosure of relevant information by Queensland. I would have thought that all economic rationalists would support that. I trust that Senator Stone will shortly make public his position on that score. I imagine that the Premier of Queensland would be about as keen on disclosing in detail the relevant information about the State's financial transactions as he is about keeping the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct going. Senator WALTERS —My question is to the Minister for Transport and Communications. I ask the Minister whether he remains of the view he expressed on the Sunday program on 6 September 1987 when he said of possible privatisation of Australian Airlines: It's probably the most obvious candidate in the sense that there's no obvious social utility or public purpose being served by remaining in public ownership as such . . . If so, does he agree that Australian Airlines is the most likely candidate for privatisation if the Cabinet can summon the courage to follow what the Minister has clearly admitted is the logical course? Senator GARETH EVANS —I remain of the view that Australian Airlines is a candidate for privatisation, as is any other government business enterprise which can satisfy a variety of tests which it will be the business of the Australian Labor Party to debate in its application to government business enterprises over the next few months. A fairly formidable array of tests need to be looked at. They go to the capability of the organisation to remain viable while in the public sector. That is an unresolved question as to whether or not it is possible to find the financial resources to support such organisations where they do need significant injections of capital to cover their commercial needs. If those resources are not obviously available, it becomes a question which will have to be considered and will be debated. If the social purpose being served by the organisation in question-the original rationale for its being in the public sector-is in either case such as to justify its remaining, the money will have to be found. As I said in a speech last Monday, to which I have referred Senator Stone and to which I also refer Senator Walters for her consideration, if the money just has to be found because the social purpose is so compelling and the difficulties of meeting that purpose in any other way are such, so be it; the money will have to be found, albeit at the expense of other competing social expenditure needs. If the social purpose is not compelling, the question of capital raising by other means, by a whole or partial sale to the private sector, is one policy option that should be debated rationally. Senator WALTERS —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I asked the Minister whether he sticks by what he said. He seems to have thrown in a whole lot of other things. The simple question is: Does he stick by what he said? Senator GARETH EVANS —I was just giving Senator Walters some further assistance in order for her to continue her exegesis of the remarks that I offered on that occasion. Of course I stick by what I said. Senator DEVEREUX —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Is the Minister aware of a number of incidents which have occurred at the Allambee Nursing Home in the past 24 hours? Is the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority, by locking out union officials at the Allambee Nursing Home this morning, denying staff members access to their union officials and representatives? Senator ROBERT RAY —I am aware that certain incidents have occurred. My own experience is that the Hospital Employees Federation of Australia nationally has always observed the highest standards in its dealings with government employing authorities. It has represented well the interests of its members in hospitals and health care delivery services. However, in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) the Hospital Employees Federation is led by Mr Hedley Rowe, whose violence and physical intimidation have brought ill repute to his union and the trade union movement as a whole. On 1 October 1987 Mr Rowe attacked and punched an officer of the ACT Health Authority who was legitimately engaged in Authority business. Today's industrial dispute at Allambee Nursing Home has provided a further demonstration of Mr Rowe's behaviour. It is alleged that at approximately 9 o'clock last night Mr Rowe entered the nursing home and hosed down bed linen which was ready for use on beds available for infirm patients. Today at approximately 6.45 a.m. Mr Rowe and the union President, Mr Tunks, attempted to force their way into the nursing home, and in the process abused and physically assaulted two officers of the ACT Health Authority. It was not the intention of the ACT Health Authority to deny legitimate access by unions to their members. Because of Mr Rowe's behaviour, the management was genuinely concerned for the well-being of staff members, who were in fear for their own safety. Supervisory staff were sufficiently concerned by Mr Rowe's behaviour to call the Australian Federal Police. The police presence at the nursing home was not an attempt to deny union officials legitimate access to the building. Indeed, three other union officials, representing the Royal Australian Nursing Federation and the Hospital Employees Federation, were admitted to the nursing home and allowed full access to discuss the industrial dispute with members working in the nursing home. The Authority's major concern is to ensure that the care of the 109 residents at the home is maintained. I wish to make clear my confidence in the integrity and constructive approach of the trade union movement as a whole. This incident is a localised aberration. It is not the normal policy of the Government to involve police in industrial disputes. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. Does the Minister have responsibility for or involvement in the provision of funding for the Muirhead Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody? Is the Commission operating within a prescribed budget? Has the Minister or the Government imposed any operating, staffing or other restriction on the Royal Commission to meet the requirements of the prescribed budget? Will the Minister give an assurance that if, as looks likely, the Commission will take longer and reach wider than perhaps originally anticipated, adequate funds will be provided to ensure that it can properly carry out the very important task assigned to it by the Government? Senator WALSH —To the best of my knowledge, no staff limits have been imposed. Until now I think the finance has been provided through the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I spoke to Mr Hand about this a few days ago and he canvassed the proposition that the financial oversight-for want of a better term-should be transferred from his Department to another department. The Commission will probably be financed by another department. We discussed the possibility of funding being transferred to the Department of Finance, but no decisions have been made about that yet, nor has it been considered more widely than the consideration given to it by Mr Hand and me the other day. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I remind the Minister of the last part of my question, in which I sought an assurance about the possible needs of the Commission in the light of the public comments made so far, which suggest that the inquiry could take some time and could have a fairly wide reach. I seek an assurance from the Government-if the Minister cannot give it now, will he ask for it from whoever is responsible-that adequate funds will be provided to ensure that the Commission can properly carry out the task that has been assigned to it. Senator WALSH —I cannot remember the proposed reporting date off the top of my head. I think that it was 30 June. Nor can I remember the amount that has been written in, either explicitly as a one line item in any of the Appropriation Bills or implicitly as part of a larger appropriation for this financial year. Even if the Commission does report by the end of June 1988, I expect that there will still be some expenditure within the next financial year for which another appropriation will have to be made. Senator Tate —The reporting date is 31 December. Senator WALSH —I have just been told that the reporting date is 31 December, so obviously there will have to be an appropriation in the next financial year as well. That will be being taken into account now in the Forward Estimates. As to the last part of the question, which Senator Chaney has repeated, I cannot give him a definitive answer now. I will get one as soon as I can, although I warn him that it may take some time because the matter canvassed by Mr Hand the other day will probably have to go to Cabinet for final determination. Senator BOLKUS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Minister aware of widening support for the role that the President of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr John Elliott, has taken in the economic debate and in particular his calls for a mini-Budget to provide a $3 billion surplus, allowing Australia's exchange rate to fall to US61c or US62c, the introduction of a consumption tax and support for the assets test? In the face of this widening support, can the Minister say whether the Government is tempted to re-evaluate Mr Elliott's proposals with a view to their implementation? Senator WALSH —I am aware of widening support for Mr Elliott's propositions, although how seriously that support should be taken is a matter of conjecture, since the source of that support is one Michael Pratt, a latter day Andrew Jones, who is the endorsed Liberal Party candidate for the Federal seat of Adelaide. Naturally, I hope that he does not manage to emulate one of Mr Jones's feats-that is, winning one term or part of a term in the House of Representatives-nor do I hope that some of the afflictions with which Mr Jones was latterly smitten will strike Mr Pratt. Senator Chaney —At least Jones has got over it, which is more than could be said for you, Minister. Senator WALSH —I do not want to revisit the specifics of the afflictions that were visited on Mr Jones, other than the one that is very well known, and that is that he was one of those aberrations of the 1966 elections that were decisively removed in 1969. In respect of Mr Pratt's candidature, he was asked on The World Today show whether the Federal Liberal Party leadership was really helping, and was then asked: . . . I wonder whether you wish that the Leadership including Mr Elliott, Mr Howard and Mr Peacock would stop bickering over who can say what about what? He replied: No it doesn't concern me. I think the sword of Damocles that hung over John Howard's head in that last Federal election is long gone. I'm excited that John Elliott is aggressive and resilient and strong. Andrew Peacock is a man of immense character in terms of a Treasury portfolio and John Howard-he's toughed out some tough times, he's really had to fight and claw his way back. It is interesting to note the order of the leadership preferences of the Federal candidate for Adelaide. Very clearly, he puts John Elliott-`aggressive and resilient and strong'-at the top. Next comes Andrew Peacock, who has `immense character in terms of a Treasury portfolio'. Senator Chaney —Mr President, on a point of order-- Senator Robert Ray —Just because he left you out, Fred, don't get shirty. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The first point of order has already been taken by Senator Ray, namely, that he left me out. The actual point of order that I wish to stress is that the Minister is clearly debating the question. I think the question was in order because, Mr President, you might recall, although it is a long time since it was asked, that the point that was raised was whether the Government proposed to implement policies that were being advocated by Mr Elliott. It seems to me that the Minister, who seems to be getting very forgetful for reasons I cannot quite understand, has forgotten the question and is ranging widely over some of his musings about the Liberal Party. Mr President, I suggest that you call him to order and require him either to answer the question or to sit down. The PRESIDENT —There were two parts to the question. The part that dealt with the Budget surplus, the assets test and the value of the Australian dollar is the one that I think the Minister should answer. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. Mr Pratt obviously can see where his Party's strengths and weaknesses are. I return to the question of Mr Elliott's macroeconomic agenda: a $3 billion Budget surplus, an exchange rate of US61c or US62c, presumably regardless of the value of the United States dollar, the introduction of a consumption tax and support for an assets test. I was asked what the Government's reaction to this is. The Government, of course, is committed to retaining the assets test-as is Mr Elliott, from his public statements. We have that in common. We do not share Mr Elliott's views about most of the other things but perhaps Mr Pratt might like to campaign, if or when there is a by-election for the seat of Adelaide, on the policy of a consumption tax, a $3 billion surplus and an exchange rate of US61c or US62c. Senator NEWMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. Has the Government been in possession since 9 September of a report which shows that a high proportion of officers who resigned between February and August this year would have considered remaining in the Army if a number of factors had been improved? These include family retention in one location during critical years of each child's education, greater loyalty and a more positive commitment shown by senior officers towards service conditions and defence issues, a more open career management, greater responsibility and more autonomy in work tasks, and a better understanding by politicians of problems of Army personnel and a more positive commitment by politicians towards the defence forces and national defence conditions of service? Why have Ministers misled Parliament over the past two months by failing to acknowledge these very important and serious underlying reasons for the high rate of Service resignations? Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Newman has not indicated even the title of the report to which she referred. When she does, I will refer it to the Minister for Defence and get her an answer. Senator NEWMAN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Obviously, as I should give the Minister more information, I refer to a report dated 9 September to the Military Secretary. I further ask: Has the Government also obtained similar reports into the reasons for the resignation of officers from the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force; if so, will the Government table those reports and will these reports be made available to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in its inquiry into separation rates? Finally, I seek leave to table the report, which the Minister does not seem to know anything about. Leave granted. Senator NEWMAN —I table the document. Senator ROBERT RAY —I said that I would refer the question to the Minister for Defence for further advice, which I will do. I will also refer to the Minister the supplementary question, which in some ways raised new issues. I will also try to get a copy of the report referred to the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee if the Minister thinks that it is a proper and fit practice to refer a report of that nature during the inquiry being carried out by that Committee. Senator BURNS —My question is directed to the Minister for Local Government. Are negotiations with the Queensland Government about local government matters proceeding satisfactorily? Will recent sackings of Ministers from the Queensland Cabinet have any effect on those negotiations? Senator REYNOLDS —It is a very difficult question to answer in the light of what has happened within the Queensland Government this morning. The Queensland Government is obviously in a state of crisis with the Queensland Premier having asked a number of Ministers to step down. I understand that the Governor himself has asked the Queensland Premier to reconsider his move to sack up to five members of his Cabinet. Senator Stone —Is the Labor Party in good shape in Queensland? Senator REYNOLDS —Did he consult Senator Stone? Certainly, I can report that I have had very productive discussions with my counterpart in Queensland, Mr Hinze, who is the Minister responsible for local government, about resuming consultations. Unlike the Queensland Premier, who was responsible for the breakdown in communications with the Commonwealth over the setting of new principles this year for the distribution of local government funding, Mr Hinze agrees that it is important to resume those consultations and to finalise the system in readiness for next year. Mr Hinze was much easier to deal with than the Queensland Premier. As I said earlier, I do not know what Mr Hinze's position is today. It seems as if there is a great deal of uncertainty in Queensland. There was a report on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation at lunch time that Mr Hinze may, in fact, be the Premier-elect, in which case I look forward to resolving the situation that has arisen in regard to consultations and finalising the principles in relation to local government funding. Senator BISHOP —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. No doubt the Minister is aware of an organisation named the Committee for a Casino-free Canberra and of the anti-casino campaign being waged by that body. Has the Minister heard that one of the sites being suggested as suitable for a casino is this structure, which we will vacate in August 1988? Can the Minister inform us whether, in the future, the calls for order which sometimes reverberate around this chamber may be replaced with that well-known two-up phrase, `I'll back a head'? Senator ROBERT RAY —I do not think a final decision has been made as to the future of the Parliament House. If we devote a museum to facetiousness, certainly I will inform Senator Bishop so that she can play a major role in it. I think I have from time to time seen reference in the Press to a committee that opposes a casino in Canberra. To my knowledge the idea about having a casino in Canberra has been floating around for some four to five years. I think it was considered by the Government in late 1983 or early 1984 and rejected at that time. Every now and then it floats up again as to whether Canberra would be a suitable place for a casino. I would not think that it was generally appropriate that this particular building, with all its faults, should ever be converted to that sort of purpose. This place has a tradition. It has been operating already in this country for well over 50-odd years. There are many suggestions as to what we could do with this particular building, but because of certain maintenance problems-the ceilings are full of asbestos, temporary connections of telephone lines, airconditioning, et cetera-a lot of serious thought will have to be given to how this building can continue in an economically viable way. Certainly I would have thought, without anticipating a government decision on the subject as there has been no decision, that as a living parliamentary museum some consideration will be given to moving into this building. the Australian Electoral Education Centre that all the school children go to. There are plenty of other suggestions around. I really do not think, though, that even a government as macho as this one on occasions with its ability to alienate and antagonise would go quite so far as to turn the Senate chamber into a two-up room, or the main dining room into a blackjack room. I think that is less than likely. Even Senator Walsh is agreeing with me on that point, so I think we are pretty safe. Senator BISHOP —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. If the Minister is serious in his wish to prevent this place from being turned into a casino perhaps he could consider a way in which he could prevent that occurring. Perhaps he could consider letting the Unsworth Government handle the tender for any would-be tenant? Senator RAY —This is a sort of-- Senator Michael Baume —Ha, ha! Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Michael Baume is laughing at this cleverly contrived question that relates to the New South Wales election. I assure Senator Bishop that this is the first of hundreds of clever, witty little pieces on the New South Wales election that will enthrall every New South Wales senator here and bore every other senator to death. The great plague on this House is State elections and the pathetic efforts that we make to score points. At the end of the day we do not influence one vote through these shenanigans. Senator BLACK —Despite all that, my question is addressed to the Minister for Justice. Has the Federal Government formulated a response to Queensland Government Ministers' requests for assistance to the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct? Senator TATE —As I informed Senator Black in answer to a question he raised in this place a couple of days ago, the Government has received a request for assistance from Mr Fitzgerald of the commission of inquiry into corruption in Queensland and I indicated at the time that the request by Mr Fitzgerald had been concurred in by the Minister for Police, Mr Bill Gunn. Indeed, that was not surprising because, as I also said to the Senate right at the beginning of the inquiry, Mr Gunn had taken a very brave and courageous stand in this regard and deserved the congratulations of all those concerned with corruption in the police force and in other areas of administration-even in government in Queensland-for setting up this inquiry with a person of Mr Fitzgerald's calibre and integrity to head it. Unfortunately, as has been mentioned, clearly the Premier of Queensland does not share this view of the character of Mr Gunn and tried to remove him from that position only a few hours ago. As has been pointed out by Senator Reynolds, I understand that the Governor of Queensland is refusing to collaborate with the Premier at the moment in that removal of Mr Gunn from this very vital and sensitive portfolio. Mr Ahern has said publicly that the attempt to remove Mr Gunn and other Ministers is directly related to the Fitzgerald inquiry. I need do no more than cite that insider information from Mr Ahern as the reason for the Premier moving to remove Mr Gunn from this very senior and sensitive portfolio area. As I have said, the Government having received that request, concurred in by Mr Gunn, it has responded and will introduce legislation to assist the Fitzgerald inquiry at the earliest possible date-if not on Thursday, certainly in the next sitting week. The legislation will amend three other pieces of legislation. It will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act to enable the Fitzgerald inquiry to have access to taxation information on the same basis and subject to the same restrictions on further disclosure of the information that apply to taxation information disclosed to a Commonwealth royal commission, with the exception that the information may be further disclosed in certain proceedings for restraining or confiscating property under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987; in other words, to allow after conviction the confiscation of the proceeds of criminal activity so that those proceeds can be restored to the general community. The legislation will also amend the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to ensure that a statement or disclosure made by a witness to the Fitzgerald inquiry is not admissible against the witness in criminal proceedings instituted under a law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory, other than the Northern Territory, or in civil proceedings instituted by or on behalf of the Commonwealth. Finally, the legislation to be brought in would amend the Telecommunications (Interception) Act to enable certain types of information obtained as a result of interceptions of telecommunications to be given to Commissioner Fitzgerald and for evidence to be given to the Fitzgerald inquiry in relation to such information. The amendments will permit further use of such information for the purposes of investigating serious offences and any resulting prosecutions. I have already indicated that this Government and this Cabinet have been only too willing to assist Mr Fitzgerald at every turn in relation to every request he has made. In particular, the law enforcement agencies, the National Crime Authority and the Australian Federal Police, have provided information and personnel to assist him and I hope that Parliament will just as readily give assistance when the legislation comes before the chamber for debate and passage. Senator McLEAN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Is it the case that until 31 December 1987 entitled repatriation clients in nursing homes because of war-caused disabilities do not have to pay the statutory patient contribution for their board and care in the nursing homes? Is it the case that from 1 January 1988 those same war veterans will have to pay the statutory patient contribution, amounting to approximately $111 per week? If this is the case, why has this decision been made now and how have circumstances changed so that these people who have been suffering, in most cases, for most of their lives with war-caused disabilities, are now deemed not to be entitled to this acknowledgment of the sacrifices they made fighting for their country? Senator REYNOLDS —The Government has decided that from 1 January 1988 all entitled persons in an institution for nursing home care will be required to pay the statutory patient contribution. About 6,000 entitled persons receive nursing home care annually at the expense of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. About 750 of them will be affected by this decision. Most beneficiaries in nursing homes currently meet the patient contribution. However, at present, the Repatriation Commission accepts financial responsibility for the patient contribution of those beneficiaries admitted to nursing homes specifically as a result of war-caused disabilities. It is often difficult to distinguish between beneficiaries receiving care as a result of war-caused disabilities and those receiving care for other reasons. The exemption from the patient contribution of any group creates an inequitable situation as in a relatively small number of cases no contribution is being made towards board and lodging. These patients would be responsible for their maintenance at home or in hostels. The absence of such a contribution could in some circumstances create a financial incentive for institutional care. The Repatriation Commission will continue to meet the major portion of the cost of nursing home care, up to the maximum Commission benefit. Financial responsibility will also be accepted for all other medical costs additional to normal nursing home care. It is recognised by the Government that there will be some additional financial burden. The 1 January 1988 implementation date will allow affected veterans a period in which adjustments to financial arrangements might be made. It must also be remembered that all age pensioners in the general community have to meet the patient contribution, and many veterans would have more income than their civilian counterparts. Many receive totally and permanently incapacitated (TPI) pensions in addition to service pensions. Senator McLEAN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister aware that the 750 TPI pensioners affected regard this change as a transition from compassion to dispassion? Why has the Government accepted until now the fact that these people's disabilities result from quite extraordinary circumstances which have rendered them, by definition, totally and permanently disabled? I ask on their behalf why there is this shift from compassion to dispassion. Senator REYNOLDS —I would have thought that the answer provided by Mr Humphreys covered the issue fairly thoroughly. However, I will take the supplementary question on notice and refer it to Mr Humphreys's department. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of the financial management problems that have been and presently are being experienced by the Kalumburu Aboriginal community, located in the Kimberley region of Western Australia? If so, can the Minister say what were the causes of the financial mismanagement? What is being done to solve this community's financial problems and prevent their recurrence? I further ask the Minister: Is it a fact that the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) is looking into a proposal to purchase an aircraft for the use of the community? If so, can the Minister say why the purchase of an aircraft is being considered in light of the community's financial problems and in light of the fact that the charter flights presently servicing the community are not heavily booked? In these circumstances, does the Minister consider that the purchase of such an aircraft would be a waste of taxpayers' money? I understand it has been recommended by the ADC and by white advisers. Senator TATE —I know that this is supposed to be a question without notice but I have to apologise to Senator Crichton-Browne because, whilst he indicated some weeks ago that he would ask a question along these lines, at which time I had some notes on the matter in my brief, as he did not leak this matter those weeks ago that brief has been culled and I find I have nothing on his question at the moment. I hope to get that information very shortly and at a convenient time, either after Question Time tomorrow or before the adjournment tonight, I will read the answer into the record. Senator REYNOLDS —On 23 November Senator Sheil asked me without notice why the Government is bringing in at least 40,000 migrants yearly with little or no English language when half a million Australians have difficulty in speaking English; why the knowledge of English is not a migration selection criterion; and why the Government selects migrants with little or no English, thereby causing the taxpayer to fund English language tuition to the tune of some $50m a year. I have the departmental answer to the honourable senator's question. It reads as follows: The greater proportion of the Government's migration program is directed towards economic benefits and is designed to select skilled migrants to fill labour market needs immediately; business migrants to contribute to economic development; and independent and concessional migrants who are immediately employable, young, skilled and educated. Selection criteria are designed to ensure immediate economic contribution and to minimise social welfare costs. The assessing of employability has regard to the likely language requirements of the specific occupation or employer. At the same time, the Government maintains its commitment to social and humanitarian programs which allow reunion with close family and refugee and special humanitarian entrance. Entry for these people is under relaxed requirements. In the context of social and humanitarian migration it would be untenable to deny people reunion with close family such as spouses, children or parents, relief from refugee situations or entry on humanitarian grounds simply on the basis that they speak little or no English. It is recognised that immigration entails short term costs. The long term benefits far outweigh the costs. I might also remind Senator Sheil that until 1977 there was extensive provision for English language instruction for migrants before they arrived in Australia. Many of these programs were singularly unsuccessful. The fact that we still have some 200,000 people from those earlier years who speak little or no English and who wish to enrol in English classes indicates how unsuccessful pre-embarkation classes were. To learn a language outside the language environment is a major intellectual feat. I doubt that Senator Sheil or I would be very successful in learning a language here in Australia before we were to visit overseas. Senator Chaney —Your English isn't bad! Senator REYNOLDS —I am not used to insults from Senator Chaney. He disappoints me. The ability to speak English is central to all aspects of life in Australia. Immigrants have immeasurably enriched all aspects of economic, social and cultural life in Australia. Who would deny immigrants whom we have brought here to benefit Australia the chance fully to participate in Australia and to contribute to its economic development? As I said yesterday, it is a sad day when people start to question the English language programs. I highlighted the divisions among the ranks of the Opposition on this matter. In conclusion, I would just like to quote from page 2 of today's Australian. In reporting this division on immigration policy, it states: The chairman of the New South Wales Ethnic Affairs Commission . . . said last night that the two senators were ``giving vent to blatant racism''. Mr President, if you recall, Senator Stone agreed with Senator Sheil yesterday. The Chairman of the New South Wales Ethnic Affairs Commission said: Such racism-- Senator Stone —Is that your normal level of logic? Senator REYNOLDS —Perhaps Senator Stone should take up this matter with the Chairman of the New South Wales Ethnic Affairs Commission. The Chairman said: Such racism is a national disgrace and is being discharged like the contents of a sewage pipe into our Parliament. I draw that to the attention of Senator Stone and Senator Sheil, who I believe are the only senators in this place who believe that English should be a pre-condition to entry. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Short asked me a question on 19 November. I have some supplementary information. In view of the time, I seek leave to incorporate the answer in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- On 19 November 1987 Senator Short addressed a question to me concerning World Expo. I took on notice that part of the Honourable Senator's question relating to the Commonwealth Purchasing Manual. Senator Short asked: 1. Whether the Department of Administrative Services is responsible for the determination of the Government's purchasing policies and for the production of an official Commonwealth purchasing manual. 2. If so, did Minister Brown contravene the Government's tendering and contracting policies and processes by conveying to Mr Rogers in discussions the clear expectation that he would be awarded the contract. The answers to the Honourable Senator's questions are as follows: 1. The Department of Administrative Services has responsibilities for the co-ordination of purchasing policy, civil purchasing and sale of goods. These functions are carried out by the Department's Purchasing and Sales Group. The Department also provides contracting services for other agencies as an independent third party. There is no general obligation on agencies to make use of these services except in the case of the purchase of certain supplies like computer equipment. Pursuant to its purchasing policy role the Group issues the Commonwealth Purchasing Manual and other manuals, publications and circulars which detail policy, practices and procedures. The Commonwealth Purchasing Manual provides a comprehensive reference for those departments and authorities subject to the Audit Act, Finance Regulations and Directions and is recommended as a model for other agencies. 2. The Manual provides guidance on a range of purchasing policy matters, including the tendering process. For example, Chapter 43 deals with requests for tenders and quotations, Chapter 46 on the review of tenders received and Chapter 47 on tender analysis, comparative statements and tender summaries. As I said, the Commonwealth Purchasing Manual outlines the procedures and practices to be followed by departments and by authorities subject to the Audit Act, Finance Regulations and Directions and it is expected that they will be adopted. A copy of the Commonwealth Purchasing Manual is held in the Parliamentary Library. I should be happy to make a copy available for the Senator if he wishes. As to the particular case of the Expo Tender, my Department had no role in the matter before February of this year. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for me to comment. Senator TATE —Senator Archer asked me a question a week or so ago, in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health, concerning funding by Australia of the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation (ICGFI). I believe that it is an advocacy promotion, discussion type group. His question had several parts. The answer is as follows: The International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation was set up in May 1984 under the aegis of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the World Health Organisation and the International Atomic Energy Agency. The first meeting was held in December 1984 and was attended by Australian Embassy staff based in Vienna. A contribution of $10,000 was provided through the Department of Foreign Affairs. In 1986, $5,000 was again provided through the Department of Foreign Affairs. Following the release of the National Health and Medical Research Council standards, the Department of Health was asked whether it wished to attend the 1986 meeting in October 1986. A departmental officer attended and a pledge of $5,000 was made, but not cleared beforehand with the Minister. The Australian Consumers Association inquiry into food irradiation was announced in August 1986 and the House of Representatives inquiry was announced in September 1986. It was thought inappropriate by the Minister that health portfolio funds be used for the International Consultative Group's food irradiation advocacy purposes, given that these inquiries were under way in Australia at the time. Australia was represented at this month's meeting of the ICGFI from 3 to 5 November by locally based Embassy staff in Vienna. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I seek leave to make a statement relating to the visit by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to New Zealand, to move to take note of the statement and to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- I wish to report to the Parliament on the visit the Prime Minister paid to New Zealand from 19 to 23 November. Australia and New Zealand have a unique relationship. We are next door neighbours by virtue of our geographical proximity. We share long historical ties and deep liberal democratic traditions. Australians and New Zealanders have fought together in two World Wars, we have co-operated and collaborated in time of peace and we are, enduringly, the closest of friends. The strength of the relationship consists of much more than connections between the two Governments and its vitality resides in the daily exchanges between our peoples across the widest range of business, family, sporting, cultural and political activities. The Prime Minister's visit in every way reflected this special warmth, openness and friendship. His extensive discussions with Prime Minister Lange and his Ministers over four days were characterised by these qualities. But while goodwill abounded this was not merely a symbolic and goodwill visit. It was also a very business-like one concerned with the further development of Australia-New Zealand relations. While the close ties established in the past formed the backdrop for the talks their focus was on the contemporary scene and on how we might co-operate more closely in the future. It serves the interest of neither country for us to regard the relationship as fixed in time and bound by the limits of the past. The relationship must remain relevant to current needs and have flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances. For a start, the political and economic situation in the South Pacific, a region of direct and immediate interest to both countries, is not immutable. Indeed, as the Prime Minister said to Mr Lange in our discussion of foreign policy topics, the region is somewhat more troubled than it was five or ten years ago. This is by no means an alarmist comment. The overall situation in the South Pacific continues to be one of stability and the relationship between Australia and New Zealand and our friends in the region remains extremely close and friendly. But clearly some significant new difficulties have emerged. The Prime Minister and Mr Lange discussed the situation in Fiji and found a close proximity of views. This was true in respect of both the analysis of the situation and our policies in response to it. Australia and New Zealand both deplore the overturning of civilian democratic government by the military in Fiji. We are acutely conscious of the disruptive impact which this has had on the political fabric of Fiji, its economic circumstances and prospects and Fiji's international standing. We each take the view that our friendship for the people of Fiji is undiminished and we each have a strong interest in the restoration in Fiji of political and constitutional arrangements, achieved by the people of Fiji themselves, which will provide for political stability, social harmony, economic recovery and human rights. We will each be taking a close interest in the situation as it evolves. Mr Lange and Mr Hawke agreed that the position taken by the South Pacific Forum at its meeting in Apia, and more recently by the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Vancouver, constituted a realistic approach to the Fiji problem and one which clearly enjoys widespread international support. The Prime Minister expressed to Mr Lange his deep appreciation for the way in which they had been able to work closely and actively together at these important meetings. This will continue. Another regional problem which, as Mr Lange said, has sent ripples through the region is New Caledonia. Australia's wish remains to help ensure that a long term, viable, peaceful political solution can be found to the problem of New Caledonia. We do not seek to confront France over New Caledonia or to drive it from the South Pacific region. Such suggestions are baseless. Our concern is to encourage France to engage all the people of New Caledonia, including the Kanaks, in a genuine process of deciding future arrangements for New Caledonia. Like New Zealand and other South Pacific Forum countries, we wish France to follow the well established decolonisation procedures of the United Nations in arranging an authentic process of self-determination in the Territory. And, as the Prime Minister said in Wellington, the changes we seek are, whatever may be said in some quarters, designed to achieve precisely the stability which is vital to Australia, New Zealand and the region as a whole. The consultations on foreign policy during the Prime Minister's visit extended beyond such immediate regional issues to a range of other matters. The Prime Minister and Mr Lange talked about positive developments in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly noting the remarkable economic growth performance of many countries in the Pacific Rim. There is a concurrence of view that Australia and New Zealand are not only geographically a part of this region but that our economies must increasingly draw their vitality from the region. They discussed the importance of the course on which China has embarked, reaffirmed at the recent Party Congress, towards economic modernisation and the continuation of openings to other countries. They welcomed the direction China has taken and attach the highest importance to it. The effort our Government has made to develop the extremely close relationship with China which Australia now enjoys has already brought very significant benefits. The Prime Minister and Mr Lange discussed the situation in the Philippines where our two countries each firmly support the Government of President Aquino. Their discussions covered the changes taking place in the Soviet Union, which the Prime Minister will shortly have the opportunity to assess first hand during my visit to the country. Prime Minister Lange and Mr Hawke were at one in commending the improvement which has taken place in East-West relations and, in particular, the importance of the impending agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union for the elimination of intermediate nuclear weapons. It is hoped that this will provide impetus for progress in the area of strategic nuclear weapons and other fields of disarmament and arms control. As Mr Hawke said in Wellington, Australia and New Zealand have worked together in the cause of disarmament and my Government has valued co-operation with New Zealand in the search for a comprehensive test ban agreement and in the conclusion of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, a significant and creative regional arms control arrangement by the countries of the South Pacific Forum. Notwithstanding all these areas in which my discussions again showed that Australia and New Zealand hold such close views, our positions do not always coincide. We are sovereign, independent countries; as Mr Lange put it, one Australasian family we may be, we are nevertheless two nations. Moreover, it is exactly because of the extremely close friendship between the two countries to which I earlier referred that we owe it to each other to speak plainly when there is a significant policy difference. As honourable senators know, there is a serious difference between the Australian and New Zealand Governments over the issue of access of allied warships to our ports. The Prime Minister's visit in no way sought to disguise this difference or sweep it under the carpet. He reaffirmed clearly, both in his private talks and publicly in New Zealand, that Australia adheres firmly to our policy on welcoming ship visits by our United States ally. We accept the need for strategic deterrence. Australia will not resile from its firm support for the Western Alliance, with the corollary that the global nuclear balance can only be maintained through a credible United States nuclear deterrent. We believe that, although a nuclear balance of power is not an ideal state of affairs, it does exist and has maintained world peace. We consider that a realistic policy is to recognise this while at the same time encouraging balanced reductions in nuclear forces which maintain the credibility of the deterrent at the lowest possible level. We believe too that part of Australia's contribution to the Western Alliance system is to allow access to ports and airfields in Australia by the United States. We continue firmly to believe that such access is essential to the full effectiveness of the ANZUS alliance. Clearly New Zealand takes a different view and this disagreement is not therefore in any sense behind us. It is a sign of the maturity of our relationship that we can have this important disagreement without allowing it to corrode our overall friendship. This includes the area of bilateral defence relations where Australia, New Zealand and indeed the United States regard it as important that cooperation and collaboration continue. The Government's approach to Australia's defence relationship with New Zealand continue to be governed by the basic importance of the defence relationship to the security of Australia and New Zealand alike, as acknowledged in the White Papers published by both Governments in 1987. The ability of Australian and New Zealand forces to operate together and to support and sustain each other adds significantly to the joint defence capability of the two countries. What this means in practical terms is that the Government has sought to consolidate the defence relationship in well defined activities such as training, cooperative procurement, combined exercises, ship visits and effective consultations on the South West Pacific and other regional interests. I wish in particular to mention here the ANZAC Ship Project to construct the new Surface Combatant ships which represents a milestone in Australia-New Zealand defence cooperation. This project will promote inter-operability between our navies and make a major contribution to our strategic needs. For New Zealand's part, Mr Lange noted that our common security interests are indeed extensive. He signified that New Zealand valued its defence alliance with Australia. He too, noted the practical value of combining our efforts in such areas as procurement. He correctly said that there is a solid pragmatic basis for our commitment to each other. The Prime Minister's discussions in New Zealand also covered the challenges facing our respective economies and the management of them. Out situations differ in important respects and our policies are not, of course, identical. But it was valuable to compare experiences and approaches and, moreover, we do have two important things in common. First, both New Zealand and Australia are engaged in the task of economic restructuring. We recognise that this is the only route by which our nations can ensure their prosperity and growth in the contemporary world economy. Second, both my Government and the New Zealand Government accept that restructuring involves decisions which are seldom easy or comfortable. It requires economic management which is realistic, credible and resolute. The Prime Minister's visit to New Zealand was, to some extent, a fraternal visit. The Labor parties on both sides of the Tasman have this year achieved historic re-elections. And it is noteworthy that in the task of economic restructuring and economic management both countries are being led through the present very testing economic circumstances by Labor Governments committed to policies which are realistic and creative. There is no doubt from the Prime Minister's discussions of the determination of the New Zealand Government to confront the problems facing the New Zealand economy. Given the importance of the trans-Tasman economic connection and its potential to become still more important, the growth and development of both economies is clearly and very strongly in our mutual interests; not just in the interests of the citizens of Australia and New Zealand considered separately. Mr Lange rightly described the Closer Economic Relations Agreement as a central strand in the fabric of our partnership. It is an initiative which the present Governments both in Australia and New Zealand fully endorse. Progress under CER has exceeded expectations. It is the most comprehensive bilateral agreement entered into by either country in the trade field. Its success is indicated by the extent of the increase in two-way trade, from $1.8 billion in 1982-83 to $3.2 billion in 1986-87. This has been a function of the strides made in reducing or eliminating barriers to trade, often far in advance of the timetable set out in the Agreement. For example, tariffs on most goods have been removed and duty free trade has increased remarkably from 75% to 92% of total trans-Tasman trade during the course of the Agreement. In addition, trade which is free of quantitative import restrictions has increased since the Agreement commenced in 1983. Pleasing progress has been made in eliminating export subsidies and incentives on goods traded between Australia and New Zealand and in the work that has been done on harmonisation of standards in relation to such areas as food, industrial products and industrial property legislation. However, the value of CER to Australia has gone beyond just the quantitative impact on our bilateral trade. For many, exporting to New Zealand has been the first experience with the export market and has provided an invaluable opportunity to develop and export culture. And, indeed, it is that recognition of the wider benefits of CER that has informed our joint approach to the Review of CER which will take place in 1988. The Prime Minister's discussions with Mr Lange and his Ministers have set the agenda for the detailed discussions which will now get under way. They agreed that a new chapter should now be opened in the economic relationship, one in which we advance the economic relationship more rapidly and on a more comprehensive basis. In setting the agenda for the CER Review Mr Lange and Mr Hawke agreed on three areas for consideration. First, the two Governments will examine the scope for bringing forward to the early 1990s the implementation of free trade in goods across the Tasman, previously scheduled for completion in 1995. Second, our Governments will explore the extension of CER beyond trade in goods to the growing area of trade in services. Third, we are ready to consider the extension of CER to regulatory policies and practices outside the present provisions of CER, which bear on trade and investment. Officials will begin discussions early in the New Year, ahead of a meeting of Ministers around June. Mr Lange and Mr Hawke intend to meet and compare notes on progress made, in August or shortly thereafter. Their intention is to approach the Review positively to get a framework, objectives and time scale for implementation of decisions which will significantly deepen and widen the economic relationship across the Tasman over the next five years. This task is one which the business communities of both countries have called on us to undertake. The aim, as I said earlier, is not just to boost bilateral trade. It is to help to prepare each of our countries to compete on world markets, especially those of our region. The New Zealand Government, like the Australian Government, is acutely conscious of the fact that whatever progress we make in bilateral trade relations there is no substitute for liberalisation of international trade on a global basis. This is a fundamental interest which we share and for which we will continue to work together internationally. Mr Lange and Mr Hawke recognised the value of the Cairns Group of Fair Traders as a much needed third force in the Uruguay Round of Trade Negotiations. As efficient agricultural exporters, Australia and New Zealand have been hard hit by the distortion and disruption of international trade in agricultural products. We are determined to exert our influence to move the Uruguay Round ahead in an effort to bring down protectionist barriers and reverse the corruption of international trade in agricultural products. Mr Lange described this as `an identity of interest'. The closeness of relations between Australia and New Zealand will find very special expression next year through New Zealand's generous contribution to our Bicentennial. New Zealand has responded enthusiastically to our invitation to join us in this celebration and the New Zealand/Australia Bicentennial Committee has developed a fine program of projects in both countries in 1988. I note that New Zealand has chosen to mark the Bicentenary by restoring and presenting to Australia the historic yacht Akarana, an inspired contribution to the Australian National Maritime Museum in Sydney which will, I am sure, be one of that Institution's most popular attractions. The visit of Mr Lange to Australia in 1988 will be most welcome as a symbol of the closeness of Australia-New Zealand relations. I am sure I speak for all honourable senators in reiterating here the thanks which the Prime Minister expressed to Mr Lange and through him to the people of New Zealand for the contribution New Zealand will make in 1988. The point I wish to make, however, is that long after 1988 has passed, Australia and New Zealand will enjoy a deep closeness and affinity. It is not a relationship for one particular year but an abiding relationship. It is not a relationship of mutual interest in one particular sector of activity but a relationship of closeness across an extraordinarily wide range. The Prime Minister's visit to New Zealand fully reflected and confirmed this fact. There is a sense of deep satisfaction about what Australia and New Zealand are already doing together and a sense of great optimism about what we will yet do together in the future. Senator BUTTON —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.18) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I am delighted to see that Senator Button is in the chamber while I make my brief remarks on the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation annual report 1986-87. If ever a statutory body was on the list for privatisation, it must surely be the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. Let me point out what its corporate mission is. I quote from the report: Undertake engineering and related projects on a commercial basis . . . This is not a charity. Seventy-five per cent of its work is conducted overseas, but it is supposed to be a body which is acting on a commercial basis. The reason that Senator Button is yawning and gazing up at the remaining journalists in the Press gallery is in order to distract attention from the nature of the report, because he knows what is in it. Believe it or not-and I read from the report: The net result was a reduction in turnover of 25 per cent on the previous year, to $A26.899m, and an operating loss of $A3.622m was incurred. In order to bail this body out, the Federal Government contributed $6m to its capital. On 2 December last year, somehow or other, this Federal Government dug deeply enough into its pocket to find $6m to bail out the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. The report states: During the year the Government made available an additional $A6 million capital to the Corporation to maintain working capital, bringing the total capital of the Corporation to $A14.6 million. If one turns to the financial papers within the report, one will see that the capital of the Corporation was $14.6m but that the accumulated losses of this body are now $11,903,550, reducing the capital to $2,696,450. Glory be, for how long is the Government going to continue to subsidise what is in effect a private business corporation? We have pointed out ever since this Government came into office that it is subsidising an organisation which quite clearly should be in the private sector. If this body is so good-and there are certain aspects in the report which indicate that the body claims that it is good-glory be, why does not the Government offer it to the staff? Why does it not sell it to them? As a matter of fact, it is probably true that it could just about be given away to the staff. I do not know that the staff would want it because the accumulated superannuation liability is a matter of great concern. Nevertheless, will the Government take some action to deal with the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation other than to continue to lump it along by giving it some $6m capital? I would be delighted if the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) would explain to the Senate why it was that the Government could dig sufficiently deeply into its pocket to find $6m for this body. Why did not the Government just let it go to the wall? I find it quite unbelievable that the Government could find $6m last year in view of all of the problems and all of the crises that we face. I am sure that honourable senators could have told the Government about far better places in which to spend $6m. But I find it quite unbelievable that the Government should put this money into the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, which is supposed to be a commercial enterprise and not a charity. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The motion before the Chair is that the Senate take note of the paper. Senator BUTTON —I want to make a personal explanation because Senator Lewis said that I was yawning and looking up at the gallery. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON —Mr Deputy President, Senator Lewis attributed my action to a disregard for the points he was making in the course of his speech. I just want to indicate that that was not so at all. I have a lot of regard for what Senator Lewis said in his speech. I was looking up at the gallery and yawning because I was tired and bored at the particular time. That is the only explanation. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.24) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In reading the annual report of the Health Insurance Commission, one gets the impression of a competently run organisation that has isolated the tasks before it and set about achieving its objectives in a systematic manner-and the staff of the Health Insurance Commission should be commended for their approach. We are informed that the secrecy provisions relating to the release of specific information to prescribed persons have been tightened up quite considerably in response to recommendations made by the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. I think such a move is encouraging. However, the report does not reveal the problems of the Medicare system and its failure to provide a better quality health service for all Australians. In fact, in many situations the reverse is the case. When Medicare was introduced we were told that it would establish a system of universal cover regardless of age, income or disability. There are many who would dispute the fact that this aim has been fulfilled. Australia's health care system is in chaos and crisis. Personal health care costs are up and our public hospitals are unacceptably overcrowded. Since Medicare began there has been a marked reduction in the number of beds available in public hospitals for patients who do not have hospital insurance and, as a consequence, delays of up to two years for elective surgery are not uncommon. This is so despite the fact that patients awaiting so-called elective surgery are often experiencing considerable pain and discomfort in the interim period. An additional burden is to be placed on the public hospital system by the Government's short-sighted move to reduce subsidies to nursing homes. Instead of having the option of suitable geriatric care in a nursing home, many could face the prospect of spending their time in a ward of a public hospital with nowhere else to go. The elderly deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, not with the worry of who will care for them in their later years. A case was recently brought to my attention of an 87-year-old lady, already blind in one eye, who was faced with a very lengthy wait for a cataract operation. This operation could provide the only means by which her failing sight could be restored sufficiently to give her some small measure of independence. Yet, as a pensioner of limited means, she has to face the prospect of not being able to have this operation. The costs involved in having the operation performed in a private hospital are simply prohibitive, particularly since the Treasurer (Mr Keating) saw fit in the August Budget to reduce rebates for cataract removal. Is this a system that provides universal cover regardless of age, income or disability? In another case of which I am aware a pensioner, receiving $224.40 a fortnight, is required to pay $56 of this sum for essential medicines, leaving her $168 a fortnight for rent, food, electricity, clothes and other necessities. The drugs that she must have as a result of her condition are not on the national health list or provided for under the safety net scheme. Again, I ask: Is this adequate medical care? The Medicare system itself has perpetuated the fee for service system that has encouraged entrepreneurialism in the health system and we have seen a proliferation of so-called super clinics-an aspect of the health system on which the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts has had cause to comment. Our health system is in disarray and needs urgent attention. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.27) —There are a number of very disturbing aspects of the Health Insurance Commission's annual report, including a number of matters which relate to the late and singularly unlamented Australia Card proposal. I quote from page 78 of the financial accounts in the Health Insurance Commission's report, which indicates: Section 34 (2) of the Health Insurance Commission Act provides that Australia Card Funds shall not be expended other than in accordance with the estimates of expenditure approved by the Minister for Health. As the Minister's approval was not obtained until 24 September 1986, all expenditure on the Australia Card . . . in the period 1 July 1986 to 23 September 1986 was made in breach of Section 34 (2) of the Act. Expenditure in this period totalled $0.773 million. Three-quarters of a million dollars has been spent, improperly and in breach of the Health Insurance Commission Act, by the Health Insurance Commission in pursuit of its insane desire to introduce the Australia Card at any cost. I think that it is an absolute scandal that a body such as the Health Insurance Commission can expend three-quarters of a million dollars in breach of the Act which requires it to obtain ministerial approval before the expenditure of money. I turn to page 32 of the report, which says: The Australia Card Bill and associated privacy legislation were introduced into Parliament in September 1986 and, after substantial debate in both houses, were defeated on 10 December. Accordingly, all work on planning for the Australia Card program ceased in December 1986. I simply do not believe that. I simply believe that to be untrue. I simply believe the Health Insurance Commission to have continued, up until the time of the double dissolution election and the Government's clear indication that it intended to proceed with this matter, its work in relation to and support of the Australia Card legislation. I believe the report before us is a most disingenuous, and I venture to suggest potentially quite dishonest, piece of nonsense, and something which ought to be pursued further. I hope it will be pursued further in the course of debate on the Appropriation Bills which are currently before the Parliament. In terms of the performance of the Health Insurance Commission, I note on page 22 that, notwithstanding an increase of 24.8 per cent in turnover for Medibank Private-one would expect, given the capital intensive nature of the business, that increased turnover would create economies of scale and result in reduced administrative costs-the report demonstrates an increase in operating expenditure for Medibank Private of 22 per cent, namely, from 11.6 per cent of revenue to 14.2 per cent of revenue. I find this report most unsatisfactory. I find the remarks in relation to the Australia Card thoroughly unsatisfactory. I do not believe that one would find on close examination that no officer of the Health Insurance Commission or no part of the Commission had anything to do with the Australia Card program in the period from December 1986 until the election which took place, or between the subsequent reintroduction of the Australia Card legislation in the course of 1987 and the eventual withdrawal of the Bill by the Government once the flaws in it had been pointed out. I draw the attention of the chamber once again to the scandalous behaviour of the Commission in allowing $773,000 to be spent in clear breach of section 34 (2) of the Health Insurance Commission Act. I put the Government on notice that certain answers will be required in the course of the debate on the Appropriation Bills relating to the Department of Community Services and Health, which is shortly to be undertaken. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(3.32) —Again I find myself in agreement with the conclusions of Senator Puplick, but for quite different reasons. I also find this report of the Health Insurance Commission rather unsatisfactory and draw attention to the euphemism which appears on the front cover-Health Insurance Commission. I point out, of course, that we are talking about a sickness insurance commission and not a health insurance commission. If one is healthy, one does not spend any money on one's health; one spends money on sickness when one becomes deprived of health. This Commission is therefore incorrectly named. I draw attention to the reply which was given a few moments ago to my question about gross national product. I draw attention to what happens when one remains healthy. For instance, if one does not smoke one does not get lung cancer, one does not incur costs and those costs do not appear as additions to the national accounts. On the other hand, if one does smoke, becomes ill with lung cancer and incurs costs as a result of very expensive treatment, those costs appear as an addition to gross national product. That brings me to the main content of this report, which is entirely predicated on economic considerations whereas one would expect that, as the report deals with health-or sickness, as I have indicated-it would give some indication of how effective the Health Insurance Commission is in preserving the health rather than the sickness of the community. I draw the Senate's attention to the cover of this report, which shows a number of blurred people. I could not think of anything more appropriate to represent the lack of concern for people and the overemphasis on economic considerations. We find in the report that Medibank Private significantly increased its market share. The report praises the fact that there has been a 21 per cent growth rate in membership of Medibank Private. Again, no consideration is given in the report to whether that relates to the fact that people feel less secure and in greater need of insurance. No consideration is given to whether those people have moved from other forms of insurance, whether they were previously uninsured or whether the growth of Medibank Private has given those people greater opportunities for health than for sickness. Indeed, it may be interpreted that we are a much sicker community, and one in need of more health insurance cover. The growth in that figure may therefore be interpreted as a decline in the quality of life in Australia and not as a benefit. Finally, I draw attention to the great emphasis throughout this annual report on management efficiency and economic indicators only. Nowhere in the report is there any indication whatsoever of the health or sickness outcomes which might arise from these economic indicators. For those reasons, I find the report unsatisfactory and I request that in future, when important matters of welfare such as those that should be covered in this report, are dealt with, they be brought out and put alongside the purely economic indicators. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(3.36) —I welcome the unwelcome reception that this annual report of the Health Insurance Commission has had. While I agree with the complaints raised by Senator Watson, Senator Puplick and Senator Coulter, I will not deal with those complaints but instead raise a few new ones. I notice that page 20 of the report shows that the Health Insurance Commission is still showing an interest in the health maintenance organisations that it was promoting previously. It had noted their failure in other countries. I hope that this kind of organisation is not promulgated in Australia, because it does not provide any form of comprehensive health care and needs intensive back-up from other organisations. Page 22 of the report shows that management expenses have increased by 22 per cent and now amount to $63.3m or 14.2 per cent of the income contributions, which is staggering. The management expense ratio has gone from 11.6 per cent in 1985-86 to 14.2 per cent in 1986-87. The graph on page 21 shows what looks like a growth in 1986-87 of just under 100,000 members for Medibank Private. One wonders how a growth like that could result in such an increase in management expenses. I suppose that it does not entirely depend on the actual numbers but on how many times the service is used. I wonder why the Health Insurance Commission, as shown on page 32, if it finds that people have undertaken criminal activities in deliberately defrauding the Commission, takes action in civil courts rather than in the criminal courts. Perhaps it feels a bit shy after what it did about expenditure on the Australia Card, which was completely unauthorised by the Parliament or the Minister. Page 34 shows that the number of part time staff employed, principally in the branch office network, has decreased from 835 to 657, with a consequent increase in the number of full time employed staff. Staff numbers have jumped from 1,863 in 1983 to 4,590 in 1987. That is an enormous jump in staff numbers. I note that the Commission provides equal employment opportunities. I pointed out to the Senate the other day the dangers in that and the likelihood-- Senator Haines —Why do you hate women so much? Senator SHEIL —I do not hate women. I just do not think this is a good policy. In addition, the report has a section on human resources, which I presume is the old personnel department, in which it says that the Commission is using industrial democracy. I suppose that if one does not have shareholders, one can do that sort of thing. Page 62 shows details of the salaries and associated costs of Medibank Private, which have leapt from $16.6m in 1985-86 to $27.466m in 1986-87. That is another enormous leap. Page 72 of the report shows that Medicare salaries and associated costs have dropped from $74.5m in 1985-86 to $72.8m in 1986-87. However, travel and subsistence costs have increased from $1.2m to $1.5m. I asked a question at the Estimates committee hearings in regard to the differential in costs between private, public and repatriation hospitals and the number of patients treated. In the answer I find that the cost per bed in the repatriation hospitals is $350-odd a day and in the public and private hospitals it is $185 a day. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(3.41) —The Health Insurance Commission annual report for 1986-87 is of major concern because now apparently it has become acceptable for government authorities to ignore the Acts under which they are supposed to be administered and to act in a way which, quite frankly, is thumbing their nose at the procedures that this Parliament should be ensuring are followed. I refer the Senate to page 78 of the notes of the report, where it is revealed in relation to Australia Card expenditure: As the Minister's approval was not obtained until 24 September 1986, all expenditure on the Australia Card function in the period 1 July 1986 to 23 September 1986 was made in breach of Section 34 (2) of the Act. Expenditure in this period totalled $0.773 million. Frankly, I am sick of this Government presiding over this kind of situation. It is intolerable and unacceptable to have such breaches of Acts as are revealed in the notes to the accounts. One of the largest qualified auditors reports that I have seen for a long time has revealed multitudinous breaches of the Health Insurance Commission Act. Either the Government has to wake up to itself and determine how it is going to administer such organisations or else procedures will have to be instituted, I believe, against those people who deliberately set out to breach Acts of Parliament. These are not Executive Acts; they are Acts of the Parliament. I find such breaches totally unacceptable. The auditor reports along the same lines on page 80 of the report. It is almost farcical when he says: The statements are based on proper accounts and records- and then says- except for the breaches of sections 8 (H) and sub-sections 34 (2), 34B (3), 34B (4), 34C (2), 35 (5) and 36 (6A) of the Health Insurance Commission Act which are indicated below. This relaxed approach to the law by this Government is, I believe, unacceptable. I would also like to draw attention to a couple of other points that concern me. I notice that the Commission shows in its balance sheet shares at cost as at 30 June 1987 of $8.127m. These shares are valued in the accounts, I presume at their book value, at $10m. I wonder how much the Health Insurance Commission has lost on the $10m worth of shares since the stock market crash. It is a matter of concern also, as Senator Sheil pointed out, that the Commission's administrative costs appear to be increasing even though there has been a reduction in salaries and associated costs from $74.5m to $72.9m. I must say that in the brief reading I had the chance to undertake prior to this sitting of the Senate I did not see any special explanation for those increases in cost. While this is a very informative and full annual report, I would have thought that such an explanation would have been appropriate. I believe this is the sort of information that the Senate requires. I believe, at least on a quick reading, that this information has not been given. I wonder why the buildings and improvements have increased from $33.8m at June 1986 to $48.5m. This is another example of the sort of annual report that should be presented to the Senate Estimate committees so that questions along these lines can properly be asked when officers of such authorities are before the Senate Estimates committees to give evidence. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(3.46) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The list of reports to which the Government is yet to respond is really quite long and reflects poorly on the very extensive work which the Senate committees and other committees do. The report on dolphins and whales in captivity was tabled two years ago. The response which has been tabled today says that the Government has been waiting on responses from the States because there are many matters in the committee reports for which the States have responsibility. That may well be so but, in my opinion, two years is a very long time. In the meantime, in my own State of New South Wales we have heard rumours about the State Government deciding, on the strength of the Senate report, to close two of the three existing dolphinariums. That is as far as it has gone. The report has suggested a death sentence for these businesses and the New South Wales State Government has said that they will be closed. As a result dolphinariums are unable to invest, carry out maintenance and make any plans for the future because they do not know what is going on. The Federal Government's response to this report may not solve their problem but it should at least give them some guidance. I think it is really poor-in fact, it is disgraceful-that the Government has taken so long to bring down its response. I hope that the delay will not continue much longer. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the report of the Auditor- General on financial statements prepared by the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1987, together with the financial statements and certificates to the Attorney-General and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade relating to exempt accounts. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —I table further additional information received by Estimates Committee D. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I seek leave to amend Government Business notice of motion No. 1 in accordance with the text circulated to honourable senators, which reflects the agreement reached between the relevant parties. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —I move, reluctantly: That- (1) unless otherwise ordered, the Orders of the Senate relating to the days and times of meeting of the Senate and the routine of business be varied for the remainder of this period of sittings as follows: (a) Thursday, 26 November, Thursday, 10 December and Thursday, 17 December- 10 a.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; and (b) Tuesday, 15 December- 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. (2) the routine of business for Wednesdays apply to Tuesday, 15 December; and (3) notwithstanding anything contained in the Sessional Orders, Government Business take precedence of General Business on Thursdays. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-Mr Deputy President, I wish simply to acknowledge the fact that the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) followed a procedure that was requested by the Opposition, namely to put down a statement-an ambit claim, if you wish. I wish to acknowledge that after discussion the Minister made some adjustments to that ambit claim to meet the proper anticipations of the Opposition, which had made its plan according to the Government program. There has been a considerable extension of hours. I think the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Haines) worked out that something like an additional full week has been slotted in in terms of effective Government time. In any event, the only reason I am up wasting the time of the Senate is to acknowledge the fact that the Minister on this occasion did co-operate with us on this matter. I think that credit should be given where credit is due. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-Like Senator Chaney I would like to extend my congratulations to the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) for finally reaching the top of his learning curve and discovering that when one does not have the numbers it is a good idea to co-operate rather than confront. Senator Chaney —It is a case of lying back and enjoying it, if I can use one of the Minister's phrases. Senator HAINES —Senator Evans got into trouble for that sort of statement. I think the honourable senator had better be a bit careful. In fact, Senator Chaney is quite right. The average amount of Government business dealt with in any week in the last two parliamentary sessions has been a little over 13 hours a week; that is the amount of debating time actually devoted to Government legislation and other matters brought forward by the Government and the amount of time that has, even after negotiations, been added to the next two weeks and to this coming Thursday night is in excess of that average. I think the Minister ought to be grateful for that, considering that had the Government got its act together, so to speak, a little earlier it could have introduced some of the legislation weeks ago and had it dealt with in the weeks when we were lucky if we accidentally got a Bill through in a day. That is a problem that faced the Government because it sat later than usual. Nevertheless, it could have got its program to the draftspeople earlier than it did. By and large, I think the Government has got a pretty reasonable deal out of all of this. I hope we can get through as much of the program as possible before we see the Christmas Day menu being circulated as it usually is towards the end of the session. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-The Government may have got a good deal out of this; the Opposition may have got a good deal out of this; and Senator Haines and the Australian Democrats may have got a good deal out of this. But when the deals are being made one would hope that in future others in the chamber are brought into the considerations. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Foreman) agreed to: 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 the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Haines, Senator Tambling and Senator Collins, I 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. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Reynolds) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(3.54) —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- This Bill will amend the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954, the National Health Act 1953, the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the States Grants (Nurses Education Transfer Assistance) Act 1985. The major purpose of this Bill is to introduce new variable capital funding arrangements for hostels and to improve the legislative base for the management of the new nursing home recurrent funding system introduced on 1 July 1987. The Bill also introduces improved new arrangements for conditions of capital and recurrent subsidies for hostels. These measures will enable better targeting of Commonwealth funding to hostel accommodation and care for disadvantaged groups and will achieve greater efficiency in Commonwealth funding of nursing homes. In April 1986, a review of nursing homes and hostels reported on a future strategy for the development of residential care programs for the aged. The Government endorsed the broad thrust of the review's recommendations and in the 1986-87 Budget commenced a staged program of reform of residential care services for aged people. This reform program has the primary objective of responding to community needs by encouraging the further development of hostels and community care services, and of increasing the quality of care and life of aged people. Implementation of the first two stages of the reform strategy is proceeding with the establishment of new needs-based planning arrangements, the development of co-ordinated assessment services for the elderly, the expansion of hostel and home and community care services, the development of a special services program, the phasing in of new recurrent funding arrangements for non-government nursing homes from 1 July 1987 and the introduction of quality of care standards for nursing homes. The new variable capital funding arrangements for hostels, given effect to by this Bill, introduce the third stage of the program for reform of residential care services for the aged. In adopting a staged reform strategy the Government has recognised the importance of effecting gradual change in the aged care industry to minimise disruption in the lives of the 110,000 frail aged people in various forms of residential care presently receiving Commonwealth funding. In developing the overall program the Government recognised that the co-operation of service providers and the community would be necessary to fully achieve its objectives and to this end the Government has undertaken an extensive round of consultations with service providers, consumer and welfare organisations, and State governments on the proposed funding arrangements for hostels. Briefly, the proposed amendments under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954 will enable the Commonwealth to target its capital funding for hostels to achieve equitable access to hostels of people with limited means and all other people requiring and choosing hostel accommodation and care. This will be achieved by variation in the level of Commonwealth capital subsidy based, among other things, on the proportion of financially disadvantaged residents to be accommodated and the capacity of future residents to contribute towards the construction of the hostel. In 1954 the Commonwealth introduced a capital subsidy program to stimulate the provision of suitable accommodation for aged people. Administrative arrangements of successive governments have meant that capital subsidies are provided on a 2 for 1 basis up to a maximum subsidy limit per place. In practice, however, the maximum subsidy arrangements result in a subsidy closer to 1 for 1. A similar per place payment is provided for most projects, irrespective of the means of future residents or the financial capacity of the organisation receiving the subsidy. Furthermore, current legislative provisions prevent refundable entry contributions paid by residents from being considered as part of an organisation's available funds in determining the amount of a Commonwealth capital subsidy, even though the practice of requesting entry contributions is widespread in the hostel sector. This creates two major problems. First, residents are uncertain of their rights attached to these payments, and many do not have any protection in relation to refunds of their entry contributions. Second, it increases the financial burden on organisations by necessitating that they find other sources of funds which can be considered as part of their matching funds for Commonwealth capital grants. In addition, no formal link exists between capital and recurrent funding provisions and in the past this has led to the Commonwealth providing capital funds for many `motel-like' hostels which do not receive recurrent subsidies for care services as the residents are well able to look after themselves. Consequently, the existing capital and recurrent funding arrangements do not target Commonwealth funds to organisations providing accommodation and care for disadvantaged groups or provide incentives for organisations to maximise the use of their own funds or of residents' entry contributions. As I have mentioned, this Bill includes a number of amendments to the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954 designed to address these difficulties and to provide greater protection for residents. The Bill enables the Minister to determine guidelines for the assessment of the amount of a capital grant to be paid for the establishment of a hostel. The guidelines will be gazetted, tabled and subject to possible disallowance. The guidelines will have regard to, among other things, any contribution to the capital cost of the hostel which could be made by residents and the organisation, borrowing of moneys by the organisation, class or classes of persons to be accommodated and the maximum amount of the grant. Other amendments provided for in this Bill will remove restrictions on moneys to be taken into account in determining Commonwealth capital grants. The Bill will enable borrowed moneys which can be repaid by resident contributions or from payments made by the State or the Commonwealth (other than under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954), to be taken into account in determining Commonwealth capital grants. The Bill also provides the Minister with the discretionary power to enable Commonwealth or State government organisations, or organisations which conduct public hospitals, to be treated as eligible organisations for the purposes of the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954. This will enable some joint hostel ventures to proceed. This Bill also introduces new conditions for capital and recurrent funding and changes the existing arrangements for determining conditions of recurrent funding. The new arrangements and additional conditions clarify `up front' the requirements of Commonwealth capital and recurrent funding. The Bill will enable the Minister to specify conditions of a capital grant for a hostel and organisations will be required to enter into an agreement in relation to these conditions. The conditions of agreements for capital funding set out in the Bill must be met by an eligible organisation and include provision for compliance by that organisation with conditions of grant; the repayment of financial assistance and the recovery of amounts taken as representing the Commonwealth's interest. The conditions will also include that an organisation shall comply with the conditions of recurrent funding. This introduces a link between existing capital and recurrent funding provisions and ensures that Commonwealth capital funding is targeted to the provision of hostel accommodation for the frail aged. In addition, capital grants will be subject to the provision of accommodation and care of a determined number of financially disadvantaged people, to further target government funding to this group. Similarly, this Bill enables hostel recurrent subsidies to be subject to gazetted conditions which will be tabled and subject to possible disallowance. As well as the current conditions enforced through the existing hostel recurrent subsidies agreement, additional conditions relating to residents' rights and obligations (including provision of refunds for entry contributions), accountability of organisations to residents and specified outcome standards to be achieved, will be included. Non-compliance with conditions may mean suspension or cancellation of Commonwealth recurrent subsidies. I should stress that the details of those provisions which are to be gazetted, tabled and subject to disallowance will not be finalised until the Government has completed national consultations and discussions with service provider and consumer organisations. The Bill also includes amendments to the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954 which will simplify the administration of the capital subsidy program. These amendments change the formula for determining the capital cost of a home by enabling the cost of equipment to be taken into account in determining the capital cost of a home. The amendments in this Bill to the National Health Act 1953 will facilitate the administration of the new nursing home recurrent funding arrangements introduced on 1 July 1987 and will introduce measures to assist fraud controls in relation to current administrative procedures. The successful implementation of the new standard grant funding arrangements depends to some extent on the financial data obtained from nursing home proprietors. In accordance with the new nursing homes financial arrangements principles, at the end of each financial year a reconciliation between estimated nursing and personal care costs and actual costs is to be undertaken. Under current legislative provisions, it is not clear that details of nursing and personal care costs are required to be kept by proprietors. This Bill therefore provides that particulars in relation to nursing and personal care costs should be submitted by proprietors in a form approved by the Secretary at such times, and in respect of such periods, as are determined by the Secretary. These determinations will be gazetted, tabled and subject to possible disallowance. This amendment will allow prospective fees determinations to be calculated more quickly and efficiently. Consistent with the Government's acceptance of the recommendations of the recent review of systems dealing with fraud, a number of measures in this Bill will assist in reducing the potential for fraudulent practices by nursing home proprietors. The Bill extends the current provisions relating to inspections of nursing home records to enable an officer authorised by the minister to inspect documents or records that relate to the operation of a nursing home, wherever these records are kept. The Bill also provides that the manner in which nursing home records are to be kept may be prescribed. This will overcome current problems where some proprietors keep their records on accounting documents which reflect more than one business operation making it difficult to verify during end of year reconciliations whether expenditure has in fact been incurred. The Bill also provides for extended evidence collecting powers and amends penalty provisions under parts V, VA and VC of the National Health Act 1953 to bring these provisions into line with penalty provisions in other Commonwealth legislation. The Bill also amends the National Health Act 1953 to remove the Minister's discretion to depart from the new nursing homes financial arrangements principles in reviewing fees determinations decisions. These principles are an integral part of the new funding arrangements and were designed to minimise discretions. If the transition to a standard grant funding system for nursing homes is to succeed, the principles must be applied in all cases of review of fees determinations decisions. The Bill also clarifies ministerial review powers by enabling all fees determinations decisions to be subject to review. As foreshadowed by the former Minister for Community Services, Chris Hurford, in his second reading speech on the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 in the autumn sittings 1987, a new mechanism for approving the transfer of nursing home beds from one location to another is also provided for in this Bill. In addition, another amendment to the National Health Act 1953 in this Bill gives effect to an undertaking given on behalf of the then Minister for Community Services during the Senate debate on the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 and prevents any action being taken against a nursing home under the new non-compliance with standards powers until a standards review panel has been established in the State or Territory in which the home is situated. The Bill amends secrecy provisions of the National Health Act 1953 to bring them into line with similar provisions under the Health Insurance Act 1973. Currently, the information which may be released to prescribed persons or authorities is not specified. This Bill will permit only information of a kind prescribed by regulation to be made available to a person or authority. This enhances the protection of personal privacy under the National Health Act 1953. The Bill also provides for a minor amendment to the Health Insurance Act 1973 to remove, in the interests of protecting privacy of patients, the requirement for the tabling of instruments determining patients as needing acute care. Finally, a minor amendment to the States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Act 1985 is also provided for in this Bill. The Commonwealth has provided funds to the States and the Northern Territory under the States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Act since 1985 to assist with the transfer of basic training courses for nurses from hospitals to colleges of advanced education. The number of places being partially funded by the Commonwealth is increasing year by year so that by the end of 1993 the hospital-based training courses will be completely phased out. By authorising funding for the next transmission, this Bill amends the States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Act 1985 to allow the transfer of nurse education to continue at an orderly rate. The new funding arrangements for hostels under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954 are expected to result in savings of $7m in each of the years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90. The amendments to the States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Act 1985 will authorise, subject to appropriation, expenditure to assist in the transfer of nurse education from hospitals to colleges of advanced education of $14m in the calendar year 1988, $21m in the calendar year 1989 and $28m in each of the years 1990 to 1993. The other measures in the Bill have no readily quantifiable financial impact, although it is expected that they may result in some small savings in administrative costs. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Reynolds) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(3.55) —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- This Bill implements in Australian law the treaty on fisheries between the governments of certain Pacific island states and the Government of the United States of America. The treaty will enter into force when it has been ratified by the United States and by 10 member states of the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency. To date, six nations have ratified the treaty, including Australia on 18 May 1987. The treaty allows United States purse seine fishing boats to fish for tuna in the fishing zones of all of the Pacific island parties to the treaty under a single licence to be issued by an Administrator who acts on behalf of the Pacific island parties. Access by US fishing boats to the Australian fishing zone will be limited at the outset to the area of the Coral Sea shown on the indicative map attached to the explanatory memorandum. The treaty imposes rigorous enforcement responsibilities on the Government of the United States and has the effect of disapplying provisions in US law which have afforded US tuna fishermen substantial protections from the enforcement efforts of South Pacific countries in the past. Under the treaty, the US Government is required to pay $US60m in licence fees for fishing rights for the first five years, and Australia will share in a distribution of those fees between the Pacific island parties. The overall approach the Bill takes to implementing the treaty in the Australian fishing zone is to validate a treaty licence as if it were an Australian licence under the Fisheries Act 1952. The Bill provides in clause 4 the circumstances in which a treaty licence shall be taken to be in force. Clause 5 extends the powers of officers to matters in relation to treaty licences. While a boat licensed under the treaty is in the Australian fishing zone, this clause also validates the exercise of those powers by an officer appointed by another Pacific island party as an observer on board the boat. Clauses 6, 7 and 8 exempt boats licensed under the treaty from the range of offences relating to fishing activities which are generally applicable to foreign boats. Clause 9 creates the offence for boats licensed under the treaty of contravening the treaty licence conditions. These conditions are set out in Annex I to the Treaty. Other provisions in the Bill deal with matters which are not directly related to the treaty. Clause 15 creates a regulation-making power with respect to returning cancelled instruments issued under the Act, the regulations or a management plan. Management plans routinely require that the holder of a certificate of registration of units return the certificate promptly to the Department following cancellation of the registration in accordance with the plan. The new power will allow the making of regulations making it an offence to fail to return certificates in such circumstances. Clause 16 empowers the making of orders by the Minister about any matter about which regulations may be made, except that orders may not impose penalties. Orders are required to be tabled in the Parliament and are subject to disallowance in the same manner as are regulations. The Bill is essentially of a machinery nature for the principal purpose of giving effect to Australia's rights and obligations under an agreement of great significance in the Pacific Islands region. The Bill itself will not affect Government expenditure and will have no staffing implications in the Department of Primary Industries and Energy. Australia will share in the distribution of $US60m in licence fees, to be paid by the United States for fishing under the treaty for the first five years of its operation. After that, fee levels will be renegotiated. 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 to 7, 9 to 15 and 17 for disallowance of certain delegated legislation. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —I move: That Business of the Senate, Notices of Motion Nos 8 and 16 standing in my name, be postponed until a later hour this day. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —The Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances is still discussing with the relevant Ministers the application of the Committee's principles to the legislation to which these notices relate. We are hopeful that our concerns will be resolved by the end of this day. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 23 November. GROUP B Department of Transport and Communications Proposed expenditure, $1,189,592,000 Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(3.58) —Last night Senator Messner asked Senator Evans a question about international remailing. In recent times private companies, particularly the large international couriers, have commenced remail services which concentrate on letter class items. This involves large bundles of these items being taken overseas and then posted overseas back to the country of origin at cheaper rates than are available from the country of origin, generally involving agreement with the mailing authorities of the second nation. As I understand it, Senator Evans gave an indication that he would be responding to some additional parts of Senator Messner's question that were not answered. Could Senator Evans give some indication of whether the names of the people who have been involved in this should be revealed to Parliament. I am certainly guided by him. I am not pressing the matter. Basically, what is being done to stop it? Is there any indication of the costs to the revenues so far of this practice? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(4.00) —I do not think it would be reasonable for me to have obtained answers to all the questions I was asked yesterday which I took on notice, but as it turns out I have answers to three or four, of which this is one. I do not know whether the honourable senator would be happy if I sought leave to have it incorporated in Hansard or whether he wants me to read the passage. Senator Michael Baume —Are they long, Minister? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, they are not very long. I was asked three questions: Is remailing legal? Should it be combated-what strategy, if any, do we have to do that? And which four companies were involved? As to the first question, the answer is that the legislation of postal administrations varies in the extent to which their letter mail is protected from competition. All members of the Universal Postal Union are bound by the provisions of the convention but, in regard to the remailing process, may exercise a choice on the extent to which they apply the sanctions against remailing. Unless all administrations choose to exercise the provisions rigorously, the remailers can utilise, as an intermediate point of distribution, those administrations that do not enforce the convention. On the domestic side, legal opinion is being sought on the steps that might be taken under section 85 of the Postal Services Act against remailers. On the question of whether it should be combated, as indicated in my previous answer-that is, the answer that was given in writing to Senator Messner's original question-a number of Western administrations are actively pursuing common action to meet the threats posed by the remailing activities. At this stage it would be premature to disclose details of the future action proposed by the group of postal administrations as this could jeopardise the success of the counteraction planned. Finally, the four companies which, Australia Post is aware, are offering remail services are DHL International (Aust.) Pty Ltd, Wards, TNT-Skypack and Sky Courier Network Pty Ltd. While I am on my feet I cannot forbear but read into the record an answer to another question I was asked yesterday by Senator Walters about the videotape sent to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal by a person who claims that it contains subliminal messages. The answer I received is as follows: The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT) has received a tape of the national bicentennial song from a person in Wagga Wagga. The person claims that, if the tape is played backwards, it contains words of a sexual and/or satanic nature. As I said yesterday, I thought it might be a pretty subtle plot, but I had no idea that it was as subtle as that! Tribunal staff are obtaining a copy of the tape, as it was broadcast, for examination. A report will be provided to members of the Tribunal for their meeting on Tuesday, 1 December. Ringside seats will be offered. Members of the Tribunal will determine whether the advertisement breaches the ABT's general program standards. For the information of honourable senators, the program standard relating to this matter is General Program Standard 2 (a) (iv), which is as follows: 2. (a) No program transmitted by a licensee may, when considered as a whole: (iv) use or involve the process known as `subliminal perception' or any other technique which attempts to convey information to the viewer by transmitting messages below or near the threshold of normal awareness. So that is what this tape, if played backwards, may conceivably be doing. Wherever Senator Walters is, I hope that she is satisfied with that answer. I also have a couple of answers to questions asked by Senator MacGibbon, which answers are not nearly as interesting, but which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard. Leave granted. The answers read as follows- SENATE ESTIMATES DEBATE Senator MacGibbon asked, with reference to page 239 of the Estimates Explanations, why the Department is spending $33,000 on replacement of existing protective jackets with flame proof jackets? Has the work become more dangerous? Answer The $33,000 provides for routine replacement of other uniforms as well as replacement of the jackets for certain categories of staff. With respect to the jackets, an accident experienced by staff in the State Electricity Commission of Victoria has led to reassessment of the suitability of existing issue jackets in the environment to which Electrical Maintenance High Voltage operators are exposed. Thus the requirement arises not from a change in the `danger level' of the work, but from realisation of a potential, though remote, hazard. SENATE ESTIMATES DEBATE-FLYING TRAINING FOR DEPARTMENTAL EXAMINERS The Department employs Examiners of Airmen for tasks such as specifying flight crew operating procedures including rules and conditions of flight, simulator checks and check captain approvals. To effectively undertake such tasks Examiners are required to maintain a level of proficiency and currency on aircraft for which they are setting standards and requirements. They are required to hold a current licence and appropriate ratings and endorsements by virtue of their employment. Examiners of Airmen do not check the technical competence of individual airline pilots. That role is performed by the Check Captain of the Airline which employs the pilots. The Examiners are concerned with the setting of appropriate procedures to be followed in the aircraft and in the training provided by the Airlines. Having approved the aircraft and training procedures to be used in respect of each aircraft type introduced into Australia, Examiners monitor the performance of the Airlines in maintaining those standards. As such their role can be seen to be the protection of public safety by determining appropriate safety standards, monitoring their implementation and ensuring compliance. This role is clearly distinct from the day-to-day operations of Airlines and needs to be performed by persons independent from the airline industry. The location of training is determined according to the most economical option. The extent of training done overseas is a reflection of relative rates offered, taking account also of travel costs. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(4.04) —One question which I had planned to ask last night was not asked last night when the debate was interrupted. Has Australia Post been able to make any estimates of the cost to revenue of this practice, say, in the last year, or whatever would be the appropriate period, so that some idea of the size of this problem would be available to the Committee? While I am on my feet I wish to deal with a couple of matters relating to Telecom Australia. Firstly, a response to a question by Senator Brownhill is extraordinary, in that it reveals that the enormous cost of vandalism to Telecom is in search of very little money. The table provided in response to a question asked by Senator Brownhill about card phones reveals that Telecom has recently introduced a card phone and is planning to install 2,000 units nationally by 1990 at a cost of $10m. The reply also noted that vandalism to public telephones last financial year cost $18 1/4m. The extraordinary thing is that this vandalism, costing $18 1/4m, related to the theft of $100,000. The extraordinary cost that is imposed on Australians-in ratio of 180 : 1-by people seeking to rob those machines of $100,000 is just appalling. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list of estimates for specific items provided by Telecom in answer to Senator Brownhill's question. Leave granted. The list read as follows- The estimate for the cost of public telephone vandalism for 1986-87 is $18.25m. Estimates for specific items are as follows: $m Damage to equipment and cabinet... 6.50 Purchase of special equipment... 2.50 Cost of labour for repairs... 4.63 Loss of call revenue... 2.12 Operator Service Costs... 2.40 Theft of money... 0.10 Total... 18.25 Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank the Committee. I raised-- Senator Gareth Evans —We have been going for 4 1/2 hours on this Department. Do you think you could possibly reach exhaustion soon? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I think the Minister would agree that most of the questions relating to this Department are of some substance. I think some other departments may not have matters of such substance, but the Minister is lucky enough to have this one. I raised the matter of Telecom bills of account in the adjournment debate a few nights ago. I was advised by Telecom via the telephone that action was being taken to bring to an end such ludicrous situations as a 2 1/2 feet high list of bills for one telephone number. I understand the explanation given about changes in rates and so on, but I am wondering whether Telecom is now in a position to say exactly what action is being taken following what I understand to be repeated requests from the company that received that 45- centimetre high pile of bills. I would be interested to know why it took so long for the company's complaints to be acted upon. The Minister will notice that I am getting rid of all these questions in one go so that I will not have to get up and down all the time and irritate him even further, recognising that his fuse is getting shorter as this matter proceeds. Senator Gareth Evans —My graciousness yesterday did not do me any good at all. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Oh, yes; even more quorums could have been called. I would now like to ask a question relating to a response to a question asked by Senator MacGibbon. He asked: Could we have an idea of Telecom's advertising budget per year? The response was: The size of Telecom's advertising budget is regarded as confidential for commercial reasons. Why is that so? In which areas is there any real commercial benefit for someone finding out what Telecom's advertising budget is? In most areas Telecom has a monopoly. It seems extraordinary to me. I really want to know who would benefit commercially from such a revelation and why it should not be made available. As the Minister is so concerned about time-and I am glad that he expressed that concern-taken in dealing with one department, can I say that, if Estimates committees were effectively run, answers would be forthcoming at those committees. One of the reasons for this lengthy debate-and it is not bloody-mindedness-is that we did not get answers at the time so that we could follow them up. I refer the Minister to the report of Estimates Committee B. Before doing so, I remind him that, as I recall it, we got the documents on which to form our questions on the Friday, one working day before Senate Estimates committees sat. If the Minister could smarten up his own act, he would be in a better position to complain about us. What happened this year was absolutely intolerable. It was either due to incompetence or deliberately aimed at limiting our capacity to use the Senate Estimates committees in the way they should be used. The Minister is on very shaky ground in venturing to protest. His good grace and charm of yesterday may well show that he feels some degree of guilt about the Government's disgraceful performance on this matter. I refer the Minister to the report of Estimates Committee B, in which the following complaint was made: Although large numbers of officers attended the hearings from both Departments there were occasions when relatively straight forward questions had to be taken on notice because no properly briefed officer was present. Thus no officer from the former Department of Trade was able to state whether the Trade Development Council was totally taxpayer funded . . . and there was no officer from Radio Australia to explain an apparent increase in the salary and staff costs of the Indonesian and Chinese programme units when the air time accorded to these programmes was to be cut. There was also the question, which one would assume any senior officer of Telecom Australia could have answered: Could we have an idea of what is Telecom's advertising budget per annum? The answer was that the question would be taken on notice. So we have a very sound reason for asking so many questions. The other question I want to ask relates to a matter which was also raised by Senator Brownhill-the 011 trunk booking number, which members of parliament have very great demand for because they use their Telecom cards when they do not have access to their office telephones for official telephone calls. Senators, in particular, who are obliged to travel around the whole of their State, probably have greater use of their cards than do other members of parliament. There are intolerable delays in reaching the 011 number, particularly at weekends. I do not know whether any other senators have found this to be a problem. Senator Panizza —I agree with that. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Right. On dialling the number, one ends up with the recorded message-which becomes infuriating after a while. When this fact is mentioned, politely of course, to the operator, the answer is, `I am sorry; we are short staffed'. I cannot understand why Telecom, which now has automatic switching all over New South Wales-for example, if one rings up from Wollongong one is likely to have an operator from Taree or somewhere answer the phone-has intolerable delays at a time of what seems to be enormous unemployment and at a time when Telecom seems to be able to produce reasonable profits. It is about time that a little more attention was paid to the requirements of telephone users, particularly when we look at another answer to a question from Senator Brownhill which reveals what appears to be a magnificent improvement in productivity. There is an improvement in productivity because the number of staff to handle the national calls has been reduced by 15 per cent. If Senator Panizza wonders why it is taking so long for that 011 number to be answered, it is because staff numbers apparently-and there may be a sensible answer to this-have been reduced to a level inadequate to cope with the demand. It would have been nice to have pursued this matter in Senate Estimates. Senator Gareth Evans —It was pursued yesterday, at some length. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —It was pursued to a degree but without reference to the specific figures. These specific figures appear to indicate why there has been this problem. It is alleged in some survey that customer satisfaction with the 011 service currently is 87 per cent. I assure Telecom that I have never been surveyed on my satisfaction with the service and I assure honourable senators that my satisfaction rate would be far less than 87 per cent. I could say, I suppose, `in that connection'. I would be grateful if the Minister would answer those questions. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(4.15) —I will have to take just about all those questions on notice to the extent that they seek explicit information which has not been offered already. I responded yesterday to the general blast on the subject of the 011 number, as best I could. There is no doubt that the view taken within Telecom Australia is that with the current technology people ought to be encouraged not to rely on operator connection for interstate and overseas calls, but use the direct dialling facilities. Senator Michael Baume —They give lousy service to encourage that. Senator GARETH EVANS —Maybe it takes something like that kind of frustration to make people aware of the alternative options. I will take the matter up with Telecom in light of the noises made. I cannot promise answers before the Estimates come to a vote, as I hope they will in the next day or so, but I will supply answers as soon as possible. Two other questions were asked yesterday to which I have answers. One question was from Senator Hamer, concerning estimates information for the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics. I seek leave to incorporate the text of that answer and a small table containing figures associated with that answer. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- Program format and consistent with Department of Finance budgetary reforms. Budget allocations for the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics are included in the overall departmental program budgeting framework. Specifically, Bureau allocations are included in program elements 1.4, 2.4, 9.1.1 and 9.1.4. Estimated cost of the Bureau is $3,619,000, broken down into the following: $ Salaries...3,028,000 Operating expenses...551,000 Plant and equipment...40,000 Senator GARETH EVANS —The other answer concerns a question by Senator McLean about the book Ashes of Vietnam: Australian Voices. I was asked about the cost to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) of advertising and publishing the book. I can answer in the following terms: The cost of publishing the book is not known as the book is not published by the ABC but by Heineman Publishers Australia Pty Ltd under licence from the ABC marketing division. The ABC Radio National series Ashes in Vietnam: Australian Voices has been adapted from the book and comes out of the social history unit. The ABC marketing division contributes funds from the licence fee to the radio series. The book has been promoted on the program as well as on radio and television. It is customary to promote such a book on ABC radio and television stations, and section 31 (2) of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act allows such advertising. The cost of this is absorbed in the ABC radio and television program promotions budget. That answers those questions I took on notice yesterday. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(4.17) —I have a question or two relating to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT) and that general area. I am prompted as much as anything not just by longer term concerns in this area but, in particular, by reports this morning that Qintex Ltd has acquired a stake of over 10 per cent in Telecasters North Queensland Ltd. That raises an issue currently of concern, in that many media operators are in breach of prescribed limits, such as having a 5 per cent holding in television, and other media rules. This also raises questions about the role and effectiveness of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Specific to the 5 per cent prescribed limit for television ownership, I point out that other groups exceeding that 5 per cent limit are the News Corporation Ltd, which owns 15 per cent of Northern Star Holdings Ltd, and John Fairfax Ltd, which has a similar holding in Qintex. I am interested in the Government's position on that situation and in whether the Government's intention is, as is claimed by various people involved, to raise that prescribed limit to 15 per cent, which is the limit for radio ownership. More directly in the context of this appropriations debate I would like to look at the effect of this situation and add some specific examples of other companies holding sections of the media beyond the limits set down in a range of broadcasting guidelines, for instance, Hoyts Theatres Pty Ltd holds 13 radio stations, when the current national limit is eight. It has five metropolitan stations, when the limit is four. Bell Group Ltd has newspapers and television and radio stations in the Perth market. Northern Star has a television audience reach in excess of the allowed 60 per cent. The Bond Corporation Pty Ltd currently owns six radio stations in Western Australia, when the State limit is four, and nine stations nationally when the limit is eight. That is not an exhaustive list but it demonstrates the need for some urgent action in relation to the ABT's powers, at least by restoring the prior approval powers which were taken away when the Fraser Government wanted to do a favour for Rupert Murdoch. I have noted the recent approval of and support of the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) for reforms along this line but I wonder how concerned the Government is about this and how it justifies what is really massive expenditure on a body-supposedly a regulatory body-which in effect has no teeth. We have the spectacle at the moment of the hearings into the Bond acquisitions of last April just getting going. They will go on for months, no doubt. Once the decisions are made there will be six months available for compliance. I just wonder how the Government can justify the expense of all of this, which is obviously irrelevant. More particularly, and perhaps of more interest, I was going to ask whether the Government supports the re-establishment of some teeth for the ABT, but I go further and suggest that if we are going to get our money's worth we need a great deal more even than the ABT had before its prior approval powers were taken away. I think it is a matter that we should all be concerned about. I am interested to hear the Minister's comments. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(4.21) —I would have thought that these were matters that could have been better debated in the context of the package of broadcasting legislation which, hopefully, will be coming up in a day or so. In response to the first of these questions, as to what the Government's intentions are in relation to a possible lifting of the 5 per cent maximum prescribed interest in a television station-a figure in respect of which some companies are presently in breach, albeit that they are not in breach of the law because they do have the period within which to appropriately rearrange their affairs-all I can say is that this is a matter that the Government has under consideration but in respect of which no decision has yet been made. A number of matters are to be taken into account in determining what our approach should be, including the effective enforceability of the present rules and a number of related matters of that kind. But I will have more to say on that subject if and when some decision is made. I can assure the honourable senator that no decision has yet been made, nor have I even finally formulated my own views on how that particular issue should be addressed. As to the larger question that Senator Powell raised about the significant number of media ownership arrangements that are presently in prima facie breach of existing ownership and control provisions of one kind or another, I simply acknowledge that that is so, that the present six months grace period for compliance with the rules in question does allow, at any given time, a large number of apparently anomalous situations to exist. The situation is also such that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is placed in the difficult position of coming along after the event if it decides to refuse approval to particular transactions: it is very difficult to unscramble the egg. That is one of the considerations that have led us now to be giving very active attention to the role, the functions and the powers of the ABT. I have already indicated publicly that there is an in-house departmental review now proceeding which is looking quite closely at fundamental questions about the role of the ABT and the powers and the procedures that go with that role. In addition, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure has just been given a reference to look at just that question. My hope is that the two exercises-the parliamentary committee one and the departmental one-can proceed in tandem and that we can as a government reach some views on what we ought to do about all this well before the middle of next year. Beyond that, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment further at this stage. (Quorum formed) Senator HAMER(Victoria)(4.26) —I have one further question for the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) in regard to transport estimates. It arises from an answer given to me yesterday when the Minister said that crew reductions resulting from the work of the Maritime Industry Development Committee will start to operate in 1987-88, which I hope will result in very substantial reductions in crew numbers to the levels of other comparable nations and also the tackling of the problem of the grossly excessive leave given to Australian seamen compared with those of other nations. We are required to have two crews for every ship, which is a far higher level than that required by any other comparable nation. I observed in the explanatory notes that it was said that the efficiency of coastal shipping has been improving because of the steady replacement of older ships with more efficient and lower crewed ships. Nothing in the answers given to me either in writing or orally yesterday by Senator Evans has given any evidence of these existing lower crewed ships. Can the Minister, if necessary taking the question on notice, provide me with information on these existing lower crewed ships and how these crew numbers compare with those of other maritime nations? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Min-ister for Transport and Communications)(4.28) —The information will have to be provided on notice. The answers given to Senator Hamer yesterday were in relation only to the Australian National Line. There are quite a number of other shipping lines and operations going around the coast. To my knowledge the big Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP) bulk carrier which came into Sydney Harbour a few months ago has been crewed on a much more reduced basis than previously was the case. I made an announcement about three weeks ago about a new tanker which has just been commissioned, again by BHP shipping, which will be crewed on the reduced basis under the Maritime Industry Development Committee recommendation and which will primarily be operating on the coastal trade. There are other instances of that kind. I will get a detailed answer and put it down at the earliest opportunity. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(4.29) —I refer the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) to questions I asked in Senate Estimates Committee B and which are answered in the supplementary information provided to the Committee on page 174. I will repeat the questions: Has the Australian National Line still the sole rights to carry the rock phosphate to Australia? If so, what is the present cost per tonne landed in Fremantle/Kwinana? What saving does the Minister consider there would be if the contract were open to tendering? I claim that I was misquoted, because the question I asked was: Has the Australian National Line still the sole rights to carry the phosphate from Christmas Island to Australia? Anyhow, I will ignore that. The answer was: The Australian National Line has never had the sole rights to carry phosphate into Australia. It has in the past had a contract of . . . 