Thursday, 26 November 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposed national ID Card and numbering system threatens the privacy of law-abiding Australians opening the door to computer matching of personal information, will cause inconvenience to rural people in particular, and will result in massive compliance costs for private business. That the Joint Parliamentary Select Committee Report of 1986 showed that the Australia Card will not be effective in combating taxation and social security fraud and illegal immigration, as its cost savings are based on faulty estimates. That accordingly the Senate and Parliament should reject the Australia Card Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 41 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth; We ask that the Federal Government abandon its proposal to establish a gambling casino in the Australian Capital Territory for the following reasons: 1. It would detract from the unique status of the National Capital-a status recognised and maintained by every preceding Government. 2. All sources of information including Justice Connor's report to the Victorian Government suggest that no method of control can prevent the infiltration of organised crime, and 3. It would be likely to exacerbate existing social problems and create new ones. We urge you to recognise the devastating effects of gambling in the community and the opposition of the majority of voters in the ACT to the establishment of a casino; and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Haines (from 16 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —On behalf of Senator Richardson, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: That in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposal contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the Senate on 3 November 1987, namely: the relocation of the Commencement Column Monument on the land axis between the old and the new Parliament House. Bill returned from the House of Representatives with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole at a later hour this day. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —by leave-As honourable senators will, I hope, be aware, we have had an extremely long debate on the Appropriation Bills. Up until Tuesday night, we had debated the Bills for more than 28 hours, with 14 hours spent to that point in the Committee of the Whole. Add approximately another 3 1/2 hours, not yet precisely tabulated, yesterday, and that gets up to a total of 31 1/2 hours so far on the appropriations. That compares with an entire debate for 1986-87 of 22 1/2 hours, of which the committee stage took 14 1/2 hours. The Senate will recall that we have already spent 17 1/2 hours on the committee stage this year. The total of 31 1/2 hours so far compares not only with the 22 1/2 hours last year, but in 1985-86, 22 hours 55 minutes; in 1984-85, 10 hours 52 minutes and going back earlier than that, in 1983, 23 hours 29 minutes; in 1982, 17 hours 49 minutes; in 1981, 20 hours 57 minutes; in 1980, 9 hours 39 minutes; and in 1979, 15 hours 11 minutes. I think that the point will be sufficiently clearly established that this is the longest appropriations debate already in living memory. No doubt, the figures would confirm that if we went back further. Moreover, I am obliged to tell the Senate that it is absolutely imperative that the debate on the Appropriation Bills be concluded this week-I would hope it would be rather earlier than the last possible moment this week. It is imperative that it be concluded this week. Let me explain why. If Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 is not passed by the end of this week the Government will be faced with a serious overspending situation. Supply will run out, in other words. The funds for the Commonwealth pay day-- Senator Michael Baume —When? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will explain. The funds for the Commonwealth pay day of 10 December are charged to the system in the previous week. This covers all civil and defence salaries. Although there is some reserve in the Advance to the Minister for Finance, it is not sufficient to meet that payment and there will be a shortfall of $160m. To avoid this situation the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) must be passed and have royal assent. The Department of Finance advises that four days are required after the Senate passes the Appropriation Bills in order to have the necessary warrant in place. Clearly, this will not occur if the Senate continues consideration of the Appropriation Bills at its next sitting on 7 December. There are other examples of payments for which moneys will not be available in time if the Appropriation Bills are not passed this week. These include moneys for the payment of the family assistance supplement commencing on 1 December. Accordingly, I wish to make it clear that if debate is not concluded tonight on these matters I will be moving, at a later hour this day, a motion that we sit tomorrow. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-The Opposition notes what has been said by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans). With respect to the temporal problem he has described, let me remind the Minister that it was of this Government's making that this legislation was introduced rather later than usual. It was, of course, not of the Opposition's making that we had an unusual mid-year election and started the debate rather later than usual. The result is that we are now considering the Appropriation Bills rather later than usual. I simply want to put on record at this stage that the Opposition certainly does not regard itself as responsible for the Government's problems, as those problems were of its making. I would have to say that the need for debate on the Appropriation Bills is becoming ever more evident as the sorry mess left by this Government unfolds. We have just had the rather unedifying report of the Auditor-General put down before us. We know that there are a number of areas in which the Government seems to be impeding the proper scrutiny of its financial actions. I simply want to put the Government on notice that the Opposition will not be a party to the inadequate scrutiny of governmental action, whether it is by the Senate, parliamentary committees, the Auditor-General or the Committee of the Whole in considering these Appropriation Bills. I hear what the Minister has had to say. We have the day before us now and I look forward to our continued consideration of the Appropriation Bills on this splendid Thursday. Consideration resumed from 25 November. GROUP D Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs Proposed expenditure, $196,653,000 Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(10.09) —I refer to the appropriations for increased funding for the adult migrant education program. It is very pleasing to note that there is an increase of $8.5m or 17 per cent over the figure for last year. It is also pleasing to note that the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) said that the Government recognises that it has a major responsibility to ensure that new migrants are given the opportunity to learn English. Of course, it is recognised also that migrants who have been here for a great number of years, even those who came in the period following the Second World War, continue to need training in the English language. The Minister said that the funding in the adult migrant education program: . . . will also complement initiatives in the English as a Second Language Program for children, being undertaken as part of the Government's National Language Policy. My question relates directly to this. A year ago, in the 1986 Budget, direct Federal funding for the English as a second language (ESL) program for schools was removed by the Federal Government on the understanding that the States would pick up the initiative and cover the funding for this program. I quote from the West Australian newspaper of 31 October 1986, where Mr Pearce, the Minister for Education, stated: The State Government would not be picking up the tab for the ESL programme. We're looking to reorganise it and salvage what we can. I asked Senator Ryan, the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, in the Senate on 21 October 1987: What steps will the Government take to ensure that the States maintain the English as a second language program as a high priority? That question has not yet been answered. I would like now to address this question to Senator Reynolds, the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. We know that funding has been set aside in the national language policy for a number of areas which include the English as a second language program both for adults and schoolchildren. To the best of my knowledge, although that money has been allocated on a 1987-88 basis, it has not yet been appropriated to the States, as such. If it has been, have the States started using that funding? The education year always starts in January. Are we therefore to use all that funding in the six months of 1988 up to 30 June? I would like to continue on these lines but perhaps I could have an answer from the Minister thus far. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(10.12) —I understand that Senator Ryan is seeking an answer to that question. As the honourable senator knows, in relation to national language policy funding, funds are the responsibility of the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins). I hope we can have an answer on that item before too much later in the day. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(10.13) —Continuing along those lines, I would like to point out that it has been a false economy to drop that program-and the program has effectively been dropped this year in a great number of States. This has been a great mistake because, as was stated in the Ethnos magazine of September 1986: English language proficiency among children of non-English-speaking background and young people will increase the need for ESL components in labour market and other training programs and will place additional demand on services for persons with English language difficulties. The Government must realise this. There has been a lot of debate this week on whether migrants should be able to speak English before they get to Australia and to what extent the Government should be spending money on English language programs. Whatever tuition migrants may or may not have in the English language before they come to Australia, that would certainly not enable them to fully take part in Australian society without further extensive programs. It is all very well to be able to go to the greengrocer to buy one's vegetables for the week and so on; but it is another matter if a migrant, or a person whose first language is not English, is involved in a consultation with a doctor or in a medical situation or in a court, which is often difficult enough for people whose first language is English. If the programs in schools are to be dropped to any extent, as they have been this year-so there is a great backlog to make up-it will hit us further along the line. We have only to go into a workers compensation court to see the proportion of people claiming workers compensation who are non-native English speakers. So to put any argument about the spending of money on English language programs in schools, on the workshop floor or in any other situation is really to talk about a false economy. I certainly recommend that this be looked at very closely. I would like to ask one further question along the same lines. When the financing for the ESL funding in schools was removed in last year's Budget, there was an uproar all over the country but especially in New South Wales, where there was a big rally and a great noise about the whole thing. Under pressure, the New South Wales Government set aside funding so that the ESL program in schools in New South Wales could continue, but that was achieved only by taking money from elsewhere, making further cuts in the New South Wales education budget. I realise that the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) has taken my first question on notice, but we clearly need answers as to whether from the start of 1988 the money set aside for the national language policy can be put directly into schools and as to how this will be done. It is now nearly the end of November. What arrangements have been made to set this in motion? Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(10.16) —I will have to take Senator Jenkins's last question on notice together with her earlier question. I take this opportunity to give a response to a question asked by Senator Walters yesterday. She asked about the screening guidelines for refugees from Chile. I am now able to provide the answer. Australia operates an in-country special humanitarian program for people who are experiencing severe discrimination in Chile. Under the United Nations definition of a refugee, which is accepted by Australia, a person is not a refugee unless he is outside his country of origin. Under this definition, Australia took about 500 people from Chile in both 1985-86 and 1986-87. The planning figure for 1987-88 is about 600. The criteria used for selecting people under this program are the same as those that apply in other countries around the world; namely, assessment on a case by case basis that the person has a well-founded fear of experiencing severe discrimination and some connection with Australia, such as sponsorship or a family member residing here. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(10.18) —I want to make one brief point in response to an assertion made last night by Senator Reynolds just before the Senate rose in which she seemed to me to be accusing me of not being concerned about humanitarian needs. I began my remarks yesterday by quoting to Senator Reynolds her own words, which clearly stated that the migration program at the moment was predicated on economic considerations. I certainly would have no difficulty with a program being predicated on compassionate and humanitarian grounds. I point out that one could substantially increase the numbers of people coming to Australia under that category and still conform with the idea of a steady state population. I simply want to make the point that it was the economic considerations about which I was raising the question. The humanitarian needs of refugees and other such people certainly need to be taken into account, but they are not being adequately taken into account within the present program. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Veterans' Affairs Proposed expenditure-$1,141,145,000-agreed to. GROUP E Attorney-General's Department Proposed expenditure-$419,525,000-agreed to. Department of Aboriginal Affairs Proposed expenditure, $317,510,000 Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.21) —I have a couple of comments I want to make in relation to matters I raised in Senate Estimates Committee E. I wish to put something on the record at this stage with respect to the answers that I received. I do so because I think the handling of Aboriginal affairs over the next 12 months will require great sensitivity if we are to see an advance in this area. I think there is great potential for the exacerbation of the difficulties that we are experiencing in community relations. The resentment against Aboriginal people which I believe has grown over recent years I very deeply regret. I believe that the decline in public support for Aboriginal affairs, for the advancement of Australian Aboriginals, is a matter on which I think the Government would not disagree with me because I noted that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), early in the life of this Government, indicated that in part the change of approach which had been adopted with respect to national land rights related to what he described-I quote from memory-as `a less compassionate community'. I think that remark is a reflection of the Government's concern that there was less support for Aboriginal programs. I note the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) nodding. I think there is a good deal of agreement on that matter among those members of the Government and, indeed, the Opposition who have taken an interest in this area of Government policy. It is in that context that I raise my concern about the way in which the proposal for a treaty was re-raised by the Prime Minister in September of this year during his visit to the Northern Territory. I will quote from a report that appeared in the Australian at the time, on 3 September. I do so for the purpose of brevity to make the point. That newspaper said: It is understood Mr Hawke's announcement took by surprise even the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Hand, who is accompanying him on a visit to the Northern Territory. Later it said: Mr Hawke made the unexpected announcement during an interview at an Aboriginal radio station in Alice Spring. Afterwards, Mr Hawke said he wanted to see the agreement in place before the Bicentenary. That suggests really an extraordinarily short timetable because, of course, at the end of December we will reach the Bicentenary. Therefore, the Prime Minister was suggesting what I would regard as a very rapid timetable on a potentially very contentious issue. I note again, without referring to specific comments made by Mr Hand, that it appears clear that Mr Hand has pulled back expectations in this area and has taken a more cautious approach. He has made a number of public comments suggesting that he would not wish to move until there had been adequate consultation and so on. I support the spirit of those remarks. I think that any action in this area should be preceded by careful consultation, which is very time consuming. The matters which I raised during the Estimates committee hearings related to this point of the Government appearing to have moved in a way which surprised even the responsible Minister. During the Estimates committee hearing I asked the Department of Aboriginal Affairs how much departmental time had gone into the preparation of the proposal that there be a single commission, which is the new proposal for the restructuring of the administration of Aboriginal Affairs. I also asked for an identification of what departmental resources went into the preparation of the very substantial proposal that was announced within a few days of the election and what resources were budgeted for the current year for the continuance of that proposal. I asked exactly the same question with respect to what work was done in the last financial year in the preparation of any proposal for anything which could be described as a treaty or compact, or in the nature of an agreement, and what resources had been budgeted for. I said that I would like to know the number of officials involved and, if possible, their classification, their positions and the amount of their time that went into that proposal. I also said: I am seeking to find out what amounts of departmental time and resources, if any, were devoted to considering the very complex issues that arose, both through the departmental reorganisation and the proposal for some form of agreement. I want to quote the answer which has been provided by the Department and which is contained in the document containing written replies to questions asked during hearings by Estimates Committee E, which was tabled in the Senate and which is dated November 1987. The Department stated: No departmental resources were involved last year in preparatory work for the new Commission or the proposed compact with the Aboriginal people. That is a pretty straightforward statement: nothing. In an area which many of us take very seriously, it is totally unsatisfactory to have clear evidence that we were dealing with things off the top of the prime ministerial head. It is evidence of utter irresponsibility. This is a very sensitive issue. Senator McKiernan, who is in the chamber, knows what a sensitive issue it is in our State of Western Australia, and how easy it is to excite public feeling. Public feeling is already very strong on many of these issues. I am not at all happy about appropriating funds for the administration of a department which is not involved in the preparation of such a major initiative. It seems to me to be an absolute absurdity that this matter could be launched in this way. In fact, I regard it as a quite disgraceful bit of self-indulgence on the part of the Prime Minister. I trust that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) will get the matter into some sort of working order. I want to express in this committee debate my very deep concern about this sort of approach to Aboriginal affairs. The history of the last 10 years is not a very cheerful one. The Aboriginal people describe it in terms which are offensive to many white Australians-in terms of white Australia generally having a black history. I think it is an unhelpful comment in terms of reducing the sort of white backlash which is a very important part of current difficulties. But the reality is that the last 10 years has been a period during which excessive promises have been made to Aboriginal people which clearly the present Government, once in government, felt unable to keep. The promises of the Australian Labor Party in opposition raised Aboriginal expectations and Aboriginal demands. Those Aboriginal demands were a part of the process of reducing public support. I ask in this debate for some commitment from the Government to avoid raising expectations which cannot be met. It is fundamentally damaging to the Aboriginal community and to attitudes of the rest of the community to the Aboriginal community. I note that the present Minister has expressed caution in a number of public statements. I welcome that, but I think it is terribly important that his actions reflect the caution that he has expressed. When he visited Rudall River in Western Australia it seemed to me that he raised the possibility of Federal intervention there, albeit in a fairly muted way. He has proposals, which no doubt we will hear more about, for substantial departmental reorganisation. We have some proposal for some form of compact, but we do not really know what the Government has in mind. If the Government does not make the most careful assessment of what in fact is achievable and acceptable, it will be behaving quite irresponsibly. It is very important that that assessment includes what is acceptable to the community generally. There is absolutely no gain to be made for Aboriginal people in pursuing lines of progress or policy which will increase community ill-will. The Government has to make a very careful assessment of what it believes it can achieve and it should not hold out any more than that to the Aboriginal community. I believe that the Government needs to note very carefully the finding of the sub-committee of the Constitutional Commission which has reported to the Australian people that it has not found in the Aboriginal community a sufficient understanding of what the Government is talking about in terms of the idea of a compact or treaty on which to base any proposal for constitutional change. My own experience from the extensive consultations which were undertaken with respect to the Aboriginal Development Commission, which was established during my period as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, is that we have to accept that a very long period is involved in any genuine consultation with the extraordinarily disparate groups which make up the Aboriginal community of Australia. I want to take the opportunity in this debate to make a series of pleas to the Government. The Opposition is not in a position to impose its will in these matters. Since we do not expect an election to be held for a couple of years, the reality is that the administration of these matters is going to remain in Labor Party hands for the next two years at least. Therefore, the success or failure of policy lies squarely in the Government's hands. I would have to say that the record of the last few years is not one which gives me a great sense of optimism. So, fundamentally I am saying to the Government that the reports that the Prime Minister's statement was something which took the Minister by surprise are really borne out by the answers that were given to the Estimates Committee. Those answers show that no departmental time went into these matters during the financial year. There could not be clearer proof of the fact that this is not a matter which has received the sort of attention which I think it so obviously requires if we are to get any initiatives in this area. I do not wish to make a long speech about what the Opposition's view is. We have always clearly, in government and in opposition, said that the idea of a treaty is a very dangerous one that we will not support because it raises all sorts of spectres about a divided nation and so on. It is a very dangerous proposal. I think the Prime Minister and the Government have backed off this idea. They are now pursuing some form of understanding with the Aboriginal community. My point to the Government fundamentally is that, if it is to do that, it must avoid raising expectations. It must make a realistic assessment of the constitutional, legal, administrative, political and community relations realities within which it has to work so that it does not hold out false promises to the Aboriginal community. It must then be prepared to be extremely patient. It must examine whether it is to have a truly representative Aboriginal body with which it will try to reach some sort of understanding about the future lines of policy. Alternatively, is the Government going to go on a community-wide, Australia-wide, process of consultation of the sort that we undertook with respect to the Aboriginal Development Commission? All of these things need to be worked out and talked about with the Aboriginal community, brought into this Parliament and exposed for comment and debate if we are to have any hope of proceeding in the way which will advance the Aboriginal people. Too many people have agreed with me in conversations that I have had over the last couple of years when I have put to them the proposition that in fact the position of Australian Aboriginals is going backwards in many areas. Many people within the Labor Party, as well as in the general community, have agreed with that proposition when I have raised it with them. I say to the Government that, if we are to avoid continuing to go backwards in this area, we must show a far greater degree of sensitivity than this Government has exhibited so far. I remind the Government that the Minister held out the prospect of national Aboriginal land rights right up to the death-knock. Year after year the possibility of that was held out to the Aboriginal community. It was never a goer. There was never the real possibility that that would happen. I ask the Government not to repeat the very obvious errors of the last 10 years of the Australian Labor Party in government and opposition. I could make a very cross speech about this, as I have in this place in the past, but I think that the Labor members who are here are as genuinely concerned to solve this problem as any member on my side. I contribute to the debate in the hope that, within the Government, there will be a far more cautious and careful approach to this matter than there has been in the past. I think that the Minister will fail if he allows himself to become the prisoner of the radical minority of Aboriginals. There is an enormous danger in that. I do not believe that the land councils and some of the more high profile spokesmen for the Aboriginal community genuinely represent Aboriginal opinion in Australia. I do not believe that many of the things they advocate are in the interests of the Aboriginal community of Australia. It is fundamentally important that Mr Hand look over the heads of some of those who are closest to him and who are the most noisy and engage in a very long and careful consultation with the Aboriginal community generally. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(10.36) —I will resist the very strong temptation to debate the issue. I will refer Senator Chaney's comments to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand). Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.36) —I thank the Minister for Local Government. I do not seek to engage her in debate because, quite frankly, I do not think that that would advance the matter now. The final point that I made is of critical importance. A substantial number of Aboriginal people have already said to me that they are deeply concerned that there is too narrow a group which appears to have influence with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand). I concede publicly that in his conversations with me and in many of his public statements the Minister appears to me to be disavowing that possibility, but I think that if that does occur his ministry will not achieve the success which he wants for it, and which indeed the Opposition wants for it, in terms of results for Aboriginal Australians. I thank the Minister for Local Government for her very brief response. I ask her to refer my comments to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. If, over the next few months, there is a holding out of promises on which the Government cannot deliver, the debates in this place will not be of a reasonable nature because we cannot afford to see Aboriginal people pushed down in public regard any further than they have been pushed over recent years. The cell deaths matter that is of such concern to honourable senators throughout the chamber is but the tip of the iceberg of the difficulties about which I am talking. Those cell deaths in part reflect the attitudes that Aboriginals have to put up with in their daily lives in the community. We in politics have contributed to that in a way which I think has been extremely destructive. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(10.38) —As we approach the Bicentenary year-the year marking the settlement of white Australians in this country 200 years ago-I point out yet again the great amount of damage that has been wreaked on this country in 200 years, not least on the Aboriginal people and the Aboriginal culture. I express the hope that in the next year we will do something to redress that very sorry record, that we will recognise what has happened in the past and put in place far better ways of managing both race relations in this country and the Australian environment. If we do not do so, this will not be a country which Australians will be able to enjoy 200 years from now. Part of the mechanism which needs to be put in place relates to the recognition by white European Australians that the Aboriginal culture has a very positive contribution to make to a totally new, integrated and caring Australian culture. That will be done only when white Europeans recognise that contribution and give value to those elements of Aboriginal culture, contained in traditional lifestyles of caring for and belonging to the land, rather than of the land belonging to people for exploitative purposes. Until that is done, it is difficult to see how Aboriginal people themselves will take pride in their culture and how the so-called Aboriginal problem will be solved. It is not an Aboriginal problem; it is not a white problem. It is a problem of a cultural clash. It is a problem which will be solved only when there is a recognition of the unique contribution both sides can make to a truly Australian culture. With that in mind, I note that there is at the moment no national Aboriginal body which is funded by the Commonwealth Government. I ask whether the Government is indeed committed to the establishment of a national Aboriginal body that is elected by the Aborigines themselves. If so, why does there appear to be no funding for the establishment of such a body? Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(10.40) —I wish to raise a number of issues on this particular section of the consideration of the appropriations, particularly with regard to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I would like to reinforce the comments that were made by Senator Chaney with regard to the compact. The debate about the proposed treaty or compact will create both support and division within the community. I note in particular that the appropriations make available some $2.4m in this financial year for the consultative process. During the Estimates it was ascertained that that $2.4m was provided to enable a full consultation process with the Aboriginal people to take place. I would like to highlight the fact that the $2.4m on its own is not enough, because the consultation cannot be one-sided and totally restricted to the Aboriginal community within our society. I do not support the need for a specific compact or a specific treaty. I believe that, in effect, we already have in place-in this very Budget that we are debating, in the various State Budgets around Australia and in the Budget of the Northern Territory Parliament-eight compacts with the Aboriginal people. There is a parliamentary process through which those budgets are developed. The total provision of funds on a national basis must be somewhere between $1,000m and $1,200m per annum in current terms. During this year's Estimates I pursued many questions in the area of what I termed accountability. I asked about the accountability, performance requirements, and checks and balances that had to be applied to all of these various government programs. I ascertained at that point that we needed to establish the Aboriginal vote in accounting terms-in terms of the contribution of the Australian taxpayer and expenditure in and for the Aboriginal community-and that this meant that there had to be a full acceptance of responsibility and accountability when accepting the tremendous amounts of funds that are applied nationally. The officers of the Department argued very strongly that there needed to be special provisions and special types of considerations in the accounting provisions to allow for processes whereby Aboriginals can properly participate. I would argue just as strongly that the auditing, efficiency checking and accountability procedures must at all times be fully accountable in the due processes of this Parliament to all Australian people. Mr Brownbill, an officer of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, in his comments at the Estimates hearings, also highlighted the point that there were very strong differences in the roles played by men and women in Aboriginal society. He stressed that these roles are different in what one might call the tribal and the detribalised or urbanised Aboriginal societies. We need to be very cautious and careful, in assessing all of these appropriations, that due regard is had to the competing interests within the Aboriginal community between tribalised and detribalised needs as they exist in society today. This again brings me back to how we ensure that this Parliament makes the proper provisions, allocates the funds properly and sees that the programs are efficiently carried out and that the recipients, whether they be Aboriginals or communities in which Aboriginals reside, are fully accountable. Several other issues arise. It was highlighted during Estimates committee hearings that many Department of Aboriginal Affairs officers were acting in positions higher than their substantive positions. An answer indicated that in the Department's Central Office some 111 people were on higher duties, 50 of whom had been on higher duties for over 12 months. That matter needs to be addressed very carefully by the administrators of the Department. It is not an efficient or proper system for a department. The acquisition of pastoral properties in the Northern Territory, which I represent, will always create community debate. In the course of Estimates hearings this year particular issues were highlighted in regard to acquisitions. This concerned not only the acquisition of the pastoral properties themselves but also the necessity for the Government to deal with existing pastoral lessees on the matter of land claims that have been lodged over stock routes, and excision provisions to provide reasonable living areas for Aboriginals on pastoral properties. It was ascertained from the Aboriginal Development Commission that an Aboriginal land register is maintained. I believe that further detail should be provided in this regard. The supplementary information provided to Estimates Committee E does not fully give the information that I believe I sought on that occasion. It has not been forthcoming. I believe that should be public information and made well known. The charts that show the various land that has now been set aside for Aboriginal purposes throughout Australia were highlighted yesterday when the report of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs was tabled. They show clearly that as at 30 June last year Aboriginal title was held over some 34 per cent of the total area of the Northern Territory. Of course other large tracts of land are under claim and it is anticipated that finally some 40 per cent of the land mass of the Territory will end up under Aboriginal ownership. That certainly creates advantages for Aboriginal communities but also creates a problem for non-Aboriginal communities which have to adapt to this situation. They have to ensure that government and non-government structures in the community and the community itself can deal with such a large and dramatic change in land administration. This problem does not exist in any other part of Australia. The Department's report, which shows provisions made in all of the States, demonstrates that there are many more competing interests in the Territory, and this certainly highlights the difference whereby the Commonwealth Government is able to walk in and apply provisions not applicable, constitutionally, in the States. As the Northern Territory marches towards statehood, which is an inevitable constitutional consequence of development in this country, I accept that the issues of Aboriginal residents of the Northern Territory must be fully accommodated. As we develop a legal constitution for the Northern Territory, it is quite apparent that there will have to be a major and different change on title land administration, and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act of this Parliament will, in effect, have to be abrogated or repatriated to the Northern Territory and incorporated in some form of provision under the Territory's State Constitution when it evolves. That means that this Parliament will have to be prepared, as it is in accepting the role of all States, to give up that form of control that it currently has. As to living areas excisions, I do not believe that the Government has yet come clean on where it currently stands. The answers given during the Estimates committees concerned the stage that the negotiations had reached. While I appreciate that the discussions with the Northern Territory Government and the various inte-rests in the Northern Territory such as the Northern Territory Pastoralists Association have to be fully accommodated, the time span seems to be too long and drawn out. There needs to be certainty for the Aboriginal community and for the people who will be affected by living area excisions as they apply. There are also a number of allocations in the Budget that deal with heritage and culture, and Senator Coulter referred to this earlier. I accept that there are many areas where we must ensure that adequate provision is made for the preservation, particularly, of the tribalised Aboriginal in the community. I am concerned that the provisions in this area do not draw sufficient delineation between the provision of cultural and ceremonial rights for tribal Aboriginals. Many of these programs tend to be applied for cultural things in the detribalised areas elsewhere in Australia, which have a different significance. It was also brought out in the Estimates Committee that a large provision of over $3m is made by a separate department through the Aboriginal Arts Board. Again, I believe that the Budget should carefully define where the provisions for Aboriginal culture are going, as between those for areas that are traditional in nature and those that are supporting the programs in the de-tribalised Aboriginal areas elsewhere in Australia. Let me refer to another provision that seems to have emerged for the first time this year in the appropriations for the Department, and that is the provision of over $800,000 in a specific area of the creation of an office of Aboriginal women within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The figures and answers given in the Estimates Committee were extremely vague about what this $800,000-odd was to be spent on. There is provision for some $680,000 for capital items for Aboriginal women's resources centres. In most capital works planning and programming there is an established order of priorities, and there are places and named areas as to where the money is to be spent, but we were not able to ascertain in the Estimates Committee where this money is to go. I accept that, particularly in the urban communities and detribalised areas, Aboriginal women are playing a very emerging role in society. They have a strong leadership role in many areas of the community. They certainly need support, but I would hope that this is not just a provision for another equal opportunities push under another fancy name. When we get expenditure in the order of $800,000 in one year in an area like that, I believe that there has to be more information provided, and more detailed planning should be available. In the area of law and justice, it was highlighted that there were certain provisions made to Tasmanian interests, and we have all heard the debate surrounding Mr Mansell's activities in Australia. I believe that this is a most unproductive area, and needs to be carefully reviewed, and we certainly need to watch carefully where Aboriginal leaders in certain communities develop interests that are not necessarily in accord with the constituency that they are seeking to represent. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Zakharov) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(10.55) —Obviously Senator Tambling is going to pursue a few more matters, so I will not respond to the points that he has made so far, but I will speak to give him an opportunity to continue. Senator Coulter raised mostly policy matters, not specifically related to the Bicentenary. We can only agree with him that, in the Bicentennial year, a lot of sensitivity is required and a lot of thought has to be given to the relationship between the white European community and the cultural traditions of this country prior to that. Senator Coulter raised the question of an elected Aboriginal body in the country and what funding is necessary. As far as I know, none is allocated in this particular set of estimates. It is a policy area that Senator Coulter might like to pursue, and the Government will have to respond to that point. However, at this stage, it is not related to the estimates. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(10.56) —If we look at a number of the other provisional areas, there appears to be a fundamental shift in policy between the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) and his predecessor, Mr Holding, particularly with regard to the provision of funds for what is called the Aboriginal lands movement program, or where there is funding for homelands and outstations. I asked the following question on notice about this: The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has recently written to the Northern Territory Government seeking to have the Commonwealth State review accelerated and suggests the basis for assessment be: (a) all Commonwealth funding activity including direct grant funding as well as grants to the States should be similarly included; (b) all States delivered or funded activity should be similarly included; and (c) that in the event that savings are identified in Commonwealth funding, that such funds should be retained within the State for further agreed initiatives. The third point seems to be a fundamental shift as the Minister's predecessor was looking to identify duplication and savings to the Commonwealth advantage. Is this to be the accepted policy? The answer was: The approach does represent a fundamental policy shift. It should be noted, however, that any funds saved would be available for direct grants programs or grants to the State (Territory) for agreed initiatives. I welcome that answer, because it highlights that where homelands and outstations are created, automatic additional costs are incurred to either the State governments or the Northern Territory Government. There must be a provision, and we must guarantee that those State governments are not disadvantaged where new outstations are created by a Commonwealth initiative, and then it is expected that the State governments or the Northern Territory Government will pick up the particular cost. The only other two points that I would wish to make relate to business funding. Yesterday, Senator Brownhill asked a question in this place in regard to the adequacy of checking of funds to commercial activities to ensure not only that the provision of funds are properly audited, but that the management of commercial and business enterprises that are specifically Aboriginal should be measured by conventional, professional checks and balances. We ascertained yesterday that an amount of, I think, some $900,000 had been invested in a hotel in northern New South Wales and that that project had failed. The Department and the Aboriginal Development Commission have admitted that there is a high bad debts ratio in the recovery of these types of funds. I think that that needs to be very carefully kept under review and addressed. My final point relates to an associated matter, that of the counselling of staff in areas in which it has been ascertained that poor standards of supervision apply. I refer specifically to the Bird case in Alice Springs where over a period an officer of the Aboriginal Development Commission defrauded the Commission of in excess of $2m. An unusual accounting arrangement was made and this was manipulated within the Commission. It was very apparent in the court case on this matter that the defrauding had happened over an extended period and that the person found guilty had been engaged in very extensive gambling activities which would have been known to his fellow employees, his superiors and to officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The fact that there was no mechanism adequately to counsel for antisocial behaviour I believe highlights a point of risk that needs to be addressed. We need to guarantee that in future the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Aboriginal Development Commission give very special regard to programs that ensure that, as part of staff development, training and supervision, there is adequate counselling and training within the Department and the Commission to counter areas of antisocial behaviour which are apparent. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(11.03) —Senator Tambling has raised a number of questions. He started off by giving us his views on an Aboriginal compact. They are interesting views. He made the point that if the Northern Territory is granted statehood there should be a repatriation of land rights coverage to the Northern Territory. I do not think that there is a Government policy specifically on that at this stage; we are not anticipating statehood immediately. Everyone in the Northern Territory is in favour of statehood but, of course, the details of that and the funding to the Northern Territory that would result have by no means been finalised. So we will not postulate as to what may happen in the future there. Senator Tambling raised the question of a grant for the establishment of an office of Aboriginal women. In fact, the $800,000 he mentioned is not for that; it is for multipurpose centres for Aboriginal women. Senator Tambling complained that there was no specific detail on this. It is quite obvious why there is no specific detail-because certain consultations always need to occur in these areas and they have not yet occurred. The details of each project will be provided to this Parliament following the consultations and Government decisions. Senator Tambling raised the matter of Mr Mansell and complained that he did not really represent the views of his constituency. If that is a crime then Senator Tambling is probably also guilty from time to time. Senator Tambling, however, made a very valid point in his next area of concern-the failure of Aboriginal commercial enterprises. It is true that there have been failures. Some Aboriginal enterprises have failed under the Whitlam Government, the Fraser Government and the Hawke Government. Whether Senator Tambling thinks that price is too high, I am not sure. However, I think we have to persist in these areas. But we also have to put a lot of stress on training. I refer him to the announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) a week or so ago on that particular matter. Senator Tambling also referred to accountability and raised the case of Mr Bird, who, I understand, has been charged and convicted for misappropriating money. These things happen from time to time everywhere. It was only about 15 years ago that an officer of the Rural Bank of New South Wales lost a few million dollars to the bookmakers. No one has dismissed that particular bank. He has proved at least one thing: that even with the Rural Bank of New South Wales one cannot win on the punt. These things occur. Of course, we do not endorse them. Senator Tambling raised the matter as a serious concern; it is of concern. However, this is not the first time such a thing has happened and I doubt whether there is any method to prevent it occurring occasionally in the future. The main thing is that the matter was discovered, prosecuted and brought to a conclusion. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(11.06) —I direct the attention of the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) to the type of financial management which takes place amongst the Aboriginal communities. I refer him, for instance, to Oombulgurri, which, of course-I am certain he knows-is in the Cambridge Gulf in the north-west of Western Australia, where last year there was a shortfall of hundreds of thousands of dollars in funds. My last inquiries indicated that there was an investigation taking place and that it appeared either that a white bookkeeper had misappropriated funds or that his management was so bad that the money had been lost as a result of poor financial and business transactions. I ask what the status of that community is now in respect of the discipline of the financial management of the group. I refer the Minister more particularly now to the Kalumburu group, also in the north-west of Western Australia-further to the north of the Oombulgurri group. As I understand it, that community simply is unable to pay its debts. It has a number of significant creditors outstanding. The indications are that those creditors can look forward to carrying the responsibility of those very substantial debts for some months into the future. The Kalumburu group and the Oombulgurri group, I suspect, both use business houses in Wyndham as their suppliers. Of course, those suppliers are not major operators, so when they are carrying debts of tens of thousands of dollars for many months that seriously jeopardises their capacity to function. It might properly be said that those business houses in Wyndham, Derby, Broome, Kununurra or wherever, ought to conduct their business with Aboriginal communities on a commercial footing. I am sure they do. Also, I think we all understand, credit is provided to these communities on the basis of fair needs mixed with commercial considerations. As I said, I understand that Kalumburu is unable to pay its creditors; probably technically, it is insolvent. I understand that now the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is investigating the prospect of purchasing aircraft for the Kalumburu group to travel between Kalumburu and Wyndham. That is notwithstanding the fact that a regular charter flies between Wyndham and Kalumburu and has low passenger volume. I submit, with respect, that if the Department were to go ahead with the purchase of this aircraft it would be delinquent in terms of financial management and the use of taxpayers' funds, in the same way that the purchase of a barge by the Oombulgurri group recently cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of unrecovered dollars in debts. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(11.09) —There have been some problems in the community to which Senator Crichton-Browne referred. I think the rough estimate is that $100,000 is owing and creditors have taken action to recover that money. I understand that investigations are under way to establish the causes of that. I am not able to help the honourable senator with any information as to the results of those inquiries because I do not think that they are yet complete. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(11.10) —I understand why the Mi-nister personally does not know about these communities. I mentioned Oombulgurri, the community that had a problem last year. Now Kalumburu has significant problems. I ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that the Department is in the process of examining the prospect of that community purchasing an aircraft, which I think would not be a priority, given the regular charter service's low passenger volumes. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(11.11) —Senator Crichton-Browne is correct. It is under consideration. However, no final decision has been made in relation to that purchase. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(11.11) —Given the dire financial circumstances of the community and its incapacity to pay modest debts to modest creditors, why is it now investigating the prospect of purchasing an aircraft to transport members of the community from Kalumburu to Wyndham, when there is already a charter aircraft with very considerable seating available on each flight, almost without exception? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(11.12) —I repeat that no decision has been made but an application has been made and it will be considered on its me-rits. No doubt the views the honourable senator has put today and other people have put will be taken into consideration before a final decision is made. Proposed expenditure agreed to. GROUP D Department of Community Services and Health Proposed expenditure $1,251,369,000 Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.13) —Some information is to be given. Is Senator Ryan coming to the chamber? Senator Robert Ray —Very shortly. Senator WALTERS —My next question is directed specifically to Senator Ryan. I would like to wait until she arrives. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(11.13) —I thank Senator Walters for her courtesy in awaiting Senator Ryan's arrival. I am sure that at this moment she is gathering a number of papers to answer some of the questions left unanswered yesterday. I do not know whether any other honourable senators would feel motivated to raise more general issues. This is such an interesting area. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(11.13) —In the annual report of the Health Insurance Commission, the costs of Medibank Private were revealed to have increased, as a management expense ratio, from 11.6 per cent of funds to 14.2 per cent, an increase of 22 per cent. We are told that this substantial increase in management expenses is largely due to the marked growth in the membership of Medibank Private and the associated growth in processing volumes. I was under the impression that when volumes increased average costs were reduced because there were so many fixed overheads that there would be economies of scale. Why does this golden rule not apply in this case and why does increasing business mean a substantial increase in the associated costs of running the business? If it involves a once-off increase in computer capacity, which it may well do, or an increase in other facilities which have enormous scope for further use-in other words, if there has had to be a very lumpy increase in facilities-can the Minister tell what additional scope is now available in Medibank for the utilisation of what now would be unused capacity? If there has been a sudden jump in the amount of major equipment or space, what is the scope for additions to the numbers capable of being handled by Medibank Private without further cost increases? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(11.15) —I understand that this matter involves one of those funny conundrums. Because Medicare and Medibank Private are run by the same operation, and since the membership of Medibank Private has increased, more of the administrative costs have been transferred from one side to the other. That happened towards the end of the year. I think that is the explanation. The way those sorts of costs are divided-in accounting terms, I assume-means that once the membership of one side goes up more of the administrative expenses are transferred. I think it is almost a book figure. I hope that satisfies the honourable senator. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(11.16) —It is certainly an adequate explanation. Whether it is a good explanation is another matter. This matter certainly seems to raise very serious questions about the distribution of costs between Medibank Private and Medicare. We are compulsorily required to be members of Medicare. It is a matter of choice whether one wants to be a member of Medibank Private. What the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) has just told me seems to raise serious questions about whether Medibank Private may well have been getting some advantage not available to competing private funds because some sort of arbitrary rule is used in apportioning costs. I do not know of a similar situation where the prospect of increased efficiency through increased numbers is offset by some formula which applies exactly to the contrary. I know that various other health funds have expressed concern about the manner in which costs are apportioned between Medibank and Medicare. Senator Walters —Grave concerns. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator Walters says, they are very grave concerns. I ask the Minister whether, to his knowledge, Medibank Private is moving more closely towards being a fair competitor with the private funds in that it is now at last being required to carry a fairer proportion of the costs as split up between Medibank Private and Medicare. If this is not so, can the Minister arrange for the Health Insurance Commission to provide a proper explanation for the increase? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(11.18) —Senator Michael Baume asked whether Medibank Private has an unfair advantage. There is a whole set of criteria by which he might care to measure that. I am satisfied that it does not, because the accounting method has been approved by the Auditor- General. As the Audit Office is a fairly independent body measuring government performance, I am satisfied with that as an explanation. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(11.20) —Senator Walters yesterday was seeking specific details of the payments available to consultant physicians after the first three consultations. The initial consultation fee for the consultant physician is $87. The initial consultation fee for specialists, including all surgeons, obstetricians, gynaecologists and so on, is $50. The fee for the second and third subsequent consultations at the consultant physician level is $43 and the fee for the fourth or other subsequent consultations is $25. Senator Walters wanted to know the difference between the consultant physician rate and the general practitioner (GP) rate. The GP standard consultation fee is $17.60. So once the consultant physician goes on to long term management his fee is 40 per cent greater than that for the GP standard consultation. I hope that satisfies Senator Walters's request. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.21) —I have another question. I have received from a constituent a letter that the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health (Senator Ryan) has written to her. I would prefer her name to remain unknown. The Minister said in her letter: Thank you for your recent note to His Excellency, the Governor-General about the Australia Card. I am glad you took the time to write about this important issue. Then the letter went on with the normal Labor propaganda about the ID card. My constituent said that she did not want her name on a computer and that she had not written a note to His Excellency the Governor-General. She was extremely concerned about this matter, and wondered why she got such a letter from the Minister when she certainly had not written a note to His Excellency the Governor-General about the Australia Card. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(11.22) —This clearly does not pertain in any way at all to the estimates which are being considered by the Committee. If Senator Walters would like to make that letter available to me, I can offer her an explanation outside the conduct of the business of the Committee of the Whole. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.23) —The Minister, as I understand her portfolio, is the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health. I imagine that the cost of this letter and any other letters of this type would come under the estimates for the Department of Community Services and Health. I would be most surprised if I were out of order in light of her portfolio and the fact that we are looking at the estimates for the Department of Community Services and Health. Senator Ryan —What is your question, Senator Walters? Senator WALTERS —I thank the Minister. My question is appropriate. This letter was obviously a mistake. I would like to know how taxpayers' money has been used in making such a mistake. Senator Ryan —Well, what is the question? Senator WALTERS —Why did my constituent receive a letter from the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health when my constituent had written no such letter to His Excellency the Governor-General? How many similar letters, whether in error or otherwise, were sent out by the Minister, and what was the cost? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(11.24) —I cannot possibly answer that question now. As I said, if Senator Walters would like to make that letter available to me, I will have it examined and explain what led to that reply being prepared. It does not pertain to the matters before the Committee at the moment. I will be very happy to look at the letter and get whatever information I can for Senator Walters. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Burns) —Senator Walters, I think that is a reasonable response from the Minister. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.24) —I will certainly make the letter available to the Minister and find out how she made the mistake. It is no use saying that the letter was prepared by someone else. It was signed by the Minister. The buck stops with the Minister's signature. The question I asked was: How many such letters have been sent out by the Minister and what was the cost? I think that comes within the estimates. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I think the Minister has already indicated that that will be part of the answer. Senator WALTERS —No, Mr Temporary Chairman, she has not. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(11.25) —We will get that information. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters, that information will be sent to you. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(11.25) —I would like to support Senator Walters's remarks because I have had a number of complaints in Queensland. One of my own staff, whose loyalty is beyond reproach, got a letter from the Minister on this business of the Australia Card. On Sunday I went to an air show at Archerfield. One of my old friends there, an ex-fighter pilot who was decorated for his service in the Second World War, gave me such a letter. He said, `I am not going to be intimidated. I find this letter one of the most intimidating exercises I have had in my life. You can tell the Minister from me that she will not frighten me by writing this sort of nonsense'. Senator Ryan —On a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman: I must ask at this stage that members of the Committee conduct the business of the Committee, which is the examination of the estimates. If honourable senators have questions that they want to ask about ex-fighter pilots' letters and so forth, this is not the place to do it. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(11.26) —I would like to follow up the remarks of my colleagues by asking a question about the number of replies that have been made by the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health (Senator Ryan) on the issue of the Australia Card, and the categories in which various people made responses to the Government on this issue. Last night in the adjournment debate I tabled a letter addressed to the Speaker of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. It was very obviously a roneoed prepared pat letter from the Department of Community Services and Health in response to a motion of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, a most important matter with regard to the Australia Card. The Speaker received in reply a letter that did not recognise his position and authority or the representations that had been made by the Northern Territory Parliament. He received a letter very similar to those received by the constituents of Senator Walters and Senator MacGibbon, obviously as part of a series of letters. I wonder whether the Minister signed them personally or whether they were done by machine. I would like to see the statistics on how many replies were made by Government Ministers through this Department and how they were categorised as to importance. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(11.27) —I will provide that information. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(11.28) —I wish to deal briefly with a matter which was raised yesterday with the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health (Senator Ryan) in Question Time about the establishment of a private hospital within the public hospital in Darwin. I refer the Minister particularly to a response from the Minister for Community Services and Health, Dr Blewett, who said, that the prospect of having a private hospital within a public hospital area raised the problem as to whether the Northern Territory Government could continue to guarantee unrestricted access to free public hospital treatment for uninsured people as a result of giving away a whole floor. He said: There is also the question of whether an agreement has been made between the Northern Territory Government and the operators of the proposed private hospital to redirect all privately insured patients from the public hospital to the private beds. It is important that we get an answer to that. Whilst some of the newspapers in the Northern Territory have been pretending that Territorians were disadvantaged by not having this provision, people in the Northern Territory should understand the full implications of this proposal. He went on to say: . . . a serious social problem arises if one decides within a public hospital to have a special floor set aside as a private hospital in that one may well develop special first class treatment for that one floor compared with the rest, so the result in the future will be that people in the public hospital-the poor, the Aborigines and others-will get second class treatment while those insured will get first class treatment on a special floor. A point was made here yesterday about Calvary Hospital in Canberra. I wonder whether the Minister would like to say whether the Go-vernment has a fundamental objection to allowing private hospital structures or floors within public hospital complexes. The point was made yesterday about Campbelltown, St George, and Lismore hospitals-I think North Shore is talking about it-and whether there is also a fundamental objection to attempting to direct the private hospital insured in Australia to self-supporting private hospitals, which I understand is what the situation is all about. I ask that in the context that basic private health insurance will pay $200 a day for private hospital care but the public hospitals, whose daily operating costs are, I understand, on average about $300, use taxpayer funded subsidies in order to charge only $120 a day for privately insured patients. In other words, the revenue in particular stands significantly to gain from people using private hospitals instead of using public hospitals. In the light of this apparent tax subsidy of health insurance funds and the undoubted fact that privately insured patients are adding significantly to public hospital queues, what is the Government's objection to this in principle and on what basis? Or was it simply a cheap political stunt to have a go at the Northern Territory Government? On what basis can it object to this? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(11.32) —Senator Michael Baume, of course, knows a great deal about cheap political stunts. What he is asking now is a policy question. If he wants to ask a policy question, I suggest that he ask it at Question Time or put it on notice. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(11.32) —I ask a question to follow up that of Senator Michael Baume. In the estimates before us what provisions are specifically being made this year, or what disadvantages are being made, with regard to Calvary Hospital and to any other provisions that will affect this area in the coming Budget? Senator Ryan —I will take it on notice. Proposed expenditure agreed to. GROUP E Department of Defence Proposed expenditure, $7,150,478,000 Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(11.33) —One of the things that became apparent in Senate Estimates Committee E during consideration of the estimates for the Department of Defence was that the high resignation rates that the Government euphemistically refers to as separation rates are continuing at record levels and the Government is doing very little to stem the flow. We now live in an area of very much increased instability. The regions around Australia have changed demonstrably from what they were 20 years ago and the need for a higher level of preparedness and a much higher level of capability for the Australian Defence Force is apparent to everyone except members of the Australian Labor Party. The capability gravely to harm Australia's interests is now possessed by a number of nations in our region. The Government does not recognise this. It still persists with the old `no threat for 10 years' doctrine and when it talks about threats it talks about the invasion of Australia. The invasion of Australia is the very least of the probabilities that face us in the defence area. We are an island and we are surrounded by nations which do have the capability, if they are so minded, to cause Australia a great deal of trouble. The limited capabilities that we have are being destroyed by the lack of concern of this Government for the men and women who form the Australian defence forces. As I have said over the years since the Labor Government came into power, this is not simply a matter of recruiting more people, as the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) fatuously tells the Parliament-`We have to do better; we have to recruit more'. It is far more serious than that. When we lose the experienced people that we are losing, we lose capability and we lose that capability for a generation. In other words, the situation that the Australian defence forces are in today will take at least 10 years to recover, to get back to the position we had when the Labor Party came into power. So we have to hope and we have to pray that we do not have to use those services seriously within the next 10 years. But if something is not done to correct the haemorrhage occurring in experienced personnel, that capability loss will be extended well beyond the 10 years. What has the Government done about it? Precisely nothing, except to appoint a Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. In the 10 years that I have been in the Parliament I have seen some bad Ministers, in the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia and the Labor Party, but I have never seen a Minister with less ministerial competence in her portfolio than the present incumbent-a Minister whose approach to her portfolio is one of patronising superficiality. This patronising superficiality is seen by everyone-every man and every woman in the Australian defence forces. I commend to the Senate an article by the defence reporter Peter Young in the Australian newspaper yesterday. He very accurately and in a very restrained article outlined the shortcomings of this Minister. I would like to quote a few points from it: To put it in non-military terms, she was howled down by service families who simply were no longer prepared to take Mrs Kelly's promises seriously when both she and they knew that the money was not available for anything beyond the cheapest cosmetic reforms. Later on the article stated: All of this is very true of course, but we are dealing with a Minister who, so far, has been little short of a disaster in her handling of the portfolio. The next paragraph refers to the issue of the behavioural code of the Chief of the Defence Force. I will come back to the wisdom or lack of wisdom of the Chief of the Defence Force in trying to suborn the wives of his servicemen in this way. Later on, Mr Young says: No one will deny the need for the normal courtesies that always have been extended in the services, but these guidelines go a long way to denying the political rights of defence families. They also reinforce the fear of retribution felt by many service wives for speaking out-a major factor identified in the Hamilton report on problems facing service families. ... ... ... ... Put bluntly, if ministers do not perform-as Mrs Kelly and Mr Beazley are demonstrably not performing in the area of defence conditions of service-then they and their hired help should be open to the full brunt of political opprobrium the same as every other politician. I think that puts very succinctly the Government's contempt for the service men and women of Australia. In a speech here a couple of weeks ago I said that one of the fundamental problems with the defence forces in Australia was the management system which has been the legacy of the Tange reforms and until that is completely restructured we will never get to the root of the problems that we have. It is true that the problems in relation to the conditions of service go back many years. But under a Liberal government, in which the party collectively and the Minister in particular took an interest in defence and had a real feeling and understanding for the needs of the defence forces, the inadequacies in the management system could be coped with in some way. But when we have a Mr Beazley and a Mrs Kelly who have never worn a uniform in their lives, never served in any branch of the defence forces for even a short time, when we have a party committed to the socialist-pacifist doctrines, the inadequacies of the management system that we have in the Department of Defence mean a complete breakdown in the operation. A good management system does not necessarily of itself guarantee success; the corollary is alway's true: if we have a bad management system we simply cannot be successful. Until the system that we have of civilian operation of what is a specialised professional field is changed, we will go on with the sorts of problems that we have in relation to the services. The lack of personnel at present means that we have to pull back people who should be in operational roles, who are trained for operational roles, into a training role to train new recruits. That means a lack of capability in the operational arm and a very much increased budgetary cost in re-training people that should not be necessary. But the crucial thing, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, is this lack of capability which we have now lost for a generation-for at least 10 years. I am very much indebted to Senator Newman for the tabling of a paper earlier in the week from the Department of Defence on officer resignations between the period mid-February 1987 to 31 August 1987. In that paper 163 officers in the Army who had resigned were interviewed by the Psychological Research Unit. The reasons why those people resigned have been analysed. The officer in charge of the Psychological Research Unit commented: The data appear to be of very good quality, with good variability between items and good internal consistency. On the basis of this preliminary analysis there are no internal contradictions. It lists the general reasons for resignation as being family stability issues, leadership and career management issues, erosion of conditions of service, and a variety of lesser concerns. The first table deals with the reasons for leaving. More important, or of more interest to me, is the second table which analyses what the officers said would have to be improved in the Department of Defence for them to stay. Family events is one of the common themes-the family retained in one location during critical years of each child's education. But very high on the list-151 officers out of 163 said this-was: `A more positive commitment shown by senior officers towards service conditions'. Also, 151 officers said that they required better leadership by their superiors, and 152 said that they required greater loyalty from senior officers. That leads me to the point that I wish to raise. There is apparent in the Services today a great deal of unrest about senior officers. There is a feeling that the chiefs of staff are not looking after the men and women in the service in the way in which the men and women think they ought to. The issuance of a code of conduct by the Chief of the Defence Force at the request of Mrs Kelly, Mr Beazley or someone in the Department, further degrades that trust and respect that the service people have for their leaders. Things like the defence supplement in the Australian of 13 November, in which the Chief of the Defence Force claimed that all is the best of all possible worlds are, in my judgment, acts of gross irresponsibility. The article is entitled `Forces capable of meeting credible contingencies'. Everyone knows we could not defeat a bunch of boy scouts landing in Botany Bay on a Saturday afternoon. The whole tenor of the article by the man responsible for the defence of Australia is misleading. The problem we face here is that the senior ranks of the Australian defence forces have now become so politicised that we are not getting the objective professional advice from the service personnel at the top that the Australian public and this Parliament are entitled to. It comes back to the system that is in place, whereby the Secretary and the civilian component of the Department of Defence approve every promotion to one star and above in the Department. Senior officers are chosen not because of their forthright intellect and their ability to pursue a professional career but because they fit in well with the club that exists in Canberra. The club exists in Canberra because the Tange committee has such bloated headquarters on Russell Hill, with officers who serve so much of their lives in Canberra that they are divorced from the affairs of the men and women in the three Services. Their faces have to fit within the Russell Hill environment or their careers are not advanced. Officers are appointed to one star who are keen to become two-star officers. They will say nothing to anyone around them. They will not offend the politicians: they will not offend the Public Service. When they become a two-star officer, they want to be chief of staff. When they are chief of staff, they want to be Chief of the Defence Force. When they become CDF they want to be Governor. The only thing I can say is that if we have senior serving officers who are frightened of offending politicians, thank God they do not have a real enemy outside Australia to fight. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(11.46) —I address comments and questions to three areas of Defence appropriation. The first relates to failure to appropriate funds in relation to some of the recommendations of the report of Mr Hogg to Cabinet. I seek leave to table a copy of the Hogg report. Leave granted. Senator McLEAN —I seek leave to have the recommendations of that report incorporated in Hansard. The document comprises about 12 pages. Leave not granted. Senator McLEAN —I requested leave to incorporate the recommendations in Hansard to save me reading them, considering the time constraints which were explained to us earlier. Senator Robert Ray —I make one comment: the normal procedure, if one wants something incorporated in Hansard, is to bring it to the Minister's desk. It is nearly always cleared. Our only objection on this occasion may be to the size of the document because of the enormous cost of incorporating this sort of thing in publications such as Hansard. I just wanted to explain what the normal modus operandi is. Senator McLEAN —I think the only way I can deal with these recommendations, Mr Temporary Chairman, is to read them. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Burns) —That is your prerogative. Senator McLEAN —In view of the time constraints, I will think about that a little further and address more general comments to the Hogg report. I think everybody is aware that a fairly controversial process has been occurring in recent weeks under the direction of Mr Hogg. The process relates to an assessment of the adequacy or otherwise of the Evatt Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam. I think everyone is also aware that the Australian Democrats believe that, in the public interest, the findings of Mr Hogg in relation to the Evatt Royal Commission and the recommendations thereto warrant public disclosure because they concern three areas, particularly veterans' affairs, which we, have discussed previously. The findings also relate to defence and areas of public health. Mr Hogg has drawn attention to the fact that the Evatt Royal Commission made a number of recommendations 2 1/2 years ago in relation to the Department of Defence. I will read from the Hogg report which I have just tabled: The Commission's findings- he is referring to the Evatt Royal Commission's findings and recommendations- included a number to be acted upon by the Defence Department or the Department of Veterans' Affairs relating to- there are several which relate specifically to defence- . . . the proper co-ordination, control, storing, recording and usage of chemicals. I direct a question to the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) in relation to appropriations which will effect that recommendation for the proper co-ordination, control, storing, recording and usage of chemicals. I am seeking clarification from the Minister as to whether, since that recommendation was made 2 1/2 years ago, money has been appropriated to put that recommendation into effect, since we believe it interfaces with major issues of public health. The next recommendation which specifically relates to the Department of Defence-and I am quoting from the Hogg report, which presumably is quoting from the recommendations of the Evatt Royal Commission-reads as follows: the improvement of psychological and psychiatric testing and services supplied to members of the armed forces; A third and possibly more significant recommendation states: the improvement of the quality of assistance given in the transition from service to civilian life particularly at the conclusion of combat experience; This, of course, was the primary focus in relation to Vietnam veterans. Mr Temporary Chairman, you will observe that the recommendation relating to `the improvement of the quality of assistance given in the transition from service to civilian life' is of a general nature. My questions in relation to the Hogg report are twofold. Can we identify in the appropriations sums which will affect the precautions in relation to chemicals? Can we identify in the appropriations sums which will give effect to the recommendation regarding improving the quality of transition from service to civilian life? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(11.52) —Going to Senator McLean's points first of all, I must say just as an observation that his questions would be more appropriately dealt with by the Estimates Committee rather than the Committee of the Whole. Nevertheless, at this stage it is not possible to identify the expenditure to which the honourable senator referred. I am hoping at a later point today to have some further assistance in this matter. The questions that the honourable senator asked go to a lot lower level than the general allocations. If I can ascertain an answer this morning, I will certainly pass it on to the honourable senator when I am replying to other matters. Senator MacGibbon, in rather a bullish speech this morning, managed to offend 90 per cent of the military establishment. He made a major point about separation rates. Just for the record, the separation rates for the September quarter of 1987 totalled 2,518, whereas for the comparable period last year the figure was was 2,432 compared with a 10-year average of 2,076. These are figures that would concern any government. But I do not know that they justify the hysteria that was displayed by Senator MacGibbon this morning. I very much doubt that they do. In particular in this chamber during consideration of the Estimates in committee, specific comments have been made about the most worrying aspects of separation rates-that is, resignations from the Royal Australian Air Force. A variety of steps are being considered to try to reverse that trend. We have already announced some in terms of extended service of pilots when they sign up and coming to some sort of sensible agreement with Qantas Airways Ltd; We are even considering Senator Harradine's suggestion, although it was already under consideration, about the use of reservists as flight instructors. Senator MacGibbon quoted what has been said by Mr Peter Young, who, I think we would have to say, is a professional military critic. He earns his living by being critical of the military. In fact, I think he earned his first political endorsement to run for office because of his role as a military critic. Senator Newman —By the Labor Party. Senator ROBERT RAY —Yes. In fact, for a period, Mr McMahon denied us the pleasure of his company in the chamber across the way. Senator MacGibbon fairly vigorously, and I think very unfairly, attacked Mrs Kelly, the new Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. He did not really adduce much evidence in that attack, nor did he adduce much evidence in anything else he said. He made a lot of assertions but unfortunately he did so without some more fundamental underpinning of evidence. As a result, I do not take his views terribly seriously. For instance, Senator MacGibbon said that the Australian Labor Party is not interested in defence because it follows socialist pacifist doctrines, that it has no military experience at all. Really, he can do better than that. The Labor Party has been quite dedicated to building up the defences of this country, to developing a strategy and adhering to it. It has not adopted just an ad hoc series of pre-election commitments, as the honourable senator's Party has done in the past. The policy of the Liberal Party of Australia on this matter has waxed and waned. But too often, for political reasons, the Liberal Party has sought to exploit military issues. On the other hand, the Labor Party is very much dedicated to a world disarmament viewpoint. It is very easy to distort that commitment because we have long and short term goals. Our long term goal is worldwide disarmament, especially in the nuclear area. But at the same time, we do not think this sort of disarmament will be progressed by our ignoring or taking a pacifist view of our own armed forces. The defence paper which was brought down a few months ago is clearly a document on defensive strategy. We are building our defence forces around a defensive strategy, not an aggressive one under which we would seek to expand our borders or interfere unduly with our neighbours' affairs. I reject the charge that we are in some way, through some philosophical commitment-I think the honourable senator was saying this inadvertently rather than deliberately-white-anting the military forces of this country. I absolutely deny both charges. Senator MacGibbon went on to say, to give himself an air of even-handedness, that there were some crook Liberal Ministers. I invite him to get up and name them. He is quite happy to rip into Mrs Kelly. He is quite happy to admit that there were some fairly bad Liberal Defence Ministers. Let us get their names on the records in a few minutes time. I will be very interested to hear the honourable senator's view on what their weaknesses were. The honourable senator referred to the survey, on which I was ambushed the other day, as to the reasons people resign. I found that an interesting survey. I understand-and I will readily accept advice and be corrected on this-that almost exclusively the people being surveyed responded to suggested answers. From time to time I have had experience with surveying. The responses to this survey were what I would expect. It was not unusual for the people to respond in the way they did to suggest gripes. To me, the main value of that sort of survey is the extent to which the people concerned responded to some questions and not others. That is something that the Department of Defence and everyone else will have to take on board and examine carefully. But the value of all such surveys is slightly limited. Senator MacGibbon alleged that if a bunch of boy scouts landed at Manly on Saturday the Australian armed forces could not defeat them. That is an insulting suggestion. It is one that is not in keeping with the honourable senator's dignity and wide knowledge of defence matters. It may have been made to make a colourful point, but I do not think that in his heart of hearts he believes it. Senator MacGibbon went on to speak about politicisation of senior personnel. I am not really sure what he was referring to. He went on to say that all senior personnel are chosen by the civil side of the Defence Department, that there is some sort of Russell Hill clique and that there is a club atmosphere. It is true that the Secretary is consulted on all appointments but does not have to approve them. That is my understanding of the system. It is easy to make allegations of bloated bureaucracy, cronyism, et cetera. Those allegations would have a little more force if some evidence were brought forward. Senator MacGibbon seems to be working backwards. He is not happy with the performance of the senior people in the armed services. He says that is reflected in the view of the lower ranks and is one of the reasons for the current separation rates. In seeking a reason for that, he seems to build his case backwards. Unless he can give some evidence, I do not accept that some of the more senior appointments do not deserve to be there on merit. Senator MacGibbon alleges that such senior personnel are simply careerists-I think that is a fair description of his allegation-that they become one-star generals and that all they ever live for is to become two-star generals. That is not unusual or necessarily a bad thing, provided that it does not interfere with their careers. Most people in this chamber who sit where Senator MacGibbon sits aspire to move somewhere else-a little closer to the front. Having ambition in the armed forces is not a bad thing. If, though, the proper goals of the military forces and their duties were sublimated and distorted by that ambition, he would have a strong case. But I have not heard him produce evidence of that here today. I do not want the honourable senator to name individuals in this chamber-I am sure that he does not want to-because that is most unfair. So we are both at a disadvantage in regard to his allegations. I do not think that what the honourable senator put forward here today has much substance. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(12.00) —My questions to the Minister for Home Affairs relate to the proposed intelligence and monitoring operation at Geraldton. Before I ask specific questions, I will say a little about the Defence Signals Directorate (DSD), which is the Australian authority which will allegedly operate the new facility. According to Professor Des Ball, who wrote a book about the security arrangements between the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK), Canada, Australia and New Zealand called The Ties that Bind, which was published by Allen and Unwin in 1985, the intelligence budget has doubled since 1978. Professor Ball's book is a very significant study of the security arrangements, the intelligence gathering operations and the sharing of information which occurs between those countries. The Defence Signals Directorate fits into that framework. I quote very briefly from Des Ball's book: The Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) is described in the Commonwealth Government Directory as an organisation within the Department of Defence `responsible for defence signals and communications security'. Although there had been occasional references in the press to an Australian signals intelligence (SIGINT) organisation, the existence of the DSD was not officially acknowledged until the Prime Minister's statement on the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security in the House of Representatives on 25 October 1977, when Mr Fraser stated: `The Defence Signals Division is an organisation concerned with radio, radar and other electronic emissions from the standpoint both of information and the intelligence that they can provide and of the security of our own Government communications and electronic emissions. It is an agency which serves wide national requirements in response to national priorities.' The first official recognition of the DSD was given by the then Prime Minister in 1977. However, as Des Ball pointed out in his book: The history of the DSD can be traced back to 1939-40 . . . So for all those years Australians were kept in the dark about the existence of this very significant aspect of Australian intelligence gathering organisations. Des Ball says that the six intelligence agencies-the Office of National Assessments, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, services intelligence directorates, the Joint Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service and DSD-have about 2,500 staff. As I have said, the entire intelligence budget has doubled since 1978. According to Des Ball's book, the Defence Signals Directorate provides the Australian intelligence community with substantial quantities of extremely valuable intelligence. It states: Some examples, taken from the Annual Report of the Joint Intelligence Organisation, 1974, include South Korean diplomatic