900,000 tonnes from Christmas Island or Nauru a year. Since January 1987, the only phosphate contract held by the Australian National Line has been . . . from Christmas Island . . . The answer continues: The freight costs for landing Christmas Island rock in Fremantle/Kwinana over this contract is commercially sensitive information which I am not prepared to divulge publicly. I understand that too. That is the answer that I always got when I tried to query why Westrail carried iron ore from Koolyanobbing to Kwinana at a quarter of the price at which it can carry wheat. The answer continues: I note however in announcing the signing of that contract in early February, the then Minister for Territories stated that under the new contract the cost of Christmas Island phosphate rock to the Australian manufacturing industry would be reduced to an internationally competitive price. I ask these questions: Why was it not transported competitively before? If the Australian National Line, as is stated in the answer to which I have referred, won the contract in open tender with other Australian operators, does that mean that the tender was open only to Australian operators and not to operators from the rest of the world? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(4.32) —There is obviously a complicated answer that I am not completely on top of in terms of my personal acquaintance with the details of this matter. I will seek an answer and give the honourable senator a proper reply. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Proposed expenditure, $1,229,496,000 Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.33) —My question concerns the Independent Commission of Inquiry which has been established by the Government of the Republic of Nauru and Australia's obligation, be it by way of financial recompense at some later stage or otherwise. At the moment the item I am interested in is whether the Australian Government intends to put a submission to that inquiry, considering that January 1988 is the closing date for submissions. I remind the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) that for nearly a 50-year period Australia administered Nauru under a League of Nations mandate and then, of course, under a United Nations mandate. Australia bought phosphate from Nauru at about a quarter of the ruling world price for most of that period. So, obviously, whether or not Australia has a legal obligation, it certainly has a moral obligation. The point I am interested in at the moment is whether Australia is about to make a submission on this matter. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(4.34) —The officers assisting me are not able to provide an immediate answer to Senator Macklin. In fact, I may need to consult other departmental officials because, as I understand it, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade no longer has portfolio responsibility for matters to do with Nauru. That is the advice that I have received. I may have to consult other Ministers and departments to get an answer. Senator Macklin —Who will be dealing with it? Senator TATE —All I can say is that the officials assisting me do not have, between them, the capacity to answer Senator Macklin's question and, therefore, I will have to seek an answer. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.35) —I am not sure where we are, if it is no longer the ministerial responsibility-- Senator Tate —The basic question that I made a note of was whether the Australian Government intends to put a submission to the Independent Commission of Inquiry into Nauru. Is that the question? Senator MACKLIN —That is right. Senator Tate —No one assisting me can answer that; therefore, I will have to seek the answer. Senator MACKLIN —I wonder whether the Minister would seek the answer. I am also interested in whether the Government-presumably the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden), because I am not sure who else would have ministerial responsibility in this matter-intends to respond to the request of the Nauru Government which was dated 20 August this year for access to Government records. Since this was a matter of some public comment, I imagine that an answer to this must be readily available, particularly because, as was reported, instead of a very general request going in, actually there was a request for particular numbered files for a particular period. A subsequent request was also made for the index systems to files, thereby enabling the Nauru Government to ascertain which particular files it would want to look at. The broad matter-the only one reported in the newspapers-concerned files relating to any of these subjects; that is, anything to do with the relationship between Australia and Nauru within a particular period. I am interested in whether the Government has responded, or intends to respond, to the Nauru Government and give it access to those particular numbered files for which it first asked on 20 August. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(4.36) —I am told that the matter is being dealt with within the framework of freedom of information legislation and that, as it is a matter of some complexity, it is still being examined under FOI guidelines. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.37) —I must admit that I find it rather extraordinary that, in dealing with a government of another country, we are expecting it to go through our freedom of information procedures. Presumably, it is because it is only a small country of 12,000 people that it is being treated in this way. It happens to be an independent nation in our region and I would have thought, given the very strong work that the current Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) has been doing with regard to South Pacific matters, that it is an extraordinarily offhand way of dealing with another country, to ask it to use that particular method. It is also interesting that that has been the way that the Government has chosen to respond to the last item, as we have not received a reply regarding the first item. How long does it take the Government to make up its mind whether it will put in a submission to an independent inquiry? This question was first asked in December last year. It is now almost December again-12 months later. It cannot be batted around much longer. Presumably, the method that has been chosen is simply to ignore the request of the Government of Nauru, not to give a yes or no, and say, `You go through the freedom of information exercise'. It is a most extraordinary proposition to force another government to use that method. This is an important matter for an appropriations debate. After all, if this Government intends-or does not intend-to go down the line of accepting any responsibility, we will be required, at some later stage, to look at the budgetary allocations that may need to be made to assist the Republic of Nauru in its rehabilitation program, which is likely to occur within 18 months if the machinery breaks down, and within three years at least if the phosphate runs out. So on either account the Australian Government, if it accepts its moral responsibilities, will be faced with considerable costs. I would have thought at the very least, in dealing with a Pacific island nation, that this Government would treat it with the dignity it deserves and say yes or no, it will or it will not make a submission and, in regard to those matters dealing with the Republic of Nauru when it was under our sovereignty, at least be generous enough to provide it with the information that it is seeking to establish its claim in a wider forum. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(4.40) —There is certainly no intention on the part of the Government of Australia in any way to denigrate the status of the Republic of Nauru. Indeed, the matter has been dealt with within the framework of freedom of information guidelines because the lawyer acting on behalf of the Government of Nauru approached the Australian Government for documents under FOI guidelines. In fact, it was within that context that the request was received and, therefore, it is being processed in the way that the request was framed. As to the question of compensation, as Senator Macklin will know, the inquiry relates only to the lands mined prior to independence-that is, to approximately one-third of the mined area. Australia has told Nauru that it regards the comprehensive phosphate agreement concluded prior to independence as a just settlement that cleared the partner governments of the former British Phosphate Commissioners-Australia, Britain and New Zealand-of any responsibility for the rehabilitation of Nauru. I think that would be an expression of the legal consequences of that agreement. Any further element of assistance which Australia might provide could well be a matter for ex gratia consideration, as it were. But the agreement concluded prior to independence is regarded as fulfilling the obligations of the partner governments towards the question of rehabilitation of phosphate mining areas in Nauru. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(4.42) —On 6 October during the Estimates Committee's consideration of the estimates of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which was attended by Senator Tate, Senator Schacht referred to an inquiry concerning the Jakarta Embassy. Senator Schacht said: I must say, it is a very damaging story to the credibility and integrity of the general service. A sentence later, he said: But that sort of episode does not do, in Australia, the image of the Department any good. I might add that it does Australia and the Department no good anywhere in the world to have corrupt officials on the payroll overseas. At that time we were not able to get much information from the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate). He took the view that, although 11 officers had been convicted, the convictions were subject to appeal and therefore he did not want to talk about it. I do not want to talk about the rights or wrongs of their being convicted. But I would point out that the examination by the Committee took place two months ago and by now the whole matter has probably been resolved. The officer who handled the questions failed to impress me in any way at all that he was really concerned about what I view as a very serious matter. I felt that he misled the Committee. He made this statement to the Committee: We feel very strongly that officers posted overseas should adhere to the rules within the countries where they are concerning diplomatic privileges and immunities. Senator Tate —What page is that? Senator MacGIBBON —I am reading from page B30 of the Hansard of 6 October. Later on he said: We take it very seriously and I think it is a measure of the seriousness with which we take the matter that the Department brought charges against 11 officers. But as I said, the decisions on those charges are now subject to appeal. I find that statement a little weak. One of the things that I objected to was the officer's attempt to dissemble when he said: This is a situation where several officers appear to have breached the rules applying in Indonesia. Over the period concerned, which is about four years, over 300 officers from a whole range of departments, not just Foreign Affairs and Trade, passed on assignment through the Embassy in Jakarta. That is an intention to mislead the Committee and the Parliament by making out that a large number of people were potentially able to act in a certain way but that only 11 of that number were convicted. The truth of the matter is that the staffing of the Jakarta Embassy is somewhere around 47 to 52 Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officers. Maybe 300 officers from other departments went through over a four-year period. But they were people who were in Indonesia for as short a period as one or two days. They certainly did not have the opportunity to buy cars, which is what this matter is all about. People at the Australian Embassy were buying cars under diplomatic privilege. They then turned around and sold them in breach of the rules which applied in Indonesia at the time. Another disturbing element of this matter is that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade itself did not know this was going on. When the new Ambassador, Mr Morrison, went to Jakarta he was told in the usual oblique and very subtle way that the Javanese have that there was a little problem in the embassy somewhere. Being a very astute diplomat, Ambassador Morrison twigged to what was going on. This is confirmed by Mr Flood on page B30 where he says: The matter first came to notice in a report to us from the Ambassador in Jakarta late last year. He had information that came to him from local sources in Jakarta and he very quickly reported the matter to Canberra. There is no question that the Department moved very rapidly once this matter was brought to its notice. The Department does not seem to have any effective auditing of what goes on. When this matter came to the Department's notice-again, this is according to Mr Flood's evidence-27 officers, or maybe more than half of the embassy, were investigated in respect of these fraud charges, and of those 11 were convicted. Some were senior people. One of them was a class 11 officer, which is right up near the top of the Public Service tree. The officers convicted ranged right down to some of the lower ranks. A member of the Australian Federal Police was also involved and convicted. He was fired on the spot by Commissioner Grey. I was interested in the fate of the 11 who were convicted of this criminal activity. Again on Mr Flood's evidence, they were subjected to penalties that fell far short of dismissal. The penalties involved in some cases the demotion of officers, in some cases a fine and in some cases reprimands. I would have thought that if it was justifiable to fire the representative of the Australian Federal Police, the same action was fitting for the Foreign Affairs and Trade employees who had committed the crime. But Mr Flood was quite horrified at the possibility that they should be dismissed. It all got lost later on because of the fact that the matter was subject to appeal. I want to know why the Department does not have the ability to audit what is going on in its embassies and know what staff are up to. One lives in a very closed community when one is serving overseas, particularly in a country like Indonesia. One knows what other people are doing. There is no excuse at all for embassy staff not knowing that one or two or more officers are on the take and for not doing something about it. One is forced to conclude that maybe we have a situation in respect of our embassies where the Department does not have an effective internal audit in respect of the behaviour of officers overseas. This is a major matter. Yet an activity involving over half the staff of the Jakarta Embassy was detected only because an Indonesian drew it to the attention of the Ambassador. The second question I raise is this: Why does the Department not apply the same disciplinary standards that a civilian or an ordinary citizen would have applied to him if he tried to cheat the customs laws in this or any other country? To subject people to a demotion, a fine or a reprimand is really thrashing them violently with a wet feather. It has no influence on them at all. It is an absolutely pointless exercise. I have taken a little time in talking about this because it is very important that our representatives overseas live by the laws of their host country. We cannot have people running around claiming diplomatic immunity for all sorts of major and minor offences in their host country. I say that as someone who has lived a large part of his life outside this country. I do know a little about what it is to live in another place. I am particularly concerned that embassy staff have been involved in fraud when Australia has a Labor government, because if there is one thing that the Australian Labor Party does it is to preach a higher standard of morality to the countries of South East Asia. It is always ready to tell them how to run their governments and their affairs, what is proper behaviour, and so on. If I talk to members of the Labor Party, they will bore me to tears about how corrupt the Indonesian environment is, how people are always on the take and how one has to pay money to get anything done. Yet 11 officers of what is one of the elite departments of the Australian Public Service-I do not think that any department has higher academic entry standards-were convicted of corruption. It was not through poverty. They are probably paid six or 10 times what their Indonesian counterparts working in offices in Jakarta are paid. We have the embarrassment of all those 11 people on the take in that embassy. I want to know why adequate penalties are not applied to those wrong-doers. I would have thought that a minimum penalty was dismissal. What steps does the Department propose to take to ensure that this does not take place in other posts around the world? The CHAIRMAN —Order! Before the Minister replies, I wish to say something to the Committee about the problem of sub judice. I listened very carefully to what Senator MacGibbon said and I did not find anything he said objectionable. Of course, the sub judice rule applies essentially to proceedings in a court, particularly before a jury. As proceedings in the Public Service may result in disciplinary penalties, the Committee might well think that the same principles should apply. In view of this consideration, I suggest to the Committee that, while the activities of the officers concerned may be discussed, it would be advisable not to refer to individual officers who are in the process of making an appeal against their penalties in such a way as to canvass questions as to their guilt or the appropriateness of their penalties. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(4.53) —Mr Chairman, I will keep your injunction in mind, although it was not my intention to name officers. In fact, I do not have a list of names before me. Taking Senator MacGibbon's last point first, I do not think that it is the case any more that Australia is the equivalent of the old, ugly America as portrayed in that Graham Greene novel, I think it was, in the sense that I do not think we go around preaching about the ways in which other nations might conduct their affairs and administration. What we ask for is mutual understanding of the different cultures. As we try to understand the Indonesians, we ask them to understand our culture too. Of course, this becomes a contentious matter in relation to the media and broadcasts. There is a question of mutual understanding and respect involved. That is only a very general comment on the latter part of Senator MacGibbon's remarks. Senator MacGibbon pointed, quite rightly, to what was a disgraceful incident at the Jakarta Embassy in Indonesia. I do not think that his general disgust at what occurred was in any way overstated. Nevertheless, it is a fact, as I think the Chairman hinted, that the 11 officers were charged under the Public Service Act. At least one charge against each officer was found proven. Three officers were reduced in grade and eight were fined a total of $1,000 each. Three of the 11 officers have appeals outstanding. I think that some of the others appealed but later withdrew the appeals. That is the factual situation. Senator MacGibbon asked: Why did the Department not know what was going on? Given the number of people who were subject to interview and the number who were, in fact, charged and found to have committed a breach under the Public Service Act, one can assume that there was a certain amount of mutual cover-up and masking from senior officials in the embassy and the Department of what was going on. I recall very well that when the Ambassador visited me on a courtesy call early in my days as Special Minister for State, when I was in charge of the Australian Federal Police, he apprised me of the situation. One has to give the Ambassador, as the honourable senator mentioned, credit for being the one, I think, who largely ferreted this out and made it a matter which led to the consequences as outlined by Senator MacGibbon. Whether the penalties imposed on the officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade were adequate to the enormity of what they had done in relation to Australia's reputation, as opposed to the individual actions of the officers concerned-I think it was in that broader context that Senator MacGibbon spoke of an appropriate penalty-is a matter for judgment. In the case of the Australian Federal Police, whose members are in a differently organised force, the dismissal was imposed immediately. Nevertheless, the Secretary to the Department delegated the responsibility under the Public Service Act in this respect to the Head of Management, who imposed those penalties. I do not think I can comment on the adequacy of them any more than I have. I am told that, as far as the general ability to audit is concerned, the Head of Mission is responsible, with his senior administrative officer, for the general conduct of officers of the embassy. There are guidelines for personal accountable conduct which were breached, obviously, by the 11 officers. As a result of these occurrences, the Department is considering an appropriate code of conduct to tighten responsibility and accountability. I think that that is all I can say about the matter at the moment. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(4.58) —I thank the Minister for his careful and sensitive answer. It gives me no pleasure to bring this up. The Minister's point that it was impossible to put a monetary value on the damage to Australia's reputation is a very real one. The only other thing I wish to say is that, in the light of the fine of $1,000, which is the first monetary value I have heard being attributed to this, my understanding is that the profits made on selling the cars would be many times that. So there is no real financial loss for the miscreants. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(4.59) —I wish to ask a couple of questions. The first concerns the groups that have received funding under the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau (AIDAB). The Australian Teachers Federation received funding of $7,500 for assisting the All India Secretary Teachers Federation under the AIDAB non-government organisation (NGO) Co-operation Committee. The Teachers Federation also received $5,000 for continuing education for Anglican teachers on the West Bank under the AIDAB-NGO co-operation program, of which $2,000 was contributed by the trade union. There was a matching grant in the Indian matter of $7,500. I wonder whether there has been any report of the level of satisfaction with which these funds have been expended. Are there any internal reports dealing with the success or otherwise of these programs? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.01) —The projects are not really mature at the moment and it may be too early to make an assessment of whether they will reach the goals set for them by mutual agreement between the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau, the Australian Teachers Federation and the recipients of the two grants that Senator Baume has singled out. I am sure that they will be subject to review; maybe at the Supplementary Estimates or at some later stage those reports should be made available. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(5.01) —I ask the Minister whether he will include in that inquiry three other Australian Teachers Federation programs: one English as a second language (ESL) teaching training program in Tanzania into which the Government is putting $12,000 and the organisation $6,000; a health workers training program in Phnom Penh in Cambodia, with the Government putting up $7,500 and the organisation $10,000; and an ESL program on the West Bank, with $10,000 from the Government and a matching grant of $10,000 from the organisation. Passing on to the International Year of Peace, I ask: What is the normal time it takes for grants to be acquitted? Is it unusual that, by the end of October, 92 International Year of Peace grants had been only partially acquitted and 33 remained outstanding? The reason I raise this question of acquittal is that some of the groups involved appear to be very professional, at least in their capacity to play a role in demonstrations and so on. It appears to me that groups such as People for Nuclear Disarmament have quite efficient organisations. I wonder why some of them still are in the category of acquittals in progress a fair while after the program appears to have finished. Others in this category include the United Trades and Labour Council of South Australia, which is hardly a small organisation which would have difficulty in organising appropriate acquittal. Various branches of People for Nuclear Disarmament are involved. I have had dealings with some of these groups in other contexts, such as in my role on the Waste Watch Committee. Garage Graphix, Community Arts Group, for example, appears to have expanded and to be doing quite well. It has received substantial grants from many governmental agencies and certainly should have had a great deal of experience in acquitting governmental grants. As at 29 October it was in the partial acquittal category. Of course, some of the organisations appear to be closely affiliated with other groups such as the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, which I understand has some political associations. Groups which have acquittals absolutely outstanding include such bodies as Scientists Against Nuclear Arms and the Mount Druitt Women's Peace Group, which may be a very small group; it certainly has a small grant. There is apparently acquittal under way for the Rally for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament. The Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, which as I have said appears to have some associations with the political parties of the far left, has two grants outstanding-one of $2,000 and one of $5,000. I would like to know, firstly, when acquittals are expected from these groups; secondly, whether it is customary for acquittals to take such a length of time; and, thirdly, whether there have been any unsatisfactory outcomes in the sense that the money either was not spent or was spent in a way other than that required by the grant. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.05) —I have had about four pages of computer printout placed in front of me. I am not quite sure whether I am reading it correctly, but it appears that in the month between 29 October and 24 November the total amount not acquitted has been reduced from $54,570 to $29,580, so, progressively, the amount is being reduced. I emphasise that I may not be reading it correctly and I would like to make these sheets available to Senator Baume for him to peruse. It seems, for example, that the group People for Nuclear Disarmament has acquitted its grant, but it is true that others on the list, such as the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, have not acquitted its $2,000 grant. That surprises me because it is a group of fairly articulate middle class people. I would not say that they are associated with the far left. In fact, my experience is that there are many elderly Quaker ladies in the group. I think Senator Baume may have unwittingly misdescribed them. Most of the groups involved are fairly small groups within the community and perhaps have not had the accounting experience available to satisfy fully the acquittal procedures at this point. But the list is being reduced, and I will certainly make the latest one, dated 24 November, available to Senator Baume for him to peruse. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.07) —I do not wish to disturb the flow or the order of debate, but is it in order for me, Madam Chair, to refer to the Trade Development Council at this stage? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Giles) —We are considering the votes for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Senator CHANEY —I just did not want to cut off a wonderful debate on foreign affairs. The matter I wish to raise relates to the rather odd role currently being played by the Trade Development Council. As I understand it from the annual report of the Department of Trade for 1985-86, the Council has as its function to advise the Minister on all aspects of the development of Australia's trade. I do not have the current list of members of the Trade Development Council, but I know that Dr Scott-a person of very high repute in the community and a very significant business figure-is still the Chairman. Mr Bob Ansett, a man who certainly has my respect, is a member. It seems to be a mixed group. It includes Mr Pak-Poy and a number of trade unionists, as well as Dr Fitz- Gerald. It seems to me that the Trade Development Council has assumed some rather different functions over recent years. This is typified best of all by looking at its contribution to the document Australia Reconstructed, which we find described on the cover as concerning an Australian Council of Trade Unions and Trade Development Council mission to Western Europe and a report by the mission members to the ACTU and to the Council. I can summarise what I wish to say by saying that it seems to me that this is much less a contribution towards what the Trade Development Council is meant to do, which is to advise on all aspects of the development of Australia's trade, and, rather, a last hurrah of those elements of the Australian Labor Party or the trade union movement which see the solution to Australia's problems as lying in a completely opposite direction to that being laid down by senior Ministers such as Senator Button, Mr Dawkins, Senator Walsh, Mr Kerin and various others who seem to me to advocate everything except the sorts of solutions put forward in Australia Reconstructed. I do not wish to spend a lot of time talking about Australia Reconstructed because I think it is quite justifiably disappearing from public sight. It is a largely irrelevant document, written out of its time, and I do not think anybody, including the Government, will take any notice of it, and I welcome that fact. I acknowledge that the document has one value. It is that a group of trade unionists went to Europe, came back and talked about Australia in a way which acknowledged some of the realities which we face. They acknowledged the importance of international competitiveness and the need to lift investment, the need for better training, education and so on. The report pays lip service to some of the essential matters about which the Opposition has been talking for a long time. For example, I remind the Committee that in July 1986, in the document that we published entitled Policies for Business, we talked about the fundamental requirement that there be a lift in investment to meet the challenge of international competition and our current economic crisis, which might be summarised as a crisis of ever-increasing debt. What we hear from Government Ministers is the need for Australia to have an economy which is more flexible and which is able to meet the challenge. If one looks at what was said by one of the most old-fashioned of the senior Ministers in the Government, Mr Willis, when he addressed the Employers Federation of New South Wales on the Friday before last, one finds a welcome acknowledgment of the need for greater flexibility in wages, the need to encourage such things as employee share ownership, another policy advocated by the Opposition for some time, and so on. Mr Willis, a most conservative Minister in my view, one who comes from the heart of the trade union movement itself and who in no sense has a reputation of trying to run away from his long-standing commitment to the trade union movement, advocates flexibility of a sort which is totally opposite to that advocated in this old-fashioned document. It suggests instead that we should have all sorts of committees established-if there is a decision to be made, for God's sake have a committee with lots of trade unionists on it! The relevance of all of this to the appropriations is that this crude, simplistic, old-fashioned and useless advice is being produced at taxpayers' expense. I believe that the reputation of the Trade Development Council is not going to survive if it continues to be associated with this sort of exercise, and it is wrong of the Government to be using this instrument to produce what is essentially propaganda from the most backward parts of the trade union movement and from people whose views are simply totally out of line with the views of the Government itself. It is, in a quite gross and obvious way, providing a subsidy for one's trade union mates in circumstances which simply cannot be justified as advancing the national interest in the way that the Government itself sees the national interest as being advanced. I think that it is disgraceful that we have this produced substantially at Government expense. The cost of sending this list of trade unionists around Europe was borne, we are advised by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, five-ninths by the Government and four-ninths by the ACTU. There was some misinformation given to Estimates Committee B, which was speedily corrected by a letter dated 8 October. A wrong answer was given by one of the public servants appearing before the Committee, but she wrote two days later to confirm that the costs of the mission were shared between the Trade Development Council and the ACTU in the proportion of five-ninths to four-ninths respectively. That is one contribution that was made by the Government. When we turn to the actual production of this document, we find that, substantially, the document was written by public servants at, of course, public expense. The Department seemed to have an extraordinary amount of difficulty in identifying the cost to the public purse. I do not quite know whether it is understood in the Department that there is a distinction between work that is done for the public and the Department and work that is done for the ACTU, but it was unable to give us an initial answer with any clear definition. However, in a subsequent further answer, in response to a query in which I indicated my dissatisfaction with the reply which had been given, the Department attempted an estimate. It wrote on 19 November, in a letter over the signature of Mr F. C. Murray, First Assistant Secretary of the Corporate Management Division, with a breakdown indicating the time spent on Australia Reconstructed by a series of public servants. Those public servants are identified not by name but by level. We find that the amount of time varied between 15 per cent of the office time to 100 per cent, which applies to some interchange officer whose salary was paid by the South Australian Institute of Technology. There are a range of amounts specified in that reply and it would appear that the wages bill for the preparation of this report is in the vicinity of $50,000. That report has been comprehensively panned by Ministers showing their complete lack of enthusiasm for it and by the various people who have chosen to read and comment on it. I say to the Minister that, at a time when widows' entitlements and the entitlements for unemployed youth are being reduced, and at a time when the English as a second language program has to be cut, I find it offensive that my money and the money of my Western Australian taxpayers is diverted to this sort of exercise instead. In addition to this $50,000, the Department also met the total cost of publication of Australia Reconstructed-a cost of $74,686-although it expects $50,000 of this to be recouped through sales. However, another $25,000 can be added to the salary costs, even if that recoupment is successful. If the Minister can tell us, I would like to know how much of those sales were sales to government and how much were sales to schools. I gather that this document, which is not of particularly high repute, has been flogged to schools, and I would be interested to know whether this propaganda has gone to schools and whether some of the offsetting income is taxpayers' money being received under another guise. The launch of Australia Reconstructed cost, I am advised, $15,000, and there were other expenses, including producing handouts and so on. It is clear that about $100,000 of taxpayers' money has been spent on the production, promotion and distribution of Australia Reconstructed. Quite frankly, I think that very few people-indeed, very few trade unionists-would see that as an appropriate use of taxpayers' money. I suspect that hundreds of thousands of people-all those families which have lost their family allowance and all those who have, in one way or another, been put under pressure by the Government and by its mishandling of the Australian economy-would say that there was a better use to which the $100,000 could have been put. The central point I wish to make is that I do not believe that the production of this report is consistent with the long term respectability of the Trade Development Council and its being taken seriously in this important area. In the past, it has sent groups overseas for the promotion of trade. If we want to have an extension of the Trade Union Training Authority and educative exercises which convince some trade union leaders that international competitiveness is important, we should do that under an appropriation for the purpose. The Opposition will watch the future operation of the Trade Development Council with considerable interest. The Council was probably originally appointed by a coalition government, and I in no way wish to suggest that the operation of such a council is not in the national interest if it is devoted to the objectives which were established. But I must say that I was quite horrified to find out that it was the base from which the Australia Reconstructed document was pushed forward. I think it is a pity that we do not have a procedure whereby some of these things can be recouped by Senate action. That might have been an appropriate thing to do. I turn very briefly again to the document Australia Reconstructed. As I said, I do not wish to dignify what I think is a disappointing document by giving it very much attention but I draw the attention of the chamber to the sort of criticism which has been published by Mr Finucane, the Executive Co-ordinator of the Pilbara Iron Producers Association, who has pointed out just what is going wrong in Sweden, which is, of course, the model to which these people flock. I refer also to the excellent comments of Mr Russell Fynmore, the Executive General Manager, Business Development, for Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, who made the point in his speech: . . . the ACTU, while having the right to speak out on these issues- I, of course, defend the ACTU's right to do that- should do so in its own name, rather than under the subterfuge of being part of the joint Government, business, union initiative. I think that there is an enormous role for the ACTU to play in educating the Australian community to the need for change, for flexibility, and the need to change our ways if we are to meet the intense competition which we face, whether it is from East Asia, South Asia, North America, South America or Europe. The competition is intense. It will not stop. It will get greater and greater. I simply say that to advocate the sort of directive approach to investment which this document advocates, to advocate the further bureaucratisation of Australian business, is a move in exactly the wrong direction. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Powell) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.22) —At the hearings of the Estimates committees Senator Chaney raised the question of the involvement of the Trade Development Council in the production of the document Australia Reconstructed. Indeed, as a result of Senator Chaney's very detailed questions he was supplied with many pages of figures and explanation of the costs involved in its production. I think he appears in large part to be satisfied with the information that has been provided, although of course he is dissatisfied with the undertaking of the project as a whole. It seems to me that, whilst he said at the beginning of his remarks that he has the utmost respect for people such as Dr Brian Scott and Bob Ansett on the Trade Development Council, he finds as a consequence of his analysis of what was undertaken that in fact they appear to have given way to some overborning by the Federal Government as to the undertaking of this mission overseas by members of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). It seems to me to be rather derogatory of them and, indeed, puts them in a situation now where no doubt they will feel as they read the Hansard that they are under some sort of threat that if, once again- - Senator Chaney —Scrutiny. Senator TATE —I think it is stronger than scrutiny. I think that Senator Chaney is saying more or less that if the Council funds such an overseas mission again comprising either entirely or mainly trade union membership and there is a report emanating from such a mission that is printed, published and distributed, the Opposition will make the Trade Development Council one of its targets in its next list of those matters which, upon a review of expenditure, might be disbanded. I think that that is rather unfortunate and, as I say, sits ill with Senator Chaney's description of his regard for the members of that Council. The fact is that I do not think that those members were overborne. This was one of a number of missions to different countries to examine trade related issues which have been undertaken under the auspices and the sponsorship of the Trade Development Council. Of course, it had an outcome which does not please Senator Chaney. But I do not think this Committee is a proper forum for a discussion of the merits or otherwise of the document Australia Reconstructed. I believe that the Trade Development Council does provide a very useful means within Australia of getting those Australians who might not otherwise be exposed to certain currents of affairs overseas to go overseas and see for themselves. I remember talking some years ago to Senator Cook about an expedition of, I think, Western Australian mining industry unions to Brazil in which he was involved. He said that that had a very dramatic impact and effect on the outlook of those trade unionists in regard to the trading environment in which Australia was situated and competing. He thought that visit was extremely useful. I would be very sorry if the Trade Development Council, as a result of reading Hansard, felt that it could not once again sponsor missions overseas by trade union officials which might open their eyes to the sorts of realities, which I think Senator Chaney was quite correctly pointing to, that obtain in the internationally competitive environment in which we find ourselves. As I say, it is not my task to defend Australia Reconstructed in this Committee. Senator Chaney thinks of and values the document in a way which leads him to conclude that it was a monumental waste of money. I recall, without going into detail, Senator Chaney once telling me that when he was a Minister, I think for Aboriginal Affairs, he once commissioned a report-I will go into no further detail-which was, in the result, an absolute waste of money and resources in that the recommendations and such like that came forward were totally inappropriate and ineffectual for the aims which he thought were important in relation to Aboriginal affairs, in which he had a very real and effective interest. Reports are commissioned by governments, not that this was a report commissioned-- Senator Michael Baume —It sounds like an admission that this is equally so. Senator TATE —No. Senator Michael Baume is a very smart alec as always. I was making the point that this was not commissioned by government but that even governments and even Ministers make mistakes sometimes in commissioning reports which lead to expenditure of public money which could probably be better spent on widows and orphans. There is no doubt about that. In regard to Senator Chaney's specific question about sales of documents to either government or government agencies, we have no information available here. We undertake to check that as far as is possible. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(5.27) —Following the matter related to Australia Reconstructed raised by Senator Chaney, my concern is in regard to the exclusive nature of the visit. I think it is important to look at the information which was provided subsequent to the Estimates Committee hearings in the form of a printed response to questions taken on notice in order to see the sorts of issues that could well have been raised at those hearings but which now must be raised in this environment. Senator MacGibbon asked where the idea for the study Australia Reconstructed originated. The response stated: . . . the ACTU discussed with the then Minister for Trade the desirability of a fact-finding Mission to Western Europe. The idea was to study a number of countries which had grappled with balance of payments problems similar to those being experienced by Australia. The request was referred by the Minister to the Trade Development Council Executive for advice. The proposed Mission was endorsed by the TDC Executive and approved by the Minister. It was also endorsed by the ACTU Executive on the basis of joint funding by the ACTU and the TDC Secretariat. Senator Tate —Thus saving public money. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Indeed. I think that is to be welcomed. I assume that that offer of joint funding was accepted? Senator Tate —Yes, it was. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Senator MacGibbon asked whether any other groups had been approached for their views and offered similar funding. He asked whether, if they were not approached, why they were not approached. The reply was: On this occasion, on the basis of discussions with the then Minister for Trade and within the Trade Development Council, it was decided- that passive voice always intrigues me- that the membership of the Mission should only consist of senior available officials of the ACTU and its affiliated unions. However, the issues to be pursued were ones not exclusively the concern of trade unions. I must say that there is no justification in the papers, nor can I see any reason, for making this an exclusive mission from which others who would have a very real interest in problems relating to balance of payments issues as they impinge on society should be excluded. I use the positive word `excluded'. Since this Government came to office, by way of repudiation Senator Schacht asked, `Is it not fair enough, in effect, because there were plenty of other occasions on which the Trade Development Council (TDC) funded employer-only groups?'. Reading through the list in the responses provided to Senator Schacht, it is clear that after the election of the Hawke Labor Government six overseas visits have been undertaken under this Government, sponsored by the TDC. That is apart from the visit in April which, I presume, would have been arranged by the previous Government, and which would have taken a bit of forward planning. If we exclude the April visit, which this Government would not have had time to prepare, the six visits that have taken place have all had union representation, or have been exclusively union-organised, as in the last case. In other words, there has been no exclusion, except for this last case, of a group, like the union movement, from such visits. The first evidence of exclusion under this Government is the exclusion of the business community from such a visit. I find that extraordinary. For the benefit of honourable senators, the details are that the visit in May 1983 to Brazil had as a member Mr Wilshire from the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union. That is the same Mr Wilshire who is now the Executive Director of the Trade Development Council. I am not making any imputations about Mr Wilshire; all I am saying is that the atmospherics of this Council appear to have changed somewhat where the only exclusivity now is to keep businessmen out of the trips. It may well be alleged that under the previous Government there was a preference for having businessmen without trade unionists, although I do note that Mr McLeish from the Electrical Trades Union visited Yugoslavia and Hungary in September 1980 under the previous Government. After Mr Wilshire's visit, Mr McLeish visited Pakistan; Mr Hauenschild of the Queensland Trades and Labour Council visited Algeria and Tunisia; Mr Maitland of the Queensland Colliery Employees Union visited Korea and Hong Kong; Mr Harvey of the Printing and Kindred Industries Union visited Malaysia and Brunei and then there was the exclusive visit from the ACTU. All I am asking is: Is it to be a principle of the Trade Development Council that exclusivity be adopted in relation to such visits and that when unionists go overseas there shall be no businessmen and that when businessmen go overseas there shall be no unionists, or was this latest visit simply a once-off and we will not see this kind of exclusivity again? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.34) —I do not think I can answer for the Trade Development Council (TDC) entirely, but let me inform the Committee of matters which were not brought to its attention in the fullest possible way by Senator Michael Baume. The first mission sponsored by the TDC was in September 1978, a survey mission to Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania. It had six members, all of whom were businessmen. Would the honourable senator like me to list them? Senator Michael Baume —I referred to the ones under-- Senator TATE —The honourable senator did not make it clear that the first one was entirely and exclusively composed of businessmen. Senator Michael Baume —I said only one of them was under the Fraser Government. Senator TATE —One of them. I am putting it all in context. The second one, the survey mission to Yugoslavia and Hungary in September 1980 comprised four members of the business community and one member of the Electrical Trades Union (ETU), which the honourable senator mentioned. The third one, the survey mission to India in August-September 1981, comprised six persons, all of whom came from the business industry side. The fourth one was a survey mission to Canada in July 1982 and comprised six members, all of whom came from the business side. The fifth one was a study mission to Japan undertaken by a group in April 1983 which comprised Dr Donovan of W. D. Scott and Co., Mr Foster of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, Mr McDonald of Comalco Ltd and Dr Ottley of CSR Ltd. In the period for which the honourable senator had some ministerial responsibility-not personally and we hope he never has it in the future-of the five surveys that were undertaken by the TDC, four were exclusively business. It was only when we came into government that general social awareness and conscientisation was permeating even the TDC. The survey mission to Brazil in May 1983 had some seven members of whom one was a member of the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union. The survey mission to Pakistan in November 1983 comprised four members, of whom one was from the ETU. The survey mission to Algeria and Tunisia once again comprised seven or eight members, one of whom was from the trade union movement, and so on. The last mission to Western Europe which did comprise members of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, I think now can be seen in some sort of perspective. In fact the TDC has from time to time made its missions up of persons on one side of the industry divide rather than another. I do not think that that is a good thing and I, in fact, commend the practice of mixed missions, as has been the general practice. There is no evidence that the TDC was acting under any particular malevolent influence emanating from the office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) under the Labor Government. In fact it was in a sense in this latter case restoring-although on the other side of the ledger-and going back to a practice which had been indulged in five times out of six under the previous Government. I think that puts it all in some better perspective. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(5.37) —I disagree with the earlier comments made by Senator Chaney. I found them quite extreme, to be honest. The Australian Democrats, in their Party meeting yesterday, discussed the value of the document Australia Reconstructed and, therefore, were discussing the appropriateness of the expenditures of money. I cannot help arriving at precisely the same conclusion the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) has arrived at from Senator Chaney's comments that he regarded it as a complete and utter waste of public money which, frankly, I think is simply an irresponsible overstatement. It is a return to the confrontationist stance in these matters which will not acknowledge a genuine attempt on the part of notable and significant players in the whole process of industrial relations to visit overseas, take in evidence, deliberate over it and make a constructive, reasoned response to what they have seen. It is an attempt to carry us out of the warfare that we have been in for the last three or four decades into an arena where, perhaps, we can think much more constructively and openly about the sorts of problems which have dragged us behind our competitors. It has not been a waste of money. It may not be what everybody requires. Certainly in our discussion the Australian Democrats agreed to give it their qualified support. We will, in fact, be providing the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and the Trade Development Council (TDC) with a statement of that qualified support and will be suggesting ways in which they can extend beyond their previous statement. I frankly believe that Senator Chaney has taken us three steps backwards in overstating his case. I was listening to his speech outside the chamber and I was prompted to move to the defence of the document as being a worthwhile and genuine attempt to carry us forward. Once again, as I did two days ago in this chamber, I plead with members of both sides of the House to put the warfare siege mentality about this vital aspect of Australian society behind us. It was a most appropriate expenditure of money. It is a worthwhile document. We commend the ACTU and the TDC on what they have produced but, as I say, our support is a qualified one. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(5.40) —I would like to turn to a different area of departmental responsibilities-that of the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau (AIDAB). I am a member of Estimates Committee E, which inquired into the Department of Administrative Services, amongst other departments. During the hearings I asked a number of questions relating to Hercules aircraft, one of which went on an aid exercise to Ethiopia. Unfortunately, however, the Department of Administrative Services found itself unable to answer some of my questions and said that they were more properly directed to AIDAB. At that time AIDAB had already been before Estimates Committee B. Therefore, I was unable to put those questions. I ask them now, recognising that it may be difficult to get answers, but they are not matters that I would like to see drag on further. The question of the Hercules aircraft, I think, is a continuing sore; it is one that is continuing to cost Australia money. The expedition to Ethiopia seems to me to have been an ill-considered and expensive exercise but one on which it has been very hard to get details of expenditure with any sort of precision. I would like to ask a number of questions about that, recognising that it may not be possible to get all the answers tonight. I draw attention to the fact that three of the questions I wish to ask were asked by Senator MacGibbon at the Estimates committee hearings in April 1986. A number of Senator MacGibbon's questions were answered but three remain unanswered and, therefore, I intend to include those in my list tonight. The questions I would like to ask are these: What was the total cost to the nation to get the Hercules aircraft to Ethiopia and back? Is the Department satisfied that it paid only the actual costs? Did the International Red Cross insist that $250,000 worth of expensive avionics be installed in the Ethiopian Hercules? Did the Department of Defence and the Royal Australian Air Force say that this was unnecessary? Did the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) insist on the installations by written directive? Senator MacGibbon's questions were: What was the advice of the Department of Foreign Affairs on the program? Was that sought? If so, what was it? He also asked: What was the advice tendered by AIDAB to the Prime Minister when he made the offer of this aircraft to Geldof . . . If the aircraft is on the Liberian registry- that question was answered in the affirmative in the supplementary information- why has this been done? Are lower standards of maintenance required? If there are lower standards of maintenance, does the Commonwealth have no concern for the safety of the crews who fly in that aircraft? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.44) —To be honest, I do not have much information on this. The honourable senator will understand that some of the further information surely can be made available and ought to be made available. I am not so sure about some of the documentation at ministerial level between Ministers, but certainly answers should be provided as to costs and so on, which is a proper concern of Estimates committees. The honourable senator will understand that some matters relating to contractual arrangements and whether there were breaches of the contract and so on are subject to investigation by the Australian Federal Police. I just put that as a parameter which, at the moment, might make it less easy to make information available to the honourable senator so as not to prejudice either the inquiries or the conduct of a particular case. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(5.45) —I am well aware of the fact that there is an inquiry into this matter, but I am particularly directing my attention now to the decision-making process in which the Ethiopian expedition took place and to how Commonwealth moneys were expended. In the light of that, I ask these questions: Did the pilot of the aircraft to Ethiopia complain about any irregularities? If so, what was done about the complaints? Was the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) informed about these alleged irregularities? Was the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) informed about these alleged irregularities? If these Ministers were not informed, why not? If they were told, what action did they take? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.46) —Just for clarification, does the honourable senator mean irregularities of a technical kind or of a contractual kind? It is just not quite clear what those irregularities relate to. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(5.47) —The pilots were featured on a Four Corners program on 22 June 1987 when they made a number of allegations which covered pretty well all those areas. That is why I asked a general question as to irregularities. I am sure that the Department and AIDAB would have had a transcript of that very serious program. I would not have thought that I needed to take the time of the Committee to spell out all the details now. I therefore precised my question in that form. But I intend to canvass the whole area insofar as it can be done without prejudicing the police inquiry. I also draw attention to the fact that, during that Four Corners program, Peter Couchman said that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation had called in a Mr Clive Phillips, an experienced aircraft surveyor and airworthiness inspector, who had worked for the Department of Aviation for 15 years. The agreement between International Air Aid and the Government was handed to him and he was asked to say how much of the work had actually been carried out. Mr Clive Phillips was interviewed on television and said: . . . it's had a quick and nasty. They've filched equipment as cheap as possible from where-ever and fitted it and it would appear to me that the money that was supposed to have been spent on equipment, hasn't. Mr Phillips went on in some detail about transponder encoders and a global navigation system that was supposed to be fitted but was not. He said: You definitely wouldn't have spent $50,000, which is what the quote was. I don't know what it would be worth, but $5,000 should cover it. I recognise that some work was done by Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) personnel on leave at Richmond, but I understand that as soon as the plane was airworthy it was sent to Aerospatiale in France where further work was done at some cost. How was the work done verified both in Australia and in France? Who checked that the work had been done? What was the actual procedure for checking? How quickly were the accounts paid? I have been given an indication that moneys were being claimed for work that may not have been completed at that time and that the pressure to get this aircraft to Ethiopia was so great that the normal forms of vouchers and documentation were dispensed with. I would have thought that this would be a cause of great concern to any member of the Senate. I would like to know how these payments were authorised. Were the normal procedures followed? Is it true that work has not been done that was supposed to have been done? The allegations are set out very clearly in the transcript which I have. As I have said, I am sure that the Department has had this transcript. Was AIDAB responsible for seeing that the work had been done? Did it have agents in France checking this for it? Did it have agents in Australia? Was the RAAF in any way involved in checking that the work had been done? Were other departments involved? The Department of Administrative Services simply wipes its hands of this and says that it knows nothing about it and that that is AIDAB's concern. I came into the Committee this evening just to try to get to the bottom of this matter. It seems most unsatisfactory. Despite the fact that this matter was on the public record on 22 June 1987 and at about that time it appeared in the Times on Sunday, there do not seem to have been any responses from government. I would have thought that such a serious matter would have received some sort of response, certainly as to the alleged facts which could have been denied if they were incorrect. I am hoping I can get some information tonight. This is a very unsatisfactory matter that has been going on far too long without answers. The public purse is the sufferer. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.51) —I am afraid that I do not have the sorts of answers which Senator Newman is seeking. She indicated in the early part of her remarks that she would not be surprised at that fact. I understand her concern and the need for the public to receive answers to many of the questions she has put. I simply say that it is not for any want of the Government to get to the bottom of this matter. I do not want to curtail debate by retreating behind a police investigation, but I will quote from a memorandum. I would prefer not to table it but I am quite happy to show it to Senator Newman. In the memorandum to me, as Minister, from the Australian Federal Police the following paragraph occurs: The investigation is of such a magnitude and complexity that it is not possible to predict when it will be finalised. In addition, it is important to note that the investigation raises matters of political sensitivity. In view of this, the AFP is concerned at the possibility that continued public discussion could compromise the investigation. I note that some details have been publicly raised in the media and in Parliament recently. I do not necessarily endorse every nuance of that paragraph but I just want to indicate to the chamber that the matter has been referred to the Australian Federal Police jointly by Bill Hayden as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Senator Gietzelt, who was then Acting Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. In that context, many of the matters to which Senator Newman seeks an answer are exactly the sorts of things which members of the Australian Federal Police are also trying to unravel. There are some matters, nevertheless, which I believe ought to be answered. Insofar as we can provide those answers, that will be done. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(5.52) —Could I get an indication from the Minister as to how I can get the response to the questions he will be able to answer? Will those answers be available publicly to the chamber? I am sure that I am not the only person who is concerned. What sort of delay are we talking about? There are a number of matters that could have been answered. Senator MacGibbon's questions could have been answered back in April last year when he first asked them. I trust we will not have to wait that long. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.53) —It is simply a question of notice. The officers were not necessarily expecting the questions to be raised in precisely the form in which the honourable senator has put them. I suggest that as soon as the Hansard is available, the officers go through the questions. Perhaps there should be a combination of somebody I could ask the Australian Federal Police to make available and officers of the department concerned to determine-and I do not think it would be terribly hard in some instances; some will be very clear and some will be on the margin-which answers usefully can be put to the whole Senate. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(5.54) —This debate will be suspended in 35 minutes. I would have hoped that the Minister could come back after the dinner break with some of these answers. Is that not possible? Senator Walters —Minister, are you telling us that the senior members of the Department that you have present have no knowledge about any of the questions Senator Newman has asked? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.55) —I am not saying that the officers do not have any knowledge of the general matters of Senator Newman's concern, but the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau officer tells me that he does not have the sorts of answers requested. Senator Newman is asking about simple matters such as the cost of getting the Hercules there and back. Senator Newman —No, it is more than that. Senator TATE —But there are some questions which clearly can be answered, and I believe ought to be answered, as soon as possible. Others are on the margin. There is a distinction. Insofar as Senator Newman's questions fall into the former category we will try to get the answers as soon as possible. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.55) —An example is a question Senator Newman asked about a program transcript. I am sure the senior officers present would have looked into the matter and would have some of the answers she requested regarding the program. That is just one question that we ought to be able to get an answer to. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.56) —We will make an effort over the dinner hour. I just cannot commit myself to having those answers available at 8 o'clock. But insofar as that program hinted at massive defrauding of the Commonwealth, all I am saying is that that is the subject of investigation by the Australian Federal Police. They have put it to me at various times that that leads to constraints on what they think can usefully be put into the public domain. In deference to that I am saying that there may be some parameters to the sorts of answers we can give at this stage. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(5.56) —Are there not officers here who could tell me whether the Red Cross Society insisted on the avionics? Are there not officers here who could say whether the advice came from the Department of Defence and the Royal Australian Air Force or whether the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) insisted, by written directive, on the installation? What about the questions from Senator MacGibbon about the advice of the then Department of Foreign Affairs and the advice tendered by the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau? Are these not matters that senior officers of the Department know about? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.57) —I am not trying to be evasive. Some answers can be given. The honourable senator did not give me or the officers sufficient notice to ensure that the officer who might be particularly able to answer would be present. This debate is not like Estimates hearings where there are 30 people lined up. I have three or four officers who are carrying the whole of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Senator Walters —They are senior officers. Senator TATE —I will not carry on this debate through interjections. I have given an undertaking. Senator Newman appears to have her questions in a nicely typed or written form. Why does she not make them available to us so that we do not have to wait for the Hansard, and we will try to answer them as promptly as possible? Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.58) —I wish to speak on Australia Reconstructed, the Trade Development Council funding project, and in so doing support the comments of my Leader, Senator Chaney, and other speakers on the subject. This is an important document for the future of Australia. It draws heavily on the social systems of Sweden, Norway and West Germany. One of the big difficulties is that the Swedish model is economically flawed because the Swedish economy has actually fared worse then Australia's over the last 15 years. It is important as a trade matter to have a high marginal tax rate of 80 per cent. There are a number of difficulties. The response from the Confederation of Australian Industry, through its spokesman, Bryan Noakes- Senator Tate —Madam Chair, I do not want to interrupt my very good friend Senator Watson, but it appears to me that he has had in his top drawer a speech on Australia Reconstructed and he has rushed into the chamber with it. We are discussing the Estimates. I do not think we can go into a full scale debate on that document. Madam Chair, I would like you to ask Senator Watson to make his remarks relevant to the Estimates committee task that we are embarked on. Senator WATSON —I indicated that I support the comments of my colleague, Senator Chaney, in relation to Trade Development Council funding of Australia Reconstructed. On having notes in my drawer, I have a number of notes, one of which came to my notice just this afternoon-that was on the employers' reaction. It indicated that this solved no new problems as far as Australia's economy was concerned, and would solve none of the old ones. If Senator Tate is somewhat sensitive-knowing his social philosophy-to this issue so be it. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Giles) —Senator Watson, we would all be grateful if you could keep your remarks relevant to the debate before the chair. It is not really the time for a general debate on the economy. Senator WATSON —I agree, Madam Chair, it is not really for time for a general debate on the economy, but there are difficulties because a number of people are surprised about the project's source of funding. This enters the area of what we might term not only social engineering but also industry engineering. It involves a very interventionist approach because industry plans will be required to comply with union demands. This will significantly adversely affect out trade, I believe, because there will be union demands concerning superannuation, training and industrial democracy. This issue of higher productivity cannot be achieved by decree as the Minister and others in his party might wish. New growth industries have not emerged to achieve their full potential because they have been impeded by the very prohibitive high cost structure. Australia Reconstructed does not adequately address the problems of high-cost training and flexible wage structures and the possibility of profit sharing to keep trained staff within a company. There are difficulties. Whilst we might encourage attempts to look at some alternative uses, I think the only value in this document-I am surprised at the Council funding it-is that at least it shows to the Australian community in detail what the union movement seeks and what directions can be expected from it in future. Lest the Minister think that the coalition does not support employee participation, I state that it does but on a voluntary basis, whereas the Australian Council of Trade Unions, unfortunately, sees industrial democracy as a democratisation of the workplace where union employees have official roles in the decision making process. I think this is contrary to the coalition's fundamental belief in property rights, which links rights with responsibility and accountability. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.02) —Seeing that the Minister has given a guarantee that he will come back with answers on the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau, about which Senator Newman was inquiring, I ask whether it would be possible for us to move from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and to come back to it to finish the questioning when we have appropriate departmental officers present who are able to answer the questions. No doubt a number of answers will require further questions. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Giles) —Senator Walters, you may move if you wish to postpone further consideration of these votes. Senator WALTERS —I move: That further consideration of votes for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade be postponed. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(6.03) —I will not oppose that but I do not want to have it put into my mouth that I guaranteed to have the answers available. I said that I will do my best to consult the list put together by Senator Newman. Insofar as we can knock a few of the answers over immediately after dinner, let us try to do so. I do not know that we will have enough to have a three-hour debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. GROUP C Department of Finance Proposed expenditure, $115,654,000 Advance to the Minister for Finance Proposed expenditure, $170,000,000 The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —There being no objection, the Committee will deal with the votes of the Department of Finance and the Advance to the Minister for Finance together. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(6.04) —Responses to requests from the Chairman of Senate Estimates Committee C that figures be provided on the experience of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme in relation to invalidity retirement represent a dramatic success for the Waste Watch Committee. Over a year ago the Waste Watch Committee first pointed out the striking fact that twice as many people in Victoria were able to retire as a result of invalidity than as a result of reaching retirement age, whereas in New South Wales the position was the other way round. We made the point at the time in the Waste Watch Committee that this involved, clearly, some kind of indefensible ratio, particularly when the great volume of those retirements through invalidity were for causes that were difficult to diagnose, such as bad backs and neuroses. The impact of our campaign is now evident from the statistics that were presented to the Committee. The presentation of those statistics represents a change in course for which I believe the Government should be congratulated because in the past we have not had access to such statistics until the annual report of the Commissioner for Superannuation has come out. That has generally been in the Parliament in February, so we would be dealing in February and March with information that related to the year that had ended the previous June. An officer from the Department of Finance, Mr Orr, provided the Committee with a response to Senator Archer's questions which I believe is most significant. It shows that the huge invalidity rate in Victoria in 1984-85 was 1.42 per 100 contributors. It has now been reduced to one per 100 contributors. I am glad to see this improvement. I might ask, however: If this kind of information was available, why could not the other statistics from the Commissioner's report also be available in a form that might be easier to comprehend? The figures we have here relate only to invalidity rates per 100 rather than the raw figures of the numbers retiring from various States. The statistics show that New South Wales has a far better invalidity rate at 0.71 per 100 than Victoria or, indeed, any of the other States. As I said before, clearly, there are practices involved with invalidity retirement in the other States-particularly in Victoria-which are unsatisfactory. It is not reasonable to suggest that it is the climate or something else in Victoria that provides this bigger invalidity rate. I am very keen to know what specific measures have taken place in Victoria which have reduced that rate from 1.41 to one. I am congratulating the Department, the departments or the Government-whoever is in charge of the supervising-on doing what the Waste Watch Committee wanted done. I am wondering what those measures are, and whether further reductions in the Victorian rate towards the New South Wales rate are envisaged. By the way, that does not mean that New South Wales figures should continue to rise to close that gap, because I note that the New South Wales rate has gone up from 0.62 in 1984-85 or from the 0.6 of the previous two years to 0.71. Perhaps New South Wales is learning some bad Victorian habits. This sort of success has been achieved not only in Victoria but also in Tasmania and South Australia. The rate in Tasmania has been reduced from 1.31 to 1.06 and in South Australia from 1.19 to 1.05. I wonder whether this success is for the same causes in those States and why it is, though, that the rate in Western Australia has gone up a bit, as has the Northern Territory rate, while the rate in Queensland has remained pretty stagnant. With the approval of the Minister-I have not had a chance to show him the table in attachment C-I seek leave to incorporate the table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- INVALIDITY RETIREMENTS UNDER THE COMMONWEALTH SUPERANNUATION SCHEME (1986-87 figures preliminary only) BY REGION (IN DESCENDING ORDER OF 1986-87 RATES) Region Contributors as at 30 June 1987 Invalidity rates 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 Tasmania ... 6,801 (2.1%) .98 .96 1.31 1.38 1.06 South Australia ... 25,719 (7.9%) 1.14 .99 1.19 1.18 1.05 Victoria ... 75,111 (23.2%) 1.40 1.37 1.41 1.17 1.00 Western Australia ... 20,024 (6.2%) .84 .92 .94 1.24 .97 Northern Territory ... 10,764 (3.3%) .58 .71 .85 .71 .92 Queensland ... 38,554 (11.9%) 1.02 .92 .92 1.06 .91 Scheme average ... .88 .89 .94 .93 .85 New South Wales ... 88,503 (27.3%) .60 .60 .62 .66 .71 Australian Capital Territory ... 58,246 (17.98%) .63 .66 .71 .73 .70 Overseas ... 144 (0.04%) .46 .53 1.76 2.99 .69 Papua New Guinea ... 149 (0.05%) .41 .00 .00 .00 .00 324,015 Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank the Committee. However, I also point out that even these much improved figures leave the situation in an unsatisfactory position compared with that of the private sector. Our comparison cannot concern the number of people who have retired as a result of reaching retirement age, because those figures are only capable of being worked out with a calculator, which I do not have with me at the moment, by reference to the table on the previous page. I refer, however, to the census of superannuation funds put out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which clearly indicates, if one extracts information from table 71 on page 56, that the Commonwealth Public Service superannuation scheme has a far worse invalidity rate than private sector schemes. The Commonwealth scheme in that census had a retirement disability rate of about 0.9 per 100 employees, whereas at the moment the rate is about 0.85, which is an improvement on the 0.94 of two years ago. But the 1986-87 figure of 0.85 is still roughly in line with the 0.9 of the 1982-83 census. In the same census it was established that the disability rate in private sector superannuation funds was 0.21 per 100 employees. I would not have imagined that the work styles, the types of work involved, between these funds would be so significantly different that there should be invalidity differences. I would have presumed that private sector superannuation funds at the time of that census would have applied more heavily to white collar workers than to industrial workers, and therefore the work patterns and work behaviour should have been fairly similar. So the Commonwealth Public Service superannuation fund has an invalidity retirement position which is four times as bad as that of the private sector. I wonder whether there is a special reason for that. The Minister will be interested to note that on previous occasions, of course, this rate has been worse. There is no doubt that when the new superannuation scheme was introduced under the Fraser Government there was a rush-as the Minister is well aware, and he has made this point to me before-to take advantage of invalidity retirement. I believe that that situation was unacceptable. I congratulate the Minister, because I am certain that he would have been keen to bring about these recent improvements. While congratulating him, I say to him that it still appears that there are considerable improvements yet to be made. I wonder whether he expects that changes that were only recently introduced to the relevant Acts will bring about further improvements, and of what order is it his expectation that these improvements would be. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(6.14) —I did not hear the beginning of Senator Michael Baume's comments but I probably heard enough to get the drift. He has already made the point that invalidity retirement rates were very much higher in the late 1970s and, indeed, in 1977-78 the rate was 1.83 per 100, which is more than double that for the most recent year. There is, however, one point I must correct for the record-that is, before the coalition Waste Watch Committee started stunting on this issue, I had started a process within the Department which was directed towards finding out the number of people on invalidity retirement pensions who were also earning significant income. Those provisions were activated on 1 May this year-and I think the savings in pensions which had previously been granted amount to $2m a year at the present rate of pension reduction, or withdrawal because people are fully employed and, therefore, prima facie, not invalids at all. The more significant effect of that, however-and one should always exercise some caution when attributing any outcome to a particular cause when there could be other variables, but I think it is a reasonable assumption and claim-is that the reduction in the invalidity retirement rate which has taken place over the last couple of years is partially due to the more strict supervision of whether people who have been granted a pension are invalids. That has had a deterrent effect. In relation to the other questions that Senator Baume raised, the same caution which I mentioned before should be applied. There are differences between one State and another-granted, they are not as great as they used to be. There are differences in the same State from one year to the next. Particularly in the short term, it is difficult to make a judgment about what is just a chance factor or an aberration and what is an indicator of a longer term trend. It is a bit too early to make that judgment. I should point out-Senator Baume's comments indicated that he is not aware of this-that less than or around about half of the people in the Commonwealth superannuation scheme are not Commonwealth Government employees; they are employees of the authorities, the largest of which is Telecom Australia. They are by no means all doing the type of work that Commonwealth Government employees proper would do. One factor-I am certainly not claiming that this is the only factor which is relevant-which could be significant in the different private sector and public sector invalidity retirement rates is the security of employment in the public sector. People can stay in the service of the Commonwealth or its authorities, if they wish, with very few exceptions, until they reach retiring age, whereas people-even though they might be physically deteriorating over a period-who had had many jobs in the private sector would find it much more difficult to get employment at, say, 50 years of age when they had clearly declined physically to a significant extent. I assure Senator Baume that this issue will continue to be monitored, and when there is good reason to believe that further action should be taken or that the system is not operating as efficiently as it should be, I will certainly be pushing to take that action. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(6.20) —I would like to raise with the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) the very serious matter of the massive outlay that the Government would face if it were to proceed with the ill thought out plan to nominate for World Heritage listing the vast areas of north Queensland rainforests. The Department of Finance, headed by the Minister who takes great delight in playing the role of the ruthless cost cutter, must be horrified at Senator Richardson's statements on compensation with Commonwealth funds to individuals, businesses and local governments that are financially disadvantaged by the World Heritage listing of north Queensland rainforests. Senator Richardson has already told the Senate Estimates Committee that no Commonwealth money has been allocated this financial year for compensation. However, he concedes that compensation will have to be paid at some stage if the proposed nomination goes through. I ask the Finance Minister: Has the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories supplied the Department of Finance with any figures or any information that would give a figure and a breakdown of the amount of compensation that the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories expects to pay out? If it has not, I suggest it should as there is no doubt that the Commonwealth will be up for a very significant cost to Federal outlays. An expert evaluation by the reputable international accountancy firm, Touche Ross, indicates that the timber industry alone would been entitled to $60m compensation from the Federal Government-that is an underestimate-if it were forced to abandon its resources and its capital equipment. That is not a Mickey Mouse figure. It has been calculated by an internationally accepted organisation that has great experience in these matters. That $60m would be the minimum figure that would be owed. Indeed, the accountancy firm expects that the figure would be substantially higher. However, let us not forget that that is only the tip of the iceberg. We also have to take into account the individual workers who are displaced; the private landowners and landholders whose property values will slump and who will be denied the right to develop their land as they wish; the shire councils whose income from rates will be reduced; the other industries in the area which will be adversely affected; and other businesses which rely on the north Queensland timber industry for the provision of services and raw materials. Senator Richardson ran for cover at the Senate Estimates Committee hearing, saying that he could not envisage most of these groups requiring compensation. Yet, he has paraded around north Queensland, along with Senator Reynolds and the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler), telling people that not one person will lose out because of World Heritage listing. Senator Walsh's newfound financial obligations do not end with his obligation to pay compensation. Senator Richardson has made numerous offers of federally funded timber plantations to replace the industry that he is planning to kill off. He has spoken of creating 250 jobs in the establishment of new timber plantations. Independently, the timber industry consultants estimate that for every 250 people to be employed, a total of 6,000 new hectares would have to come under cultivation every year. They further estimate that the total cost of a program of this magnitude over six years, plus subsequent maintenance, would be around the $3m mark, including the cost of the land to be purchased as there is no crown land available. Even after this massive expenditure, the employment requirements would fall dramatically after the first six years as only general maintenance would be required. I again ask the Minister for Finance whether he is prepared to commit massive Commonwealth funds of $200m to the one scheme that would be needed to satisfy Senator Richardson's commitments, or are Senator Richardson's commitments merely hollow rhetoric to dupe the people of north Queensland into accepting this flawed proposal? At the very minimum, he has committed the Commonwealth to well over a quarter of a billion dollars expenditure in a bid to muster local support for this environmental affair. This is the amount that can be quantified at an early stage. The final amount is likely to be significantly higher than that. In the document Regional Development and Employment Strategy, the Minister for the Environment and the Arts and Senator Reynolds talk about creating 80 jobs in public works and 190 jobs in maintaining the rainforest after it has been included in the World Heritage List. Can the Minister for Finance give the Committee any information as to what this uncosted commitment might be to the Commonwealth? It is but one example of how the Government, if it is serious about making sure that people's lifestyles and jobs are not destroyed, will face enormous outlays in the next few years. I also ask the Minister for Finance: What will happen to the 12,000 hectares of land that Senator Richardson is going to take over for forestry plantations? Maybe Senator Walsh can enlighten me as to whether this land, which will become government land, will attract local government rates and taxes or will be exempt? If it is exempt, will the Commonwealth Government fund the local governments for their loss of revenue? People are left wondering over so many things in this ill-conceived plan. I think Senator Walsh, who comes in here constantly asking the Government to cut its costs, should take a very definite interest in this plan. I believe that his Government is going to have to find somewhere between a quarter of a billion dollars and half a billion dollars to implement this ill-conceived World Heritage listing that will cost an industry $33m and wipe out 2,000 to 3,000 spin-off jobs. I again say that a lot of the people who will be affected by this decision will end up social welfare programs when their jobs are lost. Finally, I ask: Has Senator Walsh made any assessment of the whole cost of the World Heritage listing? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(6.28) —It is pretty clear that Senator Boswell has been spraying figures around off the top of his head. Essentially, he has asked what is the likely cost to the Commonwealth of paying compensation for the World Heritage listing of north Queensland rainforests. The answer is that nobody knows. I spoke to Senator Richardson about this last week and he told me that it was very difficult to derive any sort of reliable or half reliable estimate because the Queensland Government is being obstructive and is withholding the information which would be essential to calculate a reliable or half reliable estimate. I understand-and this figure is subject to the difficulty or uncertainty that I have just mentioned; that is, the non co-operation of the Queensland Government-that about 700 people are employed in the timber industry in this area, many of whom, possibly most of whom, would have been retrenched in the near future anyway because the present rate of cutting cannot be sustained with or without any World Heritage area. Senator Boswell also appears to think that whatever money is provided is a decision which would be made by me. That is not correct. A decision about that would be made by the Government as a whole, not just by the Finance Minister. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(6.29) —The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) has completely avoided the questions that I have asked him, with the exception of saying that he does not know. I think that is the most honest statement that has come out of the whole World Heritage listing debate. They do not know how much it is going to cost. I think it is a shocking state of affairs that the Government is prepared to ask the Senate and the Parliament for an open cheque so that it can win a few seats in metropolitan Melbourne and Sydney. I believe that it is a shocking indictment of the Government that it is prepared to sacrifice and put on the line the whole economic future of this country by not knowing what the cost will be. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator BOSWELL —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, the Minister for Finance made an amazing revelation to the Committee. He told the Committee-it will be recorded in Hansard-that he did not have any idea how much the World Heritage listing would cost this Government. He is subjecting this nation's taxpayers to an open cheque book. I have told honourable senators and the Committee that $60m will be required for workers in the timber industry alone. That does not take into account the 12,000 hectares of land that the Government will have to purchase-at the moment the going rate is about $3,000 a hectare-to supply the 250 jobs that Senator Richardson promised. Also, it does not take into account the cost of compensation for those who have freehold land in the area but will not be able to develop it, put tourist complexes on it or clear it for their farms. I would think that all those people would be entitled to some form of compensation. It is not only those people who will be affected. What about the small businesses that rely on timber industry workers to sustain their industry, such as the local newsagent in Ravenshoe and Malanda, the local hotelier, and so on? All those people will be disadvantaged. Yet the Finance Minister has the temerity to say in this chamber that he does not have a clue what the listing will cost. If that is the best he can do, I suggest that he, Senator Richardson and Senator Reynolds ought to get together and come up with some type of proposition. I have never heard anything like this. The Government has said, `We are going to bring forward a project, but there are no estimates of the cost, no plan and no forward thinking.' All the Government will do is increase our balance of payments by $33m a year. That will be the cost of the timber that will have to be imported when this Government stops an industry that provides 3,000 jobs. I am glad that this matter has been put on the record, because it is a shocking state of affairs for the Government and the Finance Minister, in particular, to admit that they do not have a clue what the World Heritage listing will cost. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(8.03) —At page 7 of the written replies to questions to Senate Estimates Committee C, a response is given to a question by Senator Archer which relates to page C15 of the Estimates Committee Hansard. In order to get this in context, it is vital to read the comments which Senator Archer made. He asked: To what extent does Finance participate in that committee? That was the interdepartmental committee relating to the Amann Aviation Pty Ltd contract, which has been discussed at some length in this chamber. Mr Carroll's response was: This Department would simply participate as an ordinary member of the committee, but obviously it would be particularly concerned with financial implications. Senator Archer went on to say: A change was made in the operation of coastal surveillance, presumably largely on financial grounds. Was that at the instigation of this Department, was it resolved just by the committee in general, or was this one of the committees that actually attended the meeting at which the decision was made? He ended up by saying: Did this Department attend or not? Mr Carroll's response was: I cannot answer that. If there were a major change in financial arrangements it would have had government sanction. Senator Robert Ray said: We will get you an answer to that. The answer that has been provided, as I read it, does not really answer the questions too well. What it reveals, after listing all the departments involved, is this: The Department of Finance's participation on the Committee is essentially one of providing advice and expertise in relation to financial and budgetary matters. I underline the word `financial'. It goes on about aspects of the contract, and says: Key aspects of the contractual process and the Department of Finance's involvement are as follows. The aspects are listed, but I will not bore the chamber by reading them. The point is that it says: Finance was not involved in the working party or Tender Assessment Committee. It ends by saying: As a member of the Standing Interdepartmental Committee on Coastal Surveillance . . . Finance's involvement was limited to commenting in mid-1985 on some financial aspects of the (then) draft tender specifications and in subsequently receiving general briefings on progress with contractual arrangements. If that is all the Department's involvement was in this fiasco, it seems to me that, in the first place, it was extraordinary. If its role was to be concerned particularly with financial implications and if the whole tender process broke down on the basis of financial incompetence, surely there was a financial implication that would have merited closer attention by Finance. It seems to me extraordinary that Finance was not involved in the working party or the Tender Assessment Committee. I would assume that in the tender assessment there would be financial implications. We were assured by Mr Carroll that that is the proper role of the Department of Finance. He said: . . . it would be particularly concerned with financial implications. Heavens above, we know that there are financial implications here and that the Department did not have financial competence. Yet we see now that the Department did not, in fact, play any role other than commenting in mid-1985 on some financial aspects of the then draft tender specification. That response is revealing enough, but what is interesting is that it does not really respond to the question Senator Archer raised: Did this Department attend or not? As I understand it, it was the interdepartmental committee-and not the sub-committee-which was involved in this whole program. If the Department of Finance does not take a role in such committees or the Tender Assessment Committee, which I understand from the response was made up of officers of the then departments of Primary Industry and Aviation and the Australian Federal Police, what was the point of having them on the interdepartmental committee at all if they were not to take part in the evaluation process? It is clear that the Minister for Finance was given no indication of any concerns. I presume that he was given no indication; he may wish to say something about that. If, as it appears, the Department did not attend any of the crucial interdepartmental committee meetings, would the Minister be prepared to indicate whether he believes that it would be a proper role of the Department of Finance to have attended such meetings, particularly at it is now evident that the Department involved had no competence or experience in dealing with this kind of contract? The Department of Finance was quite happy, presumably, to allow that department, with no competence and no experience in this kind of contract, to proceed without the assistance of the Department of Finance in financial matters. It would not be good enough for the Minister to say, `Well, we did not know, and that is that'. The Minister owes the Senate an explanation of why his Department, which was a member of the interdepartmental committee on this matter, did not participate in any coherent, positive or practical way, and why it allowed a situation to obtain which was ludicrous given the absence of competence and experience in the area by the appropriate department. I want to know whether the Department of Finance took any measures whatsoever to satisfy itself that that section of the then Department of Transport had the competence to deal with the matter. If it did not take steps to satisfy itself that the Department of Transport had the competence, why did it not do so? Is that not the job of the Department of Finance? Senator SHORT(Victoria)(8.11) —I just want to say a few things in support of Senator Michael Baume's comments and to raise a similar point, namely, the role of the Department of Finance on the Standing Interdepartmental Committee on Coastal Surveillance. Many of the things that Senator Baume has said were points that I would have wished to make. I will supplement his comments, for the benefit of the Minister for Finance, because perhaps he has not been closely involved in this exercise. On pages 7 and 8 of Volume 1 of the written replies to Estimates Committee C, which we have all received and from which Senator Baume quoted, the point is made that the participation of the Department of Finance in the Standing Interdepartmental Committee is essentially one of providing advice and expertise on financial and budgetary matters. It also points out that, as a member of that Committee, the involvement of the Department of Finance was limited to commenting in mid-1985 on some financial aspects of the then draft tender specifications and subsequently in receiving general briefings on pro- gress with contractual arrangements. I find those comments, which have been supplied by the Department of Finance in response to Senator Archer's questions, somewhat strange. Frankly, I find them difficult to follow in light of some of the comments made in the final report of the Menzies Review of Tender Procedures for the Coastwatch Contract. At page 17 of that report there is a sub-section entitled `Departmental Relationships in Coastwatch Arrangement'. Paragraph 3.3 states: These Departments- it goes on to list the departments- acted by way of a number of committees in defining the coastwatch requirement, funding, arranging for the service to be supplied and in administering contractual relationships with suppliers. The various committees were . . . It then lists the several committees, the first being the Standing Interdepartmental Committee on Coastal Surveillance, of which the Department of Finance was an important member. Later in the Menzies report, in chapter 7 headed `Findings', on pages 70 and 71, finding (4) in part states: By mid January 1987- this is compared with the mid-1985 date that was mentioned in the answers to Estimates Committee C- it was apparent to the TAC- that is, the Tender Assessment Committee, of which, admittedly, the Department of Finance was not a member- the body comprising representatives of interested Departments charged with the task of assessing tenders, that Amann: had little relevant experience in the Aviation industry; . . . had no organization in place other than a family partnership; and had no aircraft suitable for operation under the contract. Finding (5) states: These facts called for at least a particularly rigorous examination of Amann's capacity, financial and otherwise, and competence to perform the contract for its full life. This should have included a thorough investigation by a person with appropriate expertise of Amann's financial arrangements and the costings that he submitted. Finding (7) states: If Amann's costings had been competently investigated, the result would have been to cast considerable doubt on Amann's financial and administrative competence. A little later in finding (7) it is stated: Together these matters would have provided sufficient reason to put Amann aside at the ultimate decision stage and should have led to the two other shortlisted tenders being more seriously considered. I ask the Minister for an explanation as to why, given the Department of Finance's membership of the Standing Interdepartmental Committee which I presume was or certainly should have been a key committee in the whole exercise, the Department of Finance did not play a more important role than it did in the total scheme of things, given also that I guess within the structure of Government the Department has residing in it the greatest financial expertise and assessment capability of any government department. I would like the Minister's comment on that. It seems to me that the responses given to the questions by Senator Archer in Estimates Committee C sit somewhat oddly against this very damning report. As I said yesterday in another connection, the Menzies Review of Tender Procedures for the Coastwatch Contract reveals the most scandalous, unbelievable administrative mismanagement and bungling that certainly I have ever seen in the 30 years or so that I have been associated in one way or another with government. The Committee demands an explanation of the apparent underutilisation of the Department of Finance in this whole debacle. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(8.18) —I, too, would like to raise the question of coastal protection. I am not the slightest bit concerned about the business with Amann Aviation Pty Ltd. I want to know how the coastal protection system works. I have been trying to find out for seven years. For instance, if the Department of Finance is involved in this, I presume it is on account of the fact that it is necessary for it to be involved in the tender procedures and the costing of the operation. But, by the same token, if the Department of Transport and Communications is involved, I presume it is for the determination of routes and such things. If what was the Department of Aviation is involved, I presume that is to assess the suitability of the aircraft and their method of operation. But the Department of Primary Industries and Energy states: The Civil Coastal Surveillance Program is co-ordinated by the Coastal Protection Unit (CPU) of the Australian Federal Police . . . with responsibility for Customs, Immigration, National Parks, GBR- that is, the Great Barrier Reef- Territories and Transport . . . Presumably all these people have an interest in this, too. But I cannot find where any of them really get involved in any way. As a result of further questioning, I was able to find out from a letter of the Minister for Resources (Mr Peter Morris), under his signature, the following: As far as contract administration arrangements are concerned, task definition, including surveillance frequency, is determined by AQIS- which I gather is the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service- based on its assessment of quarantine requirements. From that, I would gather that the purpose of the exercise is one of quarantine, but when I have discussed this with other departments previously, other people have given me various different suggestions. I noticed in the report of the Australian Federal Police that we received in the last couple of weeks that Major-General Grey, in his summary of the situation referring to the Coastal Protection Unit, said: The functions of the CPU are: direct and co-ordinate Australia's civil coastal surveillance and protection system; plan and set priorities for surveillance; authorise responses and enforcements action; liaise with participating departments . . . co-ordinate and develop co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States . . . However, when we talked to the Australian Fisheries Service we got different answers again. We asked the Fisheries Service who determined what it should pay and the split responsibilities. I realise that the Department of Finance is not the department to talk to about fisheries, but it seems to me that everybody that is on this long list seems to see the whole of the functions of the Coastal Protection Unit through different eyes. Worse than that, everybody always has at least one eye shut. The system is just getting worse and worse. At least four or five years ago there used to be a joint committee of seven different departments, which met occasionally. I remember asking questions at that stage on the subject. We asked the same question of all seven departments and from three got back the answer that they were not even part of the system. That is how involved they were. Either we have a Coastal Protection Unit that is going to work or we scrap it now. We are considering the votes for the Department of Finance, the Department to talk to about scrapping the program if that is what the alternative is. But if we are going to pay out $18m or $20m, or however much more it will run to, let us see that we get some value for our money. If the Department of Finance has the people whose expertise is money, will they please attend the meetings at which money is discussed? I do not think that that is too much to ask. If we were talking about aeroplanes, I would expect aviation officers to be there. If we were talking about routes, I would expect transport officers to be there. If we were talking about the Great Barrier Reef, I would expect marine officials to be there. If we were talking about immigration, I would expect immigration officials to be there, and the same is true of quarantine and so on. But please, let the people on this committee demonstrate the expertise for which they are there. We are all concerned that we have a token service for which we are paying a lot of money and I am not sure that anybody can tell me who are responsible, how often they meet, what they do or what we are getting for the funds. The least that we can expect is an answer to that, and I would like the Minister to give one. I do not expect him to do it tonight, because, as I have already said, I have been waiting seven years. However, I would like an answer as soon as the Minister can co-ordinate enough people to produce a meaningful one. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(8.24) —It seems to me that Senator Michael Baume and Senator Short asked questions in Estimates Committees but do not like the answers that they have been given. It is their privilege not to like the answers, and they can be critical of them if they like, but I do not think there is anything that I can do about it. As for Senator Archer's remarks, as I think Senator Archer indicated himself, this program is not managed by the Department of Finance. It is correct, that it is, I think necessarily, a bit untidy, because a number of departments are involved in it, but it is clearly not managed by the Department of Finance, and this is not the proper Committee of the whole to which to direct the questions. Senator Archer —They all say that. Senator WALSH —They might all say that, but the Department of Finance has absolutely nothing to do with the management of this matter. I suggest that Senator Archer try one of the other departments. Without giving it a bit more thought, I am not in a position to recommend which one, but it is certainly not Finance. In regard to the honourable senator's comments about scrapping the whole program, that could be a Budget matter and one which would become a matter in which the Department of Finance, if not of primary relevance, would certainly take a considerable interest. If Senator Archer wants that to be looked at, I will give him an undertaking that I will do so. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(8.26) —The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) is under some sort of misapprehension. Certainly in my case, and I presume in Senator Short's case, my concerns are not simply that I am not happy with the written answers given to Estimates Committee C after it had ceased sitting. It is the content of the answers and their relationship to the role of the Department of Finance, and what is the proper role of the Department of Finance, which concern me. I will ask the Minister specific questions, and if he is not prepared to answer them, that itself may provide us with something of an answer. I remind the Minister that his Department, in effect, was subject to some de facto criticism in the recommendations of the Menzies Review of Tender Procedures for the Coast- watch Contract. For example, in recommendation five, Mr Menzies said: The role of Committees and like bodies used in the tender assessment process and, particularly where these Committees are inter-departmental, the role of each member should be clearly defined. The Minister does not seem to be able to define coherently the role of the Department of Finance in this Interdepartmental Committee on Coastal Surveillance, apart from having a look at some financial aspects of a draft tender back in 1985. If that was its role, it was a nonsensical role, and I wonder whether the Minister could not give some attention to what would be the proper role for the Department of Finance in a situation where the prime department has a lack of competence and experience, knowledge of which should have been available to the Department of Finance in this kind of operation. Another comment is made on page 76 in the conclusions of the Menzies report, where it is recommended that `if necessary, the services of a person with appropriate expertise either from another Department or, if necessary, from outside the Public Service' should be called in where there are particular problems or it is appropriate to undertake a detailed examination. I do not know to what extent the Department of Finance has offered those services, whether it did so in this case, or whether it was asked for them in this case. I understand that it was not asked for them, but I am also concerned about the extent to which it did not seek to inquire as to the competence of the Department involved in handling such a matter. Specifically, I would now like to know how soon after the Tender Assessment Committee (TAC) became aware in mid January 1987 of three matters of major concern, outlined in paragraph 4 of page 70 of the findings of the Menzies report, the Department of Finance also became aware of them. The report says: . . . the T.A.C., the body comprising representatives of interested Departments- the Department of Finance was not interested in that case in almost every sense- . . . that Amann: had little relevant experience in the Aviation industry; while he had plans for a future organization to work under the contract, he had no organization in place other than a family partnership; and had no aircraft suitable for operation under the contract. . . . . If Amann's costings had been competently investigated, the result would have been to cast considerable doubt on Amann's financial and administrative competence. I want to know how soon after the TAC became aware of this the Department or the Minister for Finance became aware, as a member of the Interdepartmental Committee on Coastal Surveillance, that there were problems. Was the Minister ever told there were problems? If so, when? If not, why not? If so, what did he or his Department do about correcting the problems? When I say `Minister', I mean the Minister or his Department. What action did the Department take in this respect? Was the Interdepartmental Committee on Coastal Surveillance ever advised on any of the problems that have been outlined in the Menzies Review of Tender Procedures for the Coastwatch Contract? If so, why did the Department of Finance, a member of that Committee, not take action on those matters? Why did it not seek to use its expertise in an area where there was such incompetence? If the Department was not called in, why did it not invite itself in? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(8.31) —I have not read that entire report of the Menzies Review of Tender Procedures for the Coastwatch Contract. However, I am somewhat fascinated by the concept of de facto criticism. It seems to me to be drawing a fairly long bow. I will ask the Department of Finance for a comment on that aspect. As for the rest of it, I do not know whether Senator Michael Baume has any idea of what the Department of Finance is or what its staff resources are. If I remember correctly, its average staffing level totals 1,415. I think close to 600 of those are involved in the Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office. The Department of Finance is the Government's book-keeper, among other things. Along with the Department of the Treasury, it is involved in economic parameters, forecasts and assumptions and so on. The point I really want to make is that Senator Baume seems to have the idea that the Department of Finance has a responsibility to manage all government business or to oversight the management of the whole Commonwealth bureaucracy. That is not the role of the Department. It does not have the resources to do that. If Senator Baume and his Party think that the Department of Finance ought to have that role, obviously it would require a good deal more staff to do it. I thought that the Opposition was supposed to be against a larger bureaucracy. Senator Baume asked what I knew about the coastwatch issue. Of course, I knew that a contract was to be left. I knew that through Cabinet discussions and/or submissions. I did not know anything beyond that, until questions were asked here in March or April, or whenever it was, this year. Whether the Department at that stage became involved I do not know. I can find out and let Senator Baume know later on. If I remember correctly, at that stage the contracts had been signed. I do not see any particular reason for the Department of Finance to have got involved at that stage. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of the Treasury Proposed expenditure, $725,727,000 Senator PARER(Queensland)(8.34) —I would like to direct my remarks to the taxation area of the Department of the Treasury. Before doing so I would like to comment that the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) should be absolutely ashamed of the level of officers it sent to the Estimates Committee C because of their total inability to answer simple questions in regard to tax, which is something I think that exercises the minds, certainly of all working Australians, if not all Australians. I think it is worth quoting from part of the Estimates Committee C report, which states: The representation . . . at the Committee's hearing, was particularly unsatisfactory in the latter regard. That is in regard to the level of seniority of officers who attended. I interpose also to say that the Department of Finance and Department of the Treasury were represented by very senior officers, including Dr Higgins from the Department of Treasury. The level of attendance of Taxation Office officers was singularly disgraceful. The report continued: The officers from the ATO who attended the hearing with some exceptions, were not able to provide answers to the questions-some of which were simple questions on taxation administration-put by the Committee and had to take such questions on notice. The Committee strongly believes that it is incumbent on departments and authorities to ensure that officers who do attend Estimates Committee hearings are officers of sufficient seniority, experience and knowledge to assist the Committee. Unlike all other Estimates committees which I attended, as at this morning Estimates Committee C had not received from the Taxation Office one reply to questions on notice. Later in the morning we received a list of replies to questions I had asked. I think it is worth noting also that it was only today that we received the annual report of the Commissioner of Taxation. That makes our task and the task of this Parliament somewhat difficult. Having made those remarks, I would like to comment on taxation itself. I refer to the report from the Commissioner of Taxation received today and to remarks made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Budget Speech when he said that he had provided this country with the greatest reforms in Australia's history in respect of both equity and simplicity. I refer also to the indication he gave that there would be a taxation reduction for ordinary taxpayers. I think it is worth citing some figures contained in the report. The report states that in 1984-85 net revenue collected from income tax was $34.27 billion-or close enough to it. As at the end of 1986-87, net revenue collected from income tax was $45.962 billion, an increase of 30 per cent in two years. So much for the claim that people are getting taxation reductions. It could be argued, quite correctly to some extent, that perhaps there has been a growth in the number of taxpayers. So there has. However, over that period the growth in the number of taxpayers-I guess returns as well-was 4 per cent. If we take the Forward Estimates and carry through to 1987-88, we see that the net revenue collected from income tax will have risen from $35.27 billion in 1984-85 to $50.185 billion as at the end of June next year. That is an increase of 42.3 per cent in three years. It does not matter which other area one wishes to look at; total revenue collected has gone up something like 30 per cent in two years. Sales tax has increased 20 per cent in two years. If one looks at the Forward Estimates for the year ended 1987-88 it will be seen that sales tax will have increased 43 per cent in three years. Therefore, we have the highest taxing government this country has ever seen. There is no sign that this will change. The comment that the Government is looking at reducing taxation is nothing more than a pea and thimble trick. Senator Maguire —John Howard increased sales tax by 66 per cent in two Budgets. Senator PARER —If Senator Maguire had looked at the figures, he would not be interjecting. In view of the fact that the Treasurer made such a big note of the so-called simplicity and equity in his tax reform, I would like to ask: How equitable is this tax reform? It has recently been brought to my attention-in fact, I have a case history and I am prepared to get it for anyone who wishes to have it-that a taxpayer in Brisbane did not submit a return for one year. He was served with a summons by the Tax Office. Senator Walters —For two years? Senator PARER —For one year. He was served with a summons by the Tax Office. He went to an accountant where it was determined that he was due for a refund. The accountant contacted the Tax Office in Brisbane and explained the position. The officer-I can obtain the name of the officer if anybody wishes to get it-advised that under the circumstances the return should be submitted and the charge would be withdrawn. The return was submitted and, notwithstanding the advice given by the officer, the charge was proceeded with and the taxpayer fined some $350. Senator Michael Baume —His name would not be Keating? Senator PARER —Talk about equity. The Minister will be aware of the celebrated case of the Treasurer in not submitting his own return for two years. Notwithstanding that as Treasurer his own behaviour should be beyond reproach he brushed off criticism by saying that he did not owe the Tax Office anything and was due for a refund after two years. From the point of view of equity I think the question must be asked, and could the Minister advise, whether there are two tax laws in Australia, one for the very ordinary Australian and one for the privileged. Another question I would like to raise is in respect of the answers which, I inform the House, we have just received today. It is a capital gains tax question. I ask: Is it a fact that the renewal or extension by, say, a mineral operator of exploration or mining tenements under relevant States' mining Acts amount to a disposal and re-acquisition of a fresh asset subject to capital gains provisions? The response I received from the Department leaves me as confused as I was before. The response states: Under the capital gains tax legislation, the expiry or surrender of an asset being a right- incidentally, an exploration licence is not normally looked on as an asset, it is looked on as a liability; however, the Tax Office has different definitions- or an interest to a right over property amounts to disposal. A subsequent renewal or extension of the right by way of a grant or otherwise is considered to be an acquisition of a new asset. As far as I can gather, this is the reason given for it: Generally new terms and conditions are attached to the re-grant of exploration tenements. Okay, we know where we are going now. It is taxable. According to paragraph 1 of the response it is taxable if we get a renewed exploration permit. However, the third paragraph states: Representations have been made concerning the application of capital gains tax to the mining industry and in particular the effect of a renewal or extension of a right. The Government has indicated it will consider the matters that have been raised by the industry in the context of a review currently being made of the roll-over provisions in capital gains tax legislation. A determination has been made that it is taxable. The Government has been receiving applications from the industry and is currently reviewing them. I ask: what is the status of the review? The other question I raised was in regard to the evaluation methodology which the Department is prepared to accept in valuing exploration interests subject to farm-out. The response I have received states: With regard to farm-out arrangements for cash, work program commitments, or a combination of both, the Commissioner has reissued a ruling-taxation ruling No. IT2378 of 24 December 1986-setting out the guidelines in respect of the operation of the legislation of farm-outs as well as the principles to assist in the determination of market value. A copy of the ruling is enclosed for information. As I indicated, this piece of paper arrived on my desk at about mid-day today. The ruling is nine pages long. It is simply to determine whether capital gains tax should apply to a farm-out arrangement where there might be a work program, cash or a combination of both. It is nine pages long. So much for simplicity in the reform. I think I asked the question at some later date: Does the Department itself recognise how complex this is and that few accounting firms are starting to specialise in this area because of its complexity and the lack of understanding? I challenge honourable senators to look at this tax ruling which is nine pages long on the simple question of capital gains regarding farm-outs. When I asked a question on complexity-again, the answer has only arrived today; I am only reading it for the second time-the glib reply was: It is expected that with introduction of any new tax a familiarisation period will be needed by the professions and the public generally. It goes on. A question was asked: `Are there any plans to simplify procedures, given the fact that records have to be kept for a lifetime to provide an ability to check and pursue them which must be an inconvenience and costly procedure for the Tax Office itself? The answer was that taxpayers are expected to keep all the records. A few exceptions were made, such as the household refrigerator and other things that do not really matter. In regard to a question I asked in respect of pastoral leases in the Northern Territory converted to freehold, I am pleased to say that I received a satisfactory answer. I am not saying that I am satisfied because I agree with it, but it was one that I could understand and it made sense. I asked one more question in respect of the Taxation Office returning 20,000 tax forms to taxpayers to have second declaration signatures put on them. I queried the cost. In fact, I was wrong. There were not 20,000 Tax returns returned, there were 92,000 returned. Postage cost $49,000. As claimed, only clerical procedures were involved and it was difficult to determine the precise cost of returning those forms. A question was asked: Why was it necessary to return for additional signatures tax declarations which already had one signature upon them? It was a fairly complex type of answer, but the response was that most people returned them with the second signature anyway. So I am not too sure what the whole thing achieved. In conclusion, I repeat that we have a so-called tax reform system which is supposed to be equitable and simplistic. I ask: Is it equitable when we have the example which I gave of a taxpayer who had been singled out for not putting in his tax return for one year? He was told if his return went in all would be forgiven. He was subsequently charged and had to pay a fine. I have great difficulty reconciling that with a man who is in charge of the Tax Office being the Treasurer who did not put his tax return in for two years. I do not know whether he was charged or not. If so, I have not read about it. I am sure I would have remembered if I had read about it or the Press would have made sure that we did. The basic difference is that there is a law for the ordinary person and another law for the privileged. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(8.49) —I would like to raise two or three matters in relation to the Department of the Treasury. The first relates to the role of the Price Watch Network which has been established by this Government and on which there is comment from the Department of the Treasury in response to a question, I think, from Senator Stone during the Estimates committee hearing. Senator Stone asked whether the Government felt it was getting value for money in its Price Watch Network and whether any economic purpose was being served by this enterprise. The answer, not surprisingly, was: Yes; the Government supports the activities of the Price Watch Network and believes that it provides substantial benefits to the community. I might say that the remainder of the answer did not really provide any substantive support for the proposition that there were benefits to the community. It was also said that, whilst specific benefits flowing from these Price Watch activities are not quantifiable, relative to the very modest expenditures, they entail for government, the program is justified. Later, in a response to a question asked by me, the Department of the Treasury stated that a grant of $15,000 had been made in June 1987 to the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations (AFCO) and that that grant followed the announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in March 1987 that the Government was committed to assisting Price Watch activities and that this $15,000 was directed towards the setting up and operating of Price Watch committees. I want to comment on the $15,000-it is a small amount but the principle is very important-that was granted by the Government, through the Treasury, to the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations. I want to ask the Minister for his view on this question: Why should taxpayers be asked to provide funds to an organisation such as the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations? The Federation and one of its main constituent bodies, the Australian Consumers Association (ACA), are well known, I guess, to many members of the community, but perhaps not as well known as they should be. In the 1986 winter issue of the Institute of Public Affairs Review, Mr Bob Browning wrote a very important and fascinating article entitled `The Rise of the PAGUTS'. By `PAGUT' Mr Browning meant political advocacy groups utilising taxes. In other words, a PAGUT was an organisation which was using taxpayers' money to pursue some specific political or narrow issue interest. In the same article, Mr Browning gave a very interesting description of the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations and of the Australian Consumers Association. Let me quote some of his comments in that article. He said that the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations, amongst other things, is affiliated with the ACF, that is, the Australian Conservation Foundation. More importantly, he said: AFCO is over 99 per cent funded by the Federal Government. Since the ALP took office federally, AFCO's funding has risen 300 per cent. I might add that this article was written in June 1986. That percentage figure would be considerably higher now. The article continues: AFCO is specifically mentioned in the Federal Labor Party Platform as a community group to be funded and supported. Senator Maguire —Don't Coles and Myers and other retailers fund that outfit you are quoting from? Senator SHORT —Ninety-nine per cent of the outfit's funds comes from pay-out grants from the honourable senator's Government. The most influential constituent member of the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations is the Australian Consumers Association. That Association purports to speak for the consumers of Australia. It claims a very large membership. It claims subscribers to its magazine Choice as members, but that is the same as saying that Kerry Packer could claim that he has one million subscribers because of the people who read the Australian Women's Weekly, which is equally nonsensical. In fact, the Australian Consumers Association has barely 200 members who are able to vote for its governing body. The article continues: As few as 59 votes have been cast in general elections of ACA governing councillors. The Council is a 20-member body in which academics . . . predominate. . . . . The ACA is in the forefront of those groups clamouring for more `community' participation in public policy as a democratic right, while maintaining a tiny electoral base and a tight oligarchic control of its own `community' group. The article continues: The ACA and AFCO are affiliates of the International Organisation of Consumer Unions. Long standing ACA Governing Councillor, Associate Professor Ted Wheelwright, generally presents the ACA's main papers at IOCU World Congresses. Those dealing with multinational capitalism, which most do, are prepared by the think tank he heads- I think he might have retired now- the Transnational Corporation's Research Project. Wheelwright's TNCRP was originally set up with a grant from the Whitlam Government. Subsequent finance has come from the Wran Government. One of the think tank's first acts was to co-operate with the Institute of Policy Studies to set up another think tank-the Transnational co-operative-based in a group of left wing unions led by the AMWU. More recently, the Federal Government's Community Employment Program- which fortunately, I think due to pressures from this side of the Parliament, has been scrapped by the Government- financed a TNC project to design strategies to counter the `New Right'. That is the so-called and mythical New Right. Senator Michael Baume —That cost $140,000. Senator SHORT —Something of that order, yes. Again, to quote Mr Browning: . . . the Australian Consumer Association constantly makes complaints to various tribunals as well as to the media. It sent 26 pages of complaints, for example, to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, alleging `widespread flouting of the law' by commercial advertisers on NSW television stations, and called for more regulation of advertising. After lengthy inquiries extending over 18 months at considerable cost, Sir Richard Kirby announced the combined findings of relevant public and private industry bodies. He dismissed 113 of the ACA's 127 complaints as `without substance', and said that the other 14 were only technical breaches. He said that the ACA's complaints had `an air of unreality about them'. I ask the Minister: Why should an organisation such as the ACA, which for no good reason has recently destroyed a pate manufacturer in my State of Victoria-I will come back to that-and which relies almost exclusively on Government funding to finance its anti-business and anti-democratic activities, be getting this funding? In the incident that I mentioned of a pate manufacturer in Victoria, the ACA took it upon itself to do tests on pate and produced an article in Choice on this whole exercise. The header to the article states: Our tests found unacceptable levels in almost every brand. There is only one mention in the whole of the Choice article that the tests were carried out on a selection of pate in the Sydney metropolitan area. Before the article was even published it was stated, because it was written in the article, that all the manufacturers involved `have since changed their manufacturing and handling procedures'. Yet, in the concluding paragraph of the article it is stated: We suggest that if you buy pate you do so from retail outlets with a high turnover, and check the use-by date to ensure you're buying products that are as fresh as possible. However in the light of our findings, it's probably safest to make your own. The article goes on to give examples of how to make one's own pate. There is only one mention that the tests were carried out on a selection of pate in the Sydney metropolitan area. A manufacturer of pate in Melbourne has virtually been put out of business as a result of the absolutely scurrilous article that appeared in Choice on this matter. There is a very interesting, but sad, report in the Melbourne Sun of 12 November. I quote from the Article: Staff at a Dandenong pate factory yesterday pleaded for the public to save their jobs. Workers at Brecomel Pty Ltd, the company which produces Heritage Pate, said they faced the sack because sales had slumped in the wake of an article in Choice magazine which found harmful bacteria in some NSW pate. In a letter to The Sun they said: ``We are not the owners of the company which produces Heritage Pate. ``We are the ones who actually make the pate. ``We are the ones that have to cook the pate for 45 minutes, we are the ones that have to abide by very strict health and quality controls set in our place of work. ``We are also the ones that feel very pleased with ourselves when independent laboratory tests are regularly carried out and we are told `your pate passes all tests with flying colours'.'' The newspaper report in the Sun goes on to say: The 10 workers appealed for the public not to brand their pate as unhealthy because of the bacteria detected in some NSW brands. The article carries on in a like frame. I find that the activities of organisations such as, and in particular, the Australian Consumers Association, are philosophically and ideologically anti-business and, I believe, anti-democratic. The activities of such organisations are quite disgraceful in a society such as ours. Senator Michael Baume —Anti-small business. Senator SHORT —And small business in particular, of which the business I have just referred to in my State of Victoria is a classic example. Small business, employment, investment and the general activity in our economy and society suffer as a result of such matters. I would like to ask the Minister in that context whether he, his Department and the Government will look again at the criteria they adopt for funding organisations particularly, but not exclusively, the Australian Consumers Association. Surely there must be some standards for funding and the use of taxpayers' money. The standards at best are very low, or else they are not being adhered to. I would like a comment from the Minister on that issue. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(9.04) —I have two questions. When a senator asks a question at a Senate Estimates committee and receives an inconclusive answer, does this absolve the Minister from formally answering or acknowledging a question which has earlier been placed on the Senate Notice Paper? In my second question I wish to follow a theme introduced by my colleague, Senator Parer, about a delay by the Australian Taxation Office in responding to a question at a Senate Estimates committee. I wish to use this opportunity to ask the Minister whether the Taxation Office has responded to him with respect to queries raised in the committee stages of a debate on Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) concerning section 46e of the principal Act, which the Taxation Office was unable to answer at the time, took on notice, and gave an undertaking to the Committee to respond to. With that assurance we went ahead and passed Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3). We are disappointed in the delay in that response. Could we please have some updated information on those two requests? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.05) —I am getting a note on the last part of the question. I just want to say a couple of things about the other points that have been raised. Regarding the criticism by the Committee of the Taxation Office, I have a note from the Commissioner of Taxation to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on this, a copy of which was supplied to me. I think the Commissioner makes some valid points. Concerning Estimates committees in general, I have often been disturbed at the very large number of fairly senior public servants who hang around in the corridors here and downstairs when Estimates committees are sitting. I am disturbed not only by the large numbers of people involved but also by the fact that for several hours they often do not know whether they will be called. I have seen some groups sit around for several hours and not even be called that day. Some trade-off has to be made; some balance point has to be struck. In regard to the Taxation Office in particular, I do not know of any other agency of the Government where the range of subject matter dealt with is so extensive and where knowledge needs to be so specialised. As the Commissioner points out in his note: . . . if I were to appear myself, or if the Second Commissioners were to do so, then we could still not answer on the spot all the questions that, on the experience of the recent hearings and of others, may be put. That is not, I trust, a reflection of our capacity but of the fact that tax law and associated administration is so vast that we must all resort to a degree of specialisation. The Commissioner also says, and if the Committee is serious about this matter I suggest it act on it: I indicated earlier that we do aim to give appropriate service to the parliament and its Committees and, with that in mind, my officers did ask the Committee secretariat before the most recent hearing for an indication of the lines of questioning that Senators might pursue. We were not able to be helped in this way. He goes on to say: I have attached a list which identifies the subject matter of each of the questions on which written responses were required. Six of those questions related to capital gains tax, the other five covered a wider range of issues. Had we known in advance that Committee members were intending to raise capital gains tax matters, I would expect that, with our `experts' present we could have readily responded to those questions and possibly limited the need for written responses to five issues. We should be a bit reasonable about this sort of thing. A trade-off has to be struck somewhere. As I said earlier, in probably no area is it as difficult as it is for the Taxation Office to provide a sufficient number of people with a sufficient degree of specialisation to answer questions which may be put. If the committees are serious about getting more considered responses, I suggest they act on the Commissioner's suggestion that some notice be given not of specific questions, because I can see that sometimes people might not want to give notice of a particular question, but of the general areas in which they are interested. I was asked by Senator Parer about the status of the review of capital gains taxes as they affect mining leases subject to farm-outs. The review is still under way. In regard to Senator Short's 15 minutes, I think it was, he was really raising policy questions, not Estimates questions. Senator Watson's question related to Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3), and section 46e. He said that the questions were taken on notice and the answers are not yet available to him. Off the top of my head I do not know where they are, nor, apparently, do the officers. Senator Watson —Why has it taken so long? You had three officers of the Department with you at the time of the committee stage of the debate. Senator WALSH —I do not know that. I was here at the time and as I recall it was fairly complex. I do not know how long ago, about three weeks or something-- Senator Watson —That is right, but you expect us to pass complex legislation without understanding it. Senator WALSH —If it makes Senator Watson feel any better, even though, as I recall, the subject matter was fairly complex, it seems to me that enough time has elapsed for an answer to have been supplied. But I do not know where the answer is now-whether it has been finished or where it is lying. I will find out as soon as I can. If the answer is prepared I will do everything I can to get it to Senator Watson as quickly as possible. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(9.10) —Can the Minister respond to my first question in relation to the position where a senator asks a question at a Senate Estimates committee meeting and receives an inconclusive answer? Does this absolve the Minister from formally answering or acknowledging a question which has been placed on the Notice Paper earlier? Senator Walsh —I am sorry; could you repeat that? I did not follow it. Senator WATSON —We have some difficulties where a question has been formally placed on the Notice Paper and that or a similar question is subsequently asked at a Senate Estimates committee and there is an inconclusive answer to that question. Does this absolve the Minister from formally acknowledging or answering the question which has earlier been placed on the Notice Paper? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.11) —The proposition is that a question has been put on notice, it has been answered and the answer is-- Senator Watson —No, it has not been answered. Senator WALSH —It has not been answered? Senator Watson —Well, there is an inconclusive answer at a Senate Estimates committee. Does that absolve the Minister from formally answering the question on the Notice Paper? Senator WALSH —A question has been placed on notice and has not been answered; is that correct? Senator Watson —Yes. Senator WALSH —I will refer that to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) for his view on it but with the caveat that I have known some questions, under the previous Government and under the present Government, to lie on the Notice Paper for a very long time. The Treasurer may have a view on this. I would have thought that if a question were on the Notice Paper there would be an obligation to answer it. Senator Watson —That is what we thought. Senator WALSH —Whether the answer is regarded as satisfactory is a separate question and often a subjective one. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.13) —I wonder whether the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) can help me in regard to sales tax for night lighting of a sporting club. The sporting club has young members who work all day and are unable to partake of the sport during the day. At the moment this sporting club is saving madly to install night lighting. Is that night lighting subject to sales tax? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.13) —I will have to take that on notice. Senator PARER(Queensland)(9.14) —Everyone knows that no one likes paying tax but, if people are going to be slugged, I think they feel a little happier if they believe that everyone is being slugged equitably. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.14) —I did mean to answer that but I forgot about it. Does Senator Parer mind if I do it now? Senator Parer —No. Senator WALSH —I am, of course, not familiar with the details of the particular case from Brisbane that Senator Parer mentioned but I do know of something which is a problem-and I think a problem which is not entirely eradicable. The administration of the taxation legislation is decentralised; that is, we have a Commissioner of Taxation in Canberra and two or three associate commissioners, I think they are called. We have a deputy in the Australian Capital Territory and probably-I am not sure-a deputy in Darwin, but certainly we have deputies in all the States. Inevitably, there are matters on which the Commissioner or his deputies have some discretion. Because of the decentralised nature, with eight or nine different people involved, precisely the same action is not always taken in a particular set of circumstances. I think one has to accept that that will inevitably happen to some extent, and the best we can hope for is that the Commissioner will keep that matter under review and do what he can do to ensure that discretions are applied as uniformly as possible. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(9.15) —I raise a quite different matter, a matter which I raised with Senator Walsh in a question last year. It relates to the practice whereby the increase in Government spending in the Budget Papers is shown on a basis net of revenue gathered in charges and is directly related to the particular type of expenditure; for example, air navigation charges. The matter was raised this year in a passing context in the considerations in Senate Estimates Committee C. It arose in relation to the $125m of debt which was cancelled in the case of South Australia recently. That had an effect on the national debt sinking fund figures in the Commonwealth Budget Papers. It was acknowledged by officials, I think in response to questioning from Senator Parer and Senator Stone, that, but for this treatment of the $125m of South Australian debt, the expenditure side of the Budget would have been $125m higher. The officials, I think correctly, confirmed this. That is an example of a rising trend that has occurred over recent years of higher and higher levels of charges and offsets to expenditure in a revenue sense which has had the effect of understating the increase in government spending that has been occurring from year to year. For example, in 1980-81 the outlays that were financed from revenue sources linked specifically to outlays was $1.04 billion. This figure then rose progressively to $1.38 billion in 1983-84. In 1984-85, it was $2.1 billion. In 1985-86, it was $2.4 billion. In 1986-87 it was $3 billion and this year the estimate is $4.1 billion. In other words, the amount of offset that has been occurring each year has increased quite dramatically-a four-fold increase in fact in the last seven or eight years. The effect of that, of course, in relation to the published figures for government expenditure is quite considerable and I think could well be claimed to lead to a distortion, and a distortion which has been increasingly important in recent years because it has had the effect of suggesting that the Government of the day-regardless of which political party is in government-has been curbing its expenditure growth by less than it has simply by resorting more and more to financing outlays through charges and fees. In the three years, for example, to 1986-87, expenditure other than that financed by fees and charges increased at an annual rate of 9.8 per cent, but expenditure financed through this offset process increased by 29 per cent annually. When I asked the Minister a question on that in the Senate a year or so ago, he said that, as he understood it, the Treasury and the Department of Finance had followed for many years the international accounting conventions which define what is treated as revenue, what is treated as outlays and what revenue can be treated as an offset to outlays. Having heard nothing to the contrary from the Minister, I assume that that was an accurate statement. If that is the case, it still begs the question whether the presentation of the Budget Papers is as objective, as descriptive and as accurate as it should be. It seems to me to be a fairly important point if we are all trying to understand the meaning of the Budget papers that are presented each year. I would appreciate a comment from the Minister on whether the Treasury or the Department of Finance has been looking at that matter and whether there might be any suggested changes to the presentation of the accounts to take account of that fact. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.21) —I do not remember the detail of the question which was asked a year or so ago, although I do remember such a question being asked. Therefore, I do not remember the detail of the answer that I gave, either. The general answer to the question is that we do follow the international conventions on accountancy, but there are differing practices on a few specific items in different countries. The definitions used by the Australian Statistician are, of course, important as well. As the Statistician is a statutory independent officer, he is not subject to any direction from the Government. The preparation of the Budget Papers in general is guided by the Statistician's definitions and the other international accounting conventions. I think that this question is one for Finance rather than Treasury, and I will answer it as well as I am able. One can make three broad distinctions, granted that at the margin the distinction is not always unambiguous. The guidelines which are followed are that where a charge is levied for a service provided-Senator Short used air navigation charges as being clearly one such example-that is counted as an offset to outlays. His argument, which I do not think has much to do with the Appropriation Bills, seems to be that it is conceptually wrong to do that because it gives the impression that, if charges are being increased, government expenditure is being reduced when it is not. That is the honourable senator's view; it is not a view that I accept, because where a service is being provided by government, if anything less than full cost is being charged to the user of that service, that margin is clearly a government outlay. However, if the full cost of the service is being charged, there is no net outlay. A charge of a regulatory nature may be applied, as distinct from a service provided. I cannot think of a specific example in the Commonwealth government sector, but a State government example is a driving licence charge or a dog licence charge. Charges such as that in the Commonwealth sector of a regulatory nature are counted as non-tax revenue. If there is a charge over and above a regulatory charge-a charge for a service provided-it is counted as taxation. The main point Senator Short tried to make-if I understood it correctly-is that he was challenging the conceptual basis of the convention that, if a government is following a policy of moving towards or fully achieving, through charges, the cost of a service which is provided by the Government, that distorts the true picture. That is Senator Short's judgment: it is not one that I conceptually agree with. It is true that the Government is, quite deliberately in some areas, moving towards following that as a policy objective-for either complete or a higher proportion of cost recovery than has been the case in the immediate past. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(9.26) —I thank the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) for his answer. I make it clear that I am not arguing against, for example, increasing use of the user pays principle, which is what we have been talking about in essence. The point I make is that, of the funds to meet government expenditure of, say, $20m to come out of general revenue, the expenditure figure in the Budget is $20m. If, on the other hand, it is financed out of fees and charges to the full extent of $20m, a nil expenditure is shown in the Budget. That is patently nonsense. As governments move more towards the adoption of user pays principles, there will be progressively a distortion in the sense of lack of comparability of expenditure figures from one year to the next. So what is shown in the Budget figures will not be an accurate reflection of the Government's expenditure per se. That is the point I am trying to make. As we move more towards the use of fees and charges, fees for services and the user pays principle, that in itself warrants a look at the point that I have made about whether the traditional and long-standing accounting conventions in this area are still valid. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(9.28) —We have only just received the annual report for 1986-87 of the Commissioner of Taxation and it is too late for it to be dealt with by Senate Estimates committees. This is the first opportunity one has to ask questions about this report. I keep saying that for the benefit of Government Ministers who might look pained. If these things were made available when they should be, honourable senators opposite would not have to put up with this sort of thing in the Committee of the Whole. The reality of this report is that, despite considerable increases in efficiencies within the Australia Taxation Office (ATO), as noted in the Commissioner's report, there has been an increase, as is revealed on page 85 of the annual report, in the cost of collection of taxation revenue over recent years. There has been a very slight decline by 0.008 per cent in the latest year but, compared with 1982-83, when the cost was 0.938 per cent of total collections, it is now 1.06 per cent. I wonder whether, in the last two years, this percentage was higher because of the higher cost of collecting the new taxes that the Government has introduced or because of the new systems being introduced in the Office which may ultimately provide some greater efficiencies in the longer run. That matter can be pursued after we hear the answer. I also wonder why there is not a table in this annual report, as there was in last year's annual report, showing in simple terms the basis of prosecutions-for example, for late lodgment of taxation returns-a table which, as I recall it, appeared to embarrass the Treasurer (Mr Keating) because of his experience in that area. I cannot find a comparable table. The report contains a table on comparable prosecutions but it does not seem to be as direct as the table which clearly embarrassed the Treasurer last time. I wondered why a comparable table is not in this annual report. Page 14 of the report contains some substantiation of the point that I was making to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) during the Budget debate on the estimate by the Government of provisional tax collections. I said to him that if 11 per cent were used by the Government as the automatic forward index in establishing what its expectations of provisional tax would be for non-pay as you earn taxpayers, clearly that Budget estimate was at risk. I am not certain whether that 11 per cent is the basis on which the provisional tax element of that section is made up. But if it is, I point out to the Minister that it is revealed on page 14 of the report that, for example, there were 198,645 current year variations to provisional tax in the 12 months to June 1987, with a net decrease of $904m in the amount of provisional tax levied. I can assure the Minister that, in view of the stock exchange fallout, a far greater revision will be required because of the enormous decrease that I am certain will take place in the provisional tax that is levied. The other point that should be made relates to the analysis of unpaid tax which is made in the report. The Tax Office says that there was a further significant reduction in the amount of unpaid tax outstanding. In the introduction to the annual report, among the highlights of the year, the Commissioner says: For the third year in succession the percentage of tax that was unpaid at the end of the year has fallen, following six years of continual increases. The figure at 30 June 1987 of 17.63 per cent is the lowest since 1978-79 and compares favourably with 20.76 per cent at 30 June 1986. As I understand it from looking at the table-and perhaps I can be corrected by the Minister-the reduction in the amount of unpaid tax at the close of the year from $3.139 billion to $3.098 billion can largely be explained by the fact that there was a write-off of irrecoverable tax of $163m in 1986-87, suggesting that perhaps all is not as brilliant as it may seem if that write-off had an impact on those figures. I would like to have the Minister's comment on that. I would also like to refer to the higher cost of tax collections. This relatively high cost per dollar of tax collected has arisen despite the fact that there has been a 16 per cent increase in tax collections which was $1.2 billion in excess of Budget estimates. The Commissioner is very pleased with this, saying that this is a clear indication of achievement and has been possible only because of the dedication and sheer hard work of ATO staff. For that he thanks them. While taxpayers may not thank him, there is no doubt that that was certainly an effective contribution by the Tax Office. I wonder about the extent to which the Cullen report has had a satisfactory response. However, I will save that for another occasion. I will simply leave my comments at that for the moment. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.35) —Regarding the cost of collection, prior to 1983-84, the cost of collection did not include the full accommodation cost it now does. The increase in 1986-87 and 1987-88, if not entirely attributable, is certainly very substantially attributable to the start-up of a number of the tax reform measures. An extra 800 staff were associated with that. Once the systems are established, there will no longer be such a high staff requirement. I must confess that I had not seen the 1986-87 annual report of the Commissioner of Taxation until an official just handed it to me. Other questions were asked about the level of outstanding tax and the absolute amount that was written off. I am not sure what the answer to that is. I will see whether I can get an answer at some later time. But I think the graph on page 15 is important because it is more or less neutral to changes in prices-the general price level or income levels. It shows tax outstanding as a proportion of tax collectable. As Senator Baume has already mentioned, the bar graph shows a decline from something over 25 per cent in 1983-84 to around 17 1/2 per cent in 1986-87. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(9.37) —Can the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) answer the question I asked during Question Time on 19 November regarding the tax file number advice card? The Minister offered to see whether an answer could be given as soon as possible. I wonder whether this is an appropriate place for the Minister to inform me when the decision was made to issue the Australian tax file number advice cards, to whom were the cards issued and what was the estimated cost of production of issuing these cards? Can the Minister answer those questions at this time? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.37) —I have a note on this matter which I had not seen until just now. I do not think I need to read all of it to the Committee. But let me say that estimates of the cost of production and issue of cards are approximately $40,000 for printing, posting and staff for 38,000 cards issued in 1987-88. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(9.38) —I ask the Minister to table the document from which he is reading. I also ask: To whom were the cards issued? Senator WALSH(Victoria-Minister for Finance)(9.38) —I was hoping that it would not be necessary to read all of this material. I have not had a chance to read it myself. But the advice is that tax file number advice cards were first issued in mid-1983 as part of an information package to taxpayers concerning the prescribed payments system (PPS) which came into operation from 1 September in that year. The information packages were issued to taxpayers whom the Australian Taxation Office had identified as potentially subject to the PPS system. The file number advice card was provided to taxpayers as a convenient record of their tax file numbers to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the PPS measure. File number advice cards are now issued to all persons who make application for a tax file number. Proposed expenditure agreed to. GROUP B Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Proposed expenditure, $1,229,496,000 Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.39) —Senator Newman asked several questions which I will attempt to answer insofar as is possible to do so. I mentioned before dinner that an Australian Federal Police (AFP) investigation was under way. I am informed by officials that in fact the Australian Federal Police have 23 files as part of their investigation at the moment. Because the investigation has not been completed, the AFP has been precluded from being able to answer some of the questions over the dinner hour. Senator Newman's first question was: What was the total cost . . . to get the Hercules aircraft to Ethiopia and back? I am told that the refurbishment and delivery cost $1.53m; the return cost was $326,442. However, the officials say that that may need some refinement. Senator Newman asked: Is the Department satisfied that it paid only the actual costs? As matters are under investigation by the AFP, I am unable to make any comment as to whether the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau (AIDAB) is satisfied that it paid only the actual costs. Senator Newman's next question was: Did the International Red Cross insist that $250,000-worth of expensive avionics be installed in the Ethiopian Hercules? Perhaps we can call it that for short. As far as I am aware, requests for avionics did not arise in discussions between the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Australian Government, but the Australian Government did accept an obligation to refurbish the aircraft to acceptable standard for flying in difficult conditions in Ethiopia during the lease period of one year. The next question was: Did the Department of Defence and the Royal Australian Air Force say that this was unnecessary? The answer to that is no; no such advice was conveyed from that Department and the Royal Australian Air Force. The honourable senator asked: Did the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) insist on the installation by written directive? Once again, I am informed that the answer is no. Question 5 comes from questions which were read into Hansard: What was the advice of the Department of Foreign Affairs on the program? Was that sought? The advice to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) was that it was feasible, but that there would be high costs to provide the aircraft to respond to the Ethiopia emergency. In fact, before the aircraft was returned by the International Committee of the Red Cross, it was performing very well in Ethiopia in terms of delivering relief to people in need in remote areas. That appears to be the advice-that it was feasible but high costs were involved. The next question was: What was the advice tendered by AIDAB to the Prime Minister when he made the offer of the aircraft to Geldof . . . AIDAB did not provide advice direct to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The response I have is that questions about advice offered to the Prime Minister should be raised in another place. I do not know what that means. Perhaps it means that it is a matter for the estimates of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. AIDAB did not provide advice direct to the Prime Minister. Question 7 reads: If the aircraft is on the Liberian registry why has this been done? The response is that the aircraft could not be registered as a civilian aircraft in Australia. The agent was required to register it in a country acceptable to the International Committee of the Red Cross. Liberia is a signatory of ICAO-the International Civil Aviation Organisation-the international regulatory body on civil aviation matters. The International Committee of the Red Cross agreed with this registration. Questions 8, 9, 10 and 11 were: Did the pilot of the aircraft to Ethiopia complain about any regularities? If so what was done about the complaints? Was the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) informed about these alleged irregularities? Was the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) informed about these alleged irregularities? According to the officials, those questions should be referred to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Questions 12, 13 and 14 arose out of a transcript, did they not, Senator? Senator Newman —Yes. Senator TATE —Question 12 revolves around something which Peter Couchman said. What is the question? Senator Newman —Questions 12 and 13 concern quotations from a transcript and lead up to a question which is perhaps incorrectly numbered 14. It was a series of questions about how the work was verified, the accounts procedures, authorisation, vouchers, and that kind of thing. Senator TATE —In relation to matters 12, 13 and 14, I have the following material in front of me: matters concerning payments under the contract are under AFP investigation. Therefore, I am unable to comment. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(9.46) —I thank the Minister for his response. I would like the Minister to amplify the answer to question No. 2 because I did not understand what the Minister was telling me about the insistence or otherwise of the International Red Cross regarding the $250,000-worth of avionics to be installed in the Hercules. I could not quite get the gist of his answer. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.47) —As far as the officials are aware, requests for avionics did not arise in discussion between the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Australian Government, which I think was the essence of Senator Newman's question. She asked whether the International Committee of the Red Cross insisted, et cetera. I am told that the matter of avionics did not arise in discussions between the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Australian Government, so obviously there was no insistence on $250,000-worth of expensive avionics being put in. But the officials point out that the Australian Government accepted an obligation to refurbish the aircraft to an acceptable standard of flying in difficult conditions in Ethiopia during the lease period of one year. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(9.47) —I ask the Minister: How did the Government know what was the requirement for upgrading the aircraft to suit flying in Ethiopian conditions? If it did not come from the International Committee of the Red Cross, but the Government accepted its responsibility in this area, who told it what its responsibility was, and what was the cost involved? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.48) —I am advised that the decision as to the most appropriate avionics equipment was made on the advice of the agent concerned. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(9.48) —I thank the Minister. The answer to question 6 was that AIDAB did not provide advice and that I should go to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for any information about advice to the Prime Minister. As AIDAB was the agency responsible for this, am I to assume that, to AIDAB's knowledge, no advice was tendered to the Prime Minister? Did the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade not provide advice to the Prime Minister? Perhaps I should ask: Were AIDAB and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade providing advice on the subject to the Foreign Minister? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.49) —I think all that I said in relation to question 6 was that AIDAB did not provide advice to the Prime Minister. Obviously, AIDAB is responsible to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and advises him on matters within their jurisdiction. Senator Archer —Did it? Senator TATE —Yes. In answer to question 5 I said that the advice given to the Foreign Minister was that the project was feasible but there would be high costs. That is the general tenor of the advice which I understand was given by AIDAB to the Foreign Minister. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(9.50) —I now ask the Minister: Was that advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau passed on to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or the Prime Minister's Department, or was it held within Foreign Affairs? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.50) —I am told by the officials that at the official level that assessment was conveyed to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(9.50) —I thank the Minister for that response. I turn to question 7. I think the Minister addressed himself only to the first part of the question relating to the Liberian registry. I thank him for that answer, but I also asked whether the Department could advise whether lower standards of maintenance are required for that registry. If so, did the Commonwealth have no concern for the safety of the crews who fly in the aircraft entered in on that registry? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.51) —I thought I pointed out that Liberia is not to be thought of as some sort of isolated place which gives easy registration without requiring the necessary standards. I pointed out that Liberia is a signatory to the charter of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. That organisation is the international regulatory body on aviation matters. It was the International Committee of the Red Cross itself which indicated its agreement with the registration under those conditions in accordance with the charter of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. I cannot answer in particular whether any maintenance standard is less than that which obtains in Australia in a domestic airline workshop. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(9.52) —I again thank the Minister for his answer. I now pass on to questions 8, 9, 10 and 11, all relating to the Australian pilot who took the plane to Ethiopia and came back and told Peter Couchman on the Four Corners program of gross irregularities, in his view, relating to the whole exercise. I am not satisfied with the answer given, which was that these matters should be referred to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM and C). As the Minister will be well aware, the Committee has finished dealing with that Department's estimates. Quite apart from that, one of the questions I asked quite specifically was whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) was informed of these irregularities. I would have thought that officers of the Department could have answered that directly from their own knowledge. I also ask: Was the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) informed about these alleged irregularities? It may be that officers of the Department are not aware of whether the pilot informed the Prime Minister directly. But I want to know whether the Foreign Minister was informed. If he was not, why not? Was Foreign Affairs aware of these irregularities but kept them to itself? Were the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Foreign Affairs informed? It is not good enough to refer me to PM and C. I really must insist that better information be given to this Committee. If it cannot be, why not? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.54) —The Australian International Development Assistance Bureau did keep the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) informed of all matters connected with the Hercules. I take it that includes complaints about certain irregularities raised by Senator Newman. Insofar as the complaints were also made to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, as the officials here understand it, they were made by the pilot concerned. The transmission of that knowledge to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was something for the officials from that Department. As the officials here represent the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau, they are not able to say whether that occurred. They have made an assumption that it occurred, but are unable to confirm that it did. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(9.55) —I just want to get this straight. I trust that the correct assumption from what the Minister has said is that the then Australian International Development Assistance Bureau was aware of these allegations. Senator Tate —Yes. Senator NEWMAN —Am I then to assume that AIDAB then informed the Prime Minister's Department? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.55) —No. I am told that the allegations were made direct to the Prime Minister's Department. Therefore, there was not any need for the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau (AIDAB) to inform the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I do not know whether in discussions staff of AIDAB reinforced the allegations or commented on them, but the allegations were made direct to the Prime Minister's Department. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(9.55) —I now ask the Minister: Were no meetings or discussions held between the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet over these allegations? Irrespective of whether meetings were held, what action was taken, to the knowledge of officer's of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.56) —I am informed that discussions did take place between the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau. As to the results of the examination of those matters within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the officials here say that they are unaware of the stage to which that Department eventually took them. That is all I can say at the moment. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(9.57) —I still have a little difficulty in understanding where we are at. The pilot brought the plane back from Ethiopia. The plane was the responsibility of the then Australian International Development Assistance Bureau (AIDAB). AIDAB was made aware of allegations of severe irregularities concerning the whole exercise. AIDAB had meetings with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Did AIDAB lose all responsibility for the plane thereafter? Did AIDAB not have any responsibility to see that the allegations were investigated? Did AIDAB wash its hands of the matter? What is the end of the story? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.58) —I am afraid I cannot take it much further. It is not the case that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden), the officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade or the officials of the then Australian International Development Assistance Bureau (AIDAB) washed their hands of the matter. In fact, the Minister wrote to me, as did the then Acting Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, Senator Gietzelt, in order to place certain serious allegations of fraud against the Commonwealth in the hands of the Australian Federal Police. I assume from that that, far from washing their hands of the matter, the Minister, the Department and AIDAB wanted to see these matters pursued. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(9.59) —I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the Four Corners program which made so much of this matter public was shown on 22 June 1987. I understand from an answer that was given recently by, I think, the Minister-it may have been in an Estimates Committee-that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) referred this matter to the Australian Federal Police in about April or May and that it was some months after the pilot returned that the allegations were first known by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. What was happening over that long period? It seems to me that it has taken a tremendous amount of time for either the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau (AIDAB) or the Foreign Minister to take the necessary action on quite serious allegations. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.00) —My officials say that if we are going to pursue this-which is, of course, Senator Newman's right-there may be a need to clarify whether the allegations which Senator Newman is referring to are those relating to the whole project, including the plane before it left France for Ethiopia, or at some subsequent occasion. They are not quite clear which allegations are being referred to. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(10.01) —The Minister's answer puzzles me. I am concerned about the whole story. There are allegations surrounding the Ethiopian Hercules from the time of the original announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the time that the Hercules got back here. These allegations were brought together in the Four Corners program of 22 June this year, but the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Minister had some months in which to take some sort of meaningful action. As far as I can recall, it was in either April or May that the Minister finally put the matter in the hands of the Australian Federal Police. It seems to me irrelevant for the purpose of my questioning which particular allegations we are talking about. Why was there such a long delay before any action was taken? What was happening in the meantime? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.02) —I can only assume that investigations were being undertaken. I have a note saying that the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau initiated an internal audit after the return of the aircraft and following comments by the Government Aircraft Factories. I do not know what that means. All that I can say is that, as I understand it, the two Ministers concerned have made requests of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to follow up those matters which are of concern as being a possible fraud against the Commonwealth. In relation to the time-lapse between first getting an inkling that something might be wrong and that time, I am sure that that was required in order to gather as much information as possible so that the AFP was not merely presented with rumours of unsubstantiated allegations, but was given something of substance with which to commence the investigation and undertake such a use of AFP resources. As I pointed out before dinner, this is a complex matter, so complex that, as I am informed by the most senior person working in this area at AFP headquarters, there is no end in sight. No doubt the departments themselves found that to be the case when they were trying to piece together the story which eventually led to the letters from the Ministers. Proposed expenditure agreed to. GROUP C Department of Primary Industries and Energy Proposed expenditure, $349,568,000 Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.03) —I have questions to ask, but I see that Senator Walsh is not here yet. Senator Tate —Senator Walsh will probably answer the questions but I am here to receive them. Senator WALTERS —Do you not think that he might need to hear them if he is going to answer? Senator Tate —I can probably answer. Senator WALTERS —In view of the overall importance to the Australian economy of our agricultural exports, and as a direct consequence of the recent problems experienced about the chemical purity of our produce in several parts of the world, what action is contemplated, or has been already initiated, to introduce uniform laws covering the use of agricultural chemicals in Australia? Do Australian chemical administrators at government level accept that the ultimate responsibility for registration, use and monitoring of chemicals used in agriculture rests with them, and that decisions in relation to the continued use or withdrawal of chemicals are made as a result of Australian evaluation, and not information supplied by foreign governments or chemical manufacturers? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.04) —I understand the import of the question raised by Senator Walters in regard to getting some uniformity within Australia jurisdictions as to the use of chemicals and pesticides in order to make sure that our great export industries are not put in jeopardy, and also that we are not, in making those decisions, dependent on overseas analyses and assessments. However, having so succinctly rephrased her question, I am not entirely sure that I can at the moment give an indication as to the steps being taken to ensure that those steps, which seem so worthy on the face of it, are undertaken. I would be surprised if they had not been the subject of discussion at the meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council. (Quorum formed) The CHAIRMAN —Now that Senator Walsh is here, Senator Walters might like to repeat her question in a succinct form. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.08) —I asked Senator Tate whether he thought that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) should perhaps hear the question before he tried to answer it. In view of the overall importance to the Australian economy of our agricultural export, and as a direct consequence of the recent problems experienced about the chemical purity of our produce in several parts of the world, what action is contemplated, or has been already initiated, to introduce uniform laws covering the use of agricultural chemicals in Australia? Do Australian agricultural administrators at government level accept that the ultimate responsibility for registration, use and monitoring of chemicals used in agriculture rests with them, and that decisions in relation to the continued use or withdrawal of chemicals are made as a result of Australian evaluation, not information supplied by foreign governments or chemical manufacturers? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.10) —What I am about to say will not answer the question, but it has some relevance to it. I am a bit hazy about the details because it was some time ago. I think there was a proposal last year to establish some new arrangements for the testing of new chemicals. Of course, the Commonwealth's power over this is limited to chemicals which are imported and, I suppose, those in the Australian Capital Territory and one or two other smaller places. I am not aware of any move to have a uniform register of chemicals which may be used in agriculture or anywhere else. It is possible that such a move is under way without my being aware of it. I will see what reply I can get on it. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.11) —Certainly, I am aware that it is not within the Minister's portfolio. I would hardly expect him to have the details. But surely senior departmental officers here would know whether any decisions had been discussed between the States and whether any action had been taken by the States to have uniform laws. Has this been contemplated? Has this been initiated in any way? Is it a recognition that the responsibility is with the Australian agricultural administrators for the registration-- Senator Walsh —For the what? Senator WALTERS —Did the Minister hear the earlier question? Senator Walsh —The responsibility is with what? Senator WALTERS —I ask the Minister to calm down. Do Australian agricultural administrators at government level accept that the ultimate responsibility for registration, use and monitoring of chemicals used in agriculture rests with them? Do they accept that decisions in relation to the continued use or withdrawal of chemicals would result from Australian evaluation and not information provided by foreign companies or chemical manufacturers? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.13) —I covered the latter part of the question in my earlier answer when I said that there was a proposal on which no final decisions has been reached about the evaluation of new chemicals from abroad. Of course, that is unequivocally in the Commonwealth Government's domain because of its control over external trade. Frankly, I do not know what `Australian agricultural administrators' means. Perhaps Senator Walters is referring to the Australian Agricultural Council. I do not know whether the Agricultural Council accepts that it has such responsibility. However, as I thought Senator Walters would have known, outside the Commonwealth's control of external trade and therefore its indirect control of some of the chemicals that may be used, chemicals that may or may not be used within a State are constitutionally a State responsibility. Neither I nor the officers who are here are aware of any move to establish a uniform national register of chemicals. Of course, because of that division of responsibility it would require the agreement of all States to get a uniform national register. If history is any guide it would be surprising if that could easily be done, given the parochial and territorial attitudes which are often displayed by State administrations. But I guess if there is to be any national co-ordination the best chance of getting such a uniform register would be through the Agricultural Council. My next point is not directly relevant either, but I am told that the Australian Agricultural Council recently endorsed an integrated action plan to cope with the problem. A national advertising campaign warning of the problems associated with the incorrect use of chemicals has begun. Laws have been put in place on the sale and use of DDT. Presumably that is on a uniform basis. I repeat what I said earlier-that to the best of my knowledge, or to the knowledge of the officers who are here, there is no live proposal to get a uniform national register of chemicals that may be used. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.15) —Is the Department aware whether the various State Ministers have met to discuss the problem? If they have, what results have come out of those discussions? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.15) —To the best of my knowledge, it has not been discussed. It is possible that it could have come up at some Australian Agricultural Council meeting, I suppose. Senator CALVERT(Tasmania)(10.16) —I believe that the answer to a question I asked earlier about this particular matter may be of some help to Senator Walters. I was informed that the Australian Agricultural Council has set up a task force to deal with organochlorines and its brief was to eliminate all those dangerous chemicals by the year 1990. It is well down the track to doing that. Is that of any assistance? Is the Minister aware of that? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.16) —I was aware of something like that. That was an attempt to get a uniform policy. It may well have succeeded, but I am not sure of that. It concerns a particular group of chemicals and not an exhaustive national register. It is not a comprehensive national register of chemicals. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.16) —I move now to the fishing industry. Can the Minister tell me what a revocable permit is? Senator Walsh —One which can be revoked, I expect. Senator WALTERS —What are the guidelines used by the Department in relation to the issue of a revocable permit? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.17) —I presume that the conditions under which a permit may be revoked are written down somewhere. They are not available here. I will try to get them. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.17) —I have some other questions that the Minister might like to take on notice. How many such permits have been issued since 1985? To who have they been issued and for what reason? Have any variations of the original conditions attached to a revocable permit been made? If so, for what reason and to what revocable permits? For what lengths of time have the revocable permits been issued? I do not know whether the departmental officers have any of the answers. If not, perhaps they could be taken on notice. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.17) —I will take them on notice. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.18) —I draw the Minister's attention back to the question of coastal surveillance and coastal protection. If I was dealing with the wrong department last time, I would like to see whether the chances are any better this time. Mr Wesney of the Department advised me: The Coastal Protection Unit . . . is responsible for co-ordinating the surveillance program. I accept that. Mr Langhorne of the quarantine section of the Department said: The whole of the littoral surveillance program is aligned towards quarantine. He continued: As a secondary function, the program provides intelligence feedback to other authorities . . . That is all right as far as that goes except that if we keep going we find that, for instance, the Australian Federal Police say that they are responsible. Of course, there are departments such as Defence and Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs which claim to have an interest. The National Parks and Wildlife Service also claims to have an interest. I am trying to find out who co-ordinates this. Senator Collins —Quarantine. Senator ARCHER —Quarantine does not. That is exactly my point. Senator Collins —They run it. Senator ARCHER —Quarantine does not. The Australian Federal Police run it. We are trying to find out exactly how this is organised, how much say each area has and who in fact pays because every department I ask gives me a different answer. I know that the Australian Fisheries Service is involved in some areas, but it could not tell me whether it contributed to certain portions. I was told that the Department of Defence was advised from time to time as to what was being done, but I am not sure whether it has got any say in what is being done. I believe that it is certainly entitled to have a say in the matter. In spite of the concluding remark of the Minister when I was last on my feet on the subject, I did not propose that we should abolish the Coastal Protection Unit. I was proposing that, if we are to spend something like $15m or $20m a year, at least we should try to get some value for money. We should know how it is spent and who is responsible so that we do not go through the sort of shemozzle we have been through over the Amann Aviation Pty Ltd affair. If the various departments with specific knowledge and specific participation had attended to their own requirements, we would not have had any bother. I want to make sure that in a few months time when we get around to rejuggling this matter we do not go through the same fiasco again. I ask: Who has the say? Who pays? What does the Government expect to get from it? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.21) —My advice is that the Quarantine and Inspection Service of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy is responsible for the planning and funding of the quarantine littoral surveillance program. I am told that that is not directly related to fisheries. The money is appropriated through that Department, but the management of the activity rests with the Department of Transport and Communications. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.21) —The annual report of the Australian Federal Police states: The functions of the CPU are: direct and co-ordinate Australia's civil coastal surveillance and protection system; plan and set priorities for surveillance; authorise response and enforcement action; liaise with participating departments . . . co-ordinate and develop co-operation between Commonwealth and State/Territories authorities . . . It seems that we are in just the same confusion that we were in with the Department of Finance. Does the Minister believe that I am still dealing with the wrong department. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.22) —I am not sure of this, but I think from what the honourable senator has just quoted from the Australian Federal Police annual report, he is talking about a different program from the quarantine littoral surveillance program. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.22) —I am talking about the whole shebang. Coastal surveillance runs all the way from the Great Barrier Reef through to Shark Bay, or thereabouts-to Exmouth Gulf. This fits into more than one plan. Mr Wesney told me that at one stage the Australian Fisheries were paying 10 per cent of the cost of that section. He stated: The Coastal Protection Unit of the Australian Federal Police is responsible for co-ordinating the surveillance program. The Australian Fisheries Service is responsible for meeting 10 per cent of the cost of the contract for aerial surveillance of the Great Barrier Reef. Further on, when I asked about the reduction from 22 1/2 per cent to 10 per cent, he said: An agreement was reached with the Department of Finance that the Department's funding should continue at the rate of 22 1/2 per cent for five months . . . It then reduced to 10 per cent. He thought it was 10 per cent. He stated: Yes, I think that is correct. I sympathise with the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). I realise that it will be extraordinarily difficult to find somebody who can tell him what the situation is. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.24) —It has just been confirmed by the officials that the quarantine littoral surveillance program is a different program from the coastal surveillance program. This is necessarily a bit messy. Obviously, many departments have some interest in it. I guess ultimately under those circumstances the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet might have the authority to give the honourable senator a definitive answer to the question he asked. I cannot guarantee that, but I will see what can be done about that to get Senator Archer a definitive answer. It will certainly not be tonight, tomorrow morning or this week, but it will be as soon as possible. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.25) —I thank the Minister. After seven years of trying to get this answer, I would be very pleased if the Minister could arrange that. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Progress reported. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —I seek leave to withdraw two notices of motion on behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances-the eye that never sleeps. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —I withdraw Business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 8 and 16 standing in my name for today for disallowance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage protection regulations and wheat tax regulations. I seek leave to make a statement that will be markedly shorter than my previous statement today. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —The Committee thought that the wheat tax regulations were almost certainly invalid because of an error in the mandatory process of consultation required prior to making them. Under the Act the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation should have been consulted. That Federation, however, had become the Grains Council of Australia with increased functions and, with the best of intentions, the Council was consulted in place of the Federation. The Committee has asked, and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) has agreed, that an urgent Bill be introduced into the Parliament to overcome the effects of this legal error. A Bill will be introduced into the House of Representatives on Thursday. The Committee also queried whether decisions by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to allow access to a register of Aboriginal preservations should be reviewable by an independent body. The Minister, the Hon. Gerry Hand, MP, has told the Committee that access to the register, which contains very limited data, will be granted only after ministerial consultations with the relevant local Aboriginal community. To that extent the process is a political or quasi-political one and the Committee is prepared to concede that as long as access to the register is predicted on that `political' process, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or other merits review rights would not be appropriate. The Committee thanks both Ministers for their co-operation with its scrutiny. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard short explanations and the Committee's brief correspondence on these issues. Leave granted. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Regulations (Amendment) (Statutory Rule 1987 No. 153) These regulations provided that access to a Register of declarations of preservations would be dependent on the exercise by the Minister of his or her discretion. The Register will contain a bare minimum of information basically sufficient to identify relevant sites and the restrictions on their use. The Committee queried whether there should be some review of this discretion. The Minister has pointed out, however, that before granting access to the Register, the Minister, who as a result of a delegation would be the Victorian Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, would first consult with the Aboriginal community concerned. The ultimate decision would, therefore, be of a political nature involving the balancing of political considerations and as such it would not be suitable for another body to oversee the exercise of the Minister's judgement. The Committee has decided to withdraw its notice of motion on the basis that a refusal of access will be taken by a Minister, whether the Federal Minister, or his or her delegate in the form of a State Minister. It would otherwise be appropriate for the Committee to press for AAT review of refusal decisions taken by delegates who were not Ministers involved in a political process. PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA THE SENATE Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances 9 October 1987 The Hon. Gerry Hand, M.P. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Parliament House CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting on 8 October 1987 the Committee considered the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Regulations (being S.R. 1987 No. 153, tabled in the Senate on 14 September 1987). The Committee noted that new regulation 10 dealing with the circumstances in which a person may have access to the register of declarations of preservations, confers on the Minister an unreviewable discretion as to who may inspect the document. It would be possible for genuine scholars and others to be aggrieved by an unfair refusal of access and to be without any remedy. It strikes the Committee that perhaps a right of challenge to an independent Tribunal should be available. Your advice on this point would be welcomed by the Committee. Yours sincerely Bob Collins Chairman MINISTER FOR ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600 28 October 1987 Dear Bob, I refer to your letter of 9 October 1987 concerning Regulation 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 and the view by the Committee on Regulations and Ordinances that a decision pursuant to subsection 21v (2) of the Act should be subject to a right of appeal to an independent tribunal. The Regulations pertaining to Part IIA of the Act were made on the advice of the Victorian Government, and I have sought the views of the Victorian Attorney-General and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Hon. J. Kennan MLA, on the matter which you raised. On 10 July my predecessor delegated, pursuant to Section 21b, powers conferred under Part IIA to the State Minister. On receiving his advice I will write to you again. Prior to receipt of that advice the Committee may wish to take into account Sections 21g and 21u relating to notices and consent to enter an Aboriginal place respectively, and thus the roles of the local Aboriginal community in providing information on and access to Aboriginal cultural property. A political intent of the Act is to ensure that Aboriginal views are respected in instances where restricted information may be involved when describing an Aboriginal place or object. You may wish to note that Section 21v provides only for a summary of particulars, and given the above I do not see the register itself containing information which may be subject to restricted dissemination. Finally, may I draw the Committee's attention to the Second Reading Speech by Senator Ryan on 6 June 1984 which states that the basis of a decision by the Minister is reviewable under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Yours sincerely Gerry Hand Senator Bob Collins Chairman Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament of Australia Parliament House CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Bob I refer to your letter of 9 October 1987 and my interim reply of 28 October concerning Regulation 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984. Whilst I have not had a formal response from Mr Kennan I have been advised that he too does not see a need for such review of ministerial decision making. The Register will contain a bare minimum of information basically sufficient to identify the site concerned and the restriction placed on its usage. It is most unlikely that access to such information would be restricted. However as I indicated in my previous letter one of the aims of this legislation is to ensure that Aboriginal views are respected and before making any decision to grant or deny access a Minister would clearly consult with the Aboriginal community concerned. Such a decision would then be of a political nature involving the balancing of the interests of opposing groups. Such a decision ought properly to remain in the political arena. I would point out that the decision of the Minister would be open to review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Such review will guard against capricious decision making. Yours sincerely Gerry Hand Senator Bob Collins Chairman Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament of Australia Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Wheat Tax Regulations (Amendment) (Statutory Rule 1987 No. 182) The Wheat Tax Act 1957 provides that regulations prescribing a rate of tax shall not be made except after consultation with the Australian Wheatgrowers' Federation. Regulations were made in September 1987 after consultation with the Grains Council of Australia. In October 1986 the AWF changed its name to the GCA and increased its functions to include grains other than wheat. The Committee informed the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, the Hon. John Kerin, M.P., that it knew of no rule of law which would operate within particular case to allow reference to consultations with the AWF to be read as if it were a reference to the newly constituted GCA. Since the regulations appeared to the Committee to be almost certainly invalid, the Committee sought from the Minister an undertaking to urgently introduce a Bill to correct the flaw. The Minister has given an undertaking to the Committee to introduce such a Bill on Thursday 26 November 1987. PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA THE SENATE Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances 9 October 1987 The Hon. John Kerin, M.P. Minister for Primary Industries and Energy Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting on 8 October 1987 the Committee considered the Wheat Tax Regulations (Amendment) (being Statutory Rules 1987 No. 182, tabled in the Senate on 14 September 1987). There may be a technical flaw in these regulations and the Committee seeks your expert advice on it. Subsection 5 (2) of the Wheat Tax Act 1957 provides that ``Regulations prescribing a rate of tax shall not be made except after consideration by the Governor-General of a report made to the Minister by the Australian Wheatgrowers' Federation''. The existence of such a report from the body named would appear to be a mandatory pre-requisite to the making of any regulations. It appears from the enacting words of the present regulations that the Wheatgrowers' Federation has ceased to exist and there is now in existence a body known as the Grains Council of Australia. The explanatory statement indicates that later this year the Wheat Tax Act is to be amended to change the name of the organisation referred to in subsection 5 (2). (The Committee has noted from the explanatory statement to the Barley Research Levy Regulations (Amendment) (S.R. 183/87) that the Wheatgrowers' Federation in fact changed its name to the Grains Council of Australia in October 1986.) In so far as subsection 5 (2) appears to require a report from a body described as the Australian Wheatgrowers' Federation before a regulation can be made, the Committee knows of no rule of law that permits that reference to be read as if it were a reference to another body, even one that continues to perform similar functions but under another name. The Committee is concerned that the regulation may be invalid and it seeks your considered views on this. It may be that before advising the Committee you may wish to consult with the Attorney-General on the matter. If the regulation is invalid there may be legal implications which the Committee will need to examine. The Committee would appreciate your advice on these questions. Yours sincerely Bob Collins Chairman MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND ENERGY THE HON. JOHN KERIN, M.P. Parliament House, Canberra A.C.T. 2600 Telephone (062) 73 1711 Telex 62308 Facsimile (062) 73 2194 3 Nov 1987 Senator RL Collins Chairman The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinance Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Senator Collins Thank you for your letter of 9 October 1987 concerning the Wheat Tax Regulations (Amendment) (being Statutory Rules No. 182, 1987). You indicated that the Committee considered there may be a technical flaw in these regulations and request my advice. The Australian Wheatgrowers' Federation (AWF) (which has ceased to exist under that name) adopted a resolution on 9 October 1986 to change its name to the Grains Council of Australia (GCA). The change of name did not alter the fact that the organisation continued to be the peak industry body representing wheatgrowers in Australia. This continues to be the case even though its functions have been expanded so that it is now the representative body for other grains as well. Action was taken to reflect this name change in the relevant provision of the Wheat Tax Act 1957 by an amendment contained in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which was introduced in the Autumn 1987 Sittings of Parliament. The calling of a July election precluded that Bill being passed by both Houses and it subsequently lapsed. The proposed amendment is now included in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which is presently before Parliament and which is anticipated to receive Royal Assent by mid-November. There were strong practical reasons for proceeding with the amendment to the Wheat Tax Regulations prior to the passage of the above Bill. The wheat harvest proper commences around the beginning of October (although small amounts of Queensland wheat are delivered before this) and to maintain equity amongst growers it is appropriate that the same rate of wheat tax is applied to all wheat of season. Furthermore given that subsection 6 (2) of the Wheat Tax Act 1957 provides for payment of the tax in quarterly instalments from 1 October in any year it is administratively difficult and costly to vary the tax rate from a date that is not consistent with the above quarterly periods. Obviously delaying the increase until 1 January would have meant that the bulk of the current season's harvest would not have been subject to the increased tax and this would have impacted on the research efforts of each of the States for 1988/89. Wheat tax collections are identified by State in separate accounts within the Wheat Research Trust Fund and expended by the relevant State Wheat Research Committee. My Department sought advice on this matter from Attorney-General's Department at the time the amended regulations were being drafted. The advice received was that there is a tenable argument that regulations to amend the Wheat Tax Regulations may recite the Grains Council of Australia as the organisation making the report on the basis that it is the successor organisation to the AWF with closely parallel powers and functions. So far as those Regulations are concerned, in fact, it could be seen as the same body in a new form. It was emphasised however that such a view of the matter is not beyond doubt and no guarantee of the validity of such regulations could be given. Attorney-General's further advised that if the matter was proceeded with, the basis on which the regulation was being made should be explained to the Governor-General. This in fact was done prior to his signing the Executive Council Minute. Finally I would point out that the purpose of subsection 5 (2) of the Wheat Tax Act 1957 is to ensure that the industry itself determines whether it wishes to pay a higher tax to support research activities. There is no question that in the present circumstances this principle has been maintained. Yours fraternally John Kerin PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA THE SENATE Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances 18 November 1987 The Hon. John Kerin, M.P. Minister for Primary Industries and Energy Parliament House CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, At a special meeting on 17 November 1987 the Committee considered your letter of 3 November 1987 concerning queries raised by the Committee in its letter of 9 October 1987 about the validity of the Wheat Tax Regulations (Amendment) (S.R. 1987 No. 1982). You may recall that subsection 5 (2) of the Wheat Tax Act 1957 provides that regulations prescribing a rate of tax ``shall not be made except after consideration by the Governor-General of a report made to the Minister by the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation''. The enacting words of the regulations state that the Governor-General took into consideration a report ``by the organisation known as the Grains Council of Australia, formerly the Australian Wheatgrowers' Federation''. In its letter of 9 October the Committee confessed that it knew of no rule of law that permitted a reference to the A.W.F. to be read as if it were a reference to another body, even one that continued to perform similar functions under a different name. Your letter of 3 November refers to legal advice obtained from the Attorney-General's Department that there was a ``tenable argument'' that the regulations could recite the Grains Council of Australia as the requisite reporting organisation on the basis that the G.C.A. was not only the successor organisation to the A.W.F., with closely parallel powers and functions, but also for relevant purposes the same body in a new form. The Committee has noted from your letter that on 9 October 1986 the A.W.F. adopted a resolution both to change its name to the G.C.A. and also to expand its functions to include a representative role for a range of grains other than wheat. Given these facts the Committee has great difficulty in accepting an argument that the G.C.A. is the A.W.F. for the purposes of subsection 5 (2) of the Wheat Tax Act. The terms of that subsection, in particular the words ``shall not be made'' are extremely difficult to by-pass. The Committee therefore, remains of the view not only that the validity of the regulations is highly questionable to say the least, but also that a precedent should not be established of a tax being imposed by regulations whose validity was acknowledged by the Attorney-General's Department at the drafting stage to be so uncertain. The regulations might be seen by some to exemplify a worrying approach to the legality of administrative action. This approach might be seen to rely, not on the reasonable certainty of law made under Parliament's delegated authority, but rather on the absence of any litigant with the resources to challenge what is acknowledged to be eminently challengeable. The Committee has very serious reservations that this approach represents a departure from certainty and principle. The Committee acknowledges that there was a strong practical need for appropriate legislation to be made to deal with the imminent 1987 wheat harvest. Nevertheless, the Committee cannot see that this factor affects the question whether the regulations in question are legally valid. The Committee takes the view, on principle, that the imposition of a tax, even one agreed to by industry representatives, should rest on a firmer legal foundation than that relied upon in this case. The Committee suggests that the proper course of action now may be for the Wheat Tax Act to be urgently amended either expressly to validate the regulations or expressly to authorise the collection of tax. The Committee considers that a significant principle of delegated legislative propriety is involved here which touches issues concerning the legality of administration. Disallowance would be a less effective remedy than some decisive, corrective action by you which both preserves the necessary status quo and guarantees the legality of the administrative actions in this case. The Committee urgently seeks your response to the suggestion that validating legislation should be passed immediately. Yours sincerely, Bob Collins Chairman MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND ENERGY The Hon. John Kerin, M.P. Parliament House, Canberra A.C.T. 2600 Telephone (062) 73 1711 Telex 62308 Facsimile (062) 73 2194 Senator RL Collins Chairman The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Dear Senator Collins I am writing to you in reference to your letter dated 18 November 1987 concerning your Committee's consideration of the validity of the Wheat Tax Regulation (Amendment SR 1987 No. 182). I have taken note of the Committee's concern in this matter and I propose to introduce a Bill in the House of Representatives on Thursday 26 November 1987 to validate the collection of the tax which has gone on under the Wheat Tax Regulation and to ensure that future collection of the tax will be lawful. As I mentioned in my previous correspondence the Wheat Tax Regulation (Amendment SR 1987 No. 182) which has concerned the Committee is a tax which has been levied with agreement of industry and is used for research funding purposes. Yours sincerely John Kerin The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m.