traffic, Pakistani diplomatic traffic after the Indian nuclear test, information on armed incidents between liberation movements and security forces in southern Africa, fighting on the Iran/Iraq border, French nuclear testing and pre-knowledge of detonations, the Indonesian order of battle in Irian Jaya and Timor, as well as diplomatic messages concerning world currency problems and national responses, diplomatic messages relating to the Law of the Sea Conference, Japanese diplomatic messages in general and in particular those with economic content, and `diplomatic messages emanating from a number of foreign missions in Canberra'. Other examples . . . Chinese nuclear, advanced weapon, and space-testing activities; on the Middle East, especially the Israeli-Egyptian-Syrian War of October 1973 and the involvement of the superpowers in that war; on Soviet naval activities in the Indian and Pacific Oceans; on Indonesian views on and activities against dissident groups on the Papuan New Guinea/Irian Jaya border; on the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea in December 1978, and on the subsequent Chinese invasion of Vietnam. The report of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security in 1977 paid tribute to the work of the DSD and recommended that its status be enhanced. It stated: `DSD is a very capably managed agency and believed to be so by most of its staff and others who deal with it'. This is certainly the assessment of the Canberra consumers of the DSD's material. If there is any criticism- this is a very important point to note- it is that the DSDs collection activities are too wide-ranging and too indiscriminate, producing much intelligence of only marginal strategic significance. The foregoing examples of intelligence provided by the DSD suggests that the DSD is guided more by the requirements of the Western SIGINT community in which it is a major participant rather than by the more delimited requirements of Australian security. That is the most important point to make. The activities of the DSD as they have operated in the past, and presumably as they will continue to operate and be further expanded by this enormous installation which is planned for Geraldton, will take Australia further into the area of gathering information which is perhaps fascinating for the defence community but not relevant to the defence of Australia. That point has been made over and over again. Given that, according to the report of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities, our area of strategic influence should cover about 10 per cent of the world's surface and that the operations of the Geraldton base will be able to cover more than 30 per cent of the world's surface, the question needs to be asked again: On whose behalf are we collecting the information? It is not information which necessarily will be relevant to the defence of Australia. Under the United Kingdom-United States of America agreement which is the subject of the book The Ties that Bind-the 1947 agreement which is claimed by Des Ball to be one of the most secret security agreements of all time-the information will be passed on to the United States. So, on behalf of the United States intelligence community, we will be doing the work and passing on the information. Another very important point that is made in the book is that the information is not necessarily passed back. According to a former National Security Agency officer, all information goes to the United States but the United States does not totally reciprocate in passing it on to other powers. We ought to take that matter very seriously. The DSD and the joint intelligence facilities that are available in the Australian community are far in excess of what the Canadian Government and other nations of a comparable size have. Again, the point needs to be made that we are doing the work on behalf of the Western alliance, and in particular on behalf of the United States, and are spending a great deal of Australian taxpayers' money on information gathering that is not relevant to our defence needs. My specific questions relating to the base at Geraldton are: Firstly, how much money has been allocated for the purchase of the land; that is, the 35 hectares for the compound and the 415 hectares for the buffer zone? Secondly, how much money has been allocated for the computer systems; where will they come from and exactly what types of systems will they be? Thirdly, when will work on the infrastructure start? My fourth question relates to the overall budget. According to Des Ball, the joint intelligence agencies have staff of about 2,500. If Geraldton takes 125 people, which is what we have been told so far, that represents about 5 per cent of the total number of staff. Are extra staff to be allocated or will they be taken out of the existing intelligence community; that is, will they be transferred from one of the other agencies to the DSD facility at Geraldton? What will be the extra costs of the staffing allocation? The DSD's overall budget is about $30m. How much more will it be with the Geraldton facility added to it? Will the Government give some indication of why there is such a discrepancy between the original figure that was bandied about-I realise that it was an unofficial figure but I gather that reputable newspapers in this country had received it unofficially from the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley)-of between $20m and $25m and the figure that is now being touted by members of the Department of Administrative Services in the Geraldton area of $300m? The question has been asked before and I ask it again. Finally, what are the total construction and running costs of the proposed Geraldton facility? Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(12.09) —I thank the Minister for Home Affairs for his reply to me. It was quite obvious from the way in which he responded that my points went home in a significant way. He knows, as I do, that there are very real limits as to how far we can take this debate in public without prejudicing the careers of otherwise estimable members of the defence Services. Time is short, so I will not go into that in great detail. However, I would like to pick up a couple of his points. He talked about ad hoc decisions being made before elections. The Australian Labor Party has a terrible record on this. One has only to look at the FFG and Leopard tank decisions of the Barnard era. One can look at the decision to proceed with the surface combatants before the last election in July this year. This was rushed through by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) as a selling point, before the Navy had worked out its requirements. Indeed, today the Navy still does not know what it wants those surface combatants to do from an operational point of view. One can also look, of course, at the way the submarine program was driven to a decision to precede the election. That can be contrasted with the history of the Liberal-National Party Government. The FA18 contract was the biggest defence contract up till that time. That decision could have been taken before one of the elections. It was not, because the Chief of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, the Chief Defence Scientist, Professor Fink, wanted more time to look at the properties of the epoxy bonding of the graphite panels on the aircraft. He was concerned about their fatigue life. It is a matter of public record-in a speech made by the Chief Defence Scientist a year or two ago-that he went to the then Minister for Defence, Mr Killen, and said, `Minister, I understand you want the decision rapidly so that you can announce this with an election coming on. I am sorry, but I need more time'. Killen said to him, `You take all the time you want. It is important that the correct and proper decision in your judgment is made. The political considerations are quite secondary'. We do not see that philosophy followed in the Australian Labor Party. Without going deeply into the matter, I want to talk about the politicisation of the senior levels of the Australian Defence Force. I have referred to this matter in the past in this chamber. The only point I want to add is that I emphasise that I am not talking about politicisation in party political terms. That is not part of my argument at all. What I am saying is that there is a very great danger that the advice that the Parliament and the executive Government get from the professionals in the service is increasingly tailored to what they perceive to be the view of the government of the day. Senator Robert Ray should be as concerned about that as we in the Opposition are. I am sure that if Senator Ray had a tumour somewhere he would go to a surgeon and he would want that surgeon to give him accurate advice as to whether it was benign or malignant. Even if it was malignant he would want to know that so that he could put his affairs in order. There is a very great parallel between the advice tendered by senior serving officers and the sort of advice we would expect from specialist surgeons or other specialist people in this country. We want them to tell it like it is. We will worry about the political consequences; we will make the economic changes that are required to cope with them. But as someone who has sat on Estimates committees interviewing senior officers, I make the statement without qualification that I have noticed over the last 10 years an increasing degree of politicisation in the advice that is given in this chamber and of officers thinking: `What does that senator want for an answer and what does the Government want?'. One can see their minds working, and one can see the way that things are changing. Senator Ray brought up the resignation rates of pilots, and he mentioned that some changes had been made. For 20 years we have had an average loss rate of pilots from the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) of about 47 per year. For the last three years the loss rate has been 60, 70 and 107 for last year. We have a pilot training capability of somewhere between 55 and 65 a year. Against the loss of 107 last year we trained about 65. Up to this point in this financial year-in about four months-about 80 pilots have applied to leave. We are critically short of pilots. I applaud the moves that Senator Ray has made. They are common sense and they are the correct moves to make. But the fact remains that we are left with a very great shortfall in pilots. There are two consequences of this. First of all, in losing 107 pilots we are not losing those just through their elementary or advanced flying training courses. We are losing pilots who have served at least eight years in the RAAF, pilots who are pretty close to 30 and who have the experience we need to flesh out the squadrons. We cannot take a pilot through an operational conversion unit, put him into a squadron and get him to do the difficult and dangerous things that the Royal Australian Air Force requires of its pilots. We train realistically in this country. The operational squadrons fly those aircraft-whether they are the fighters or the strike aircraft, the F111s-to the limit for their flight envelopes. They fly them at night and they fly them in the worst of weather. The Royal Australian Air Force-with its F111 low runs, or terrain following runs-is the only air force in the world that trains at night and in bad weather. We have the best pilots in the world. Because funds have been run down we have fewer hours available for flying. What the Air Force has done is put fewer pilots in a squadron so that it can keep a figure of about 20 hours a month flying time for those pilots in the fighter squadrons. That is the correct thing to do, from a safety point of view. But because we have had fewer trained pilots, with the loss rates we have, we now have very few fighter pilots in this country. We have very few instructors. We have a great shortage of instructors. So trying to compensate for the loss by putting more people through the schools runs into the brick wall of the great shortage of qualified flying instructors (QFIs). One of the sad things is that the pool of pilots from which the QFIs are drawn is that of the transport and helicopter squadrons. These are not the people we want to be instructors of a fighter squadron, because it is a different breed of cat-somebody who flies a 130 Hercules aircraft is different from the aggressive, cocky, quick-thinking, quick-reacting fighter pilot. The fighter pilot ethos is a very real thing. It is not so long ago-a year or so-that Singapore asked for some flying instructors. We sent up some from the RAAF and this was followed by the ignominious act of the Singaporeans sending them back because they happened to be transport flying instructors and the Singaporeans wanted fighter pilot instructors. So the loss of trained pilots is enormously serious. It is a huge economic loss; it is a huge loss in capability. Even if we established a crash program and trained 150 pilots or whatever the figure required to bring us up to strength, we are looking at about eight to 10 years before we get those people capable of going into operations to do the sorts of things that we require of our pilots in the operational squadrons. The tragic accident last week involving a young FA18 pilot was, to the best of my knowledge, a normal training accident, if such a thing can be described in those terms. I certainly do not ascribe any fault to the Government for that. If we are going to train realistically we will have losses in lives and aircraft. But, unfortunately, that sort of thing will increase because of the lack of experienced pilots in the Air Force. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(12.18) —I will be extremely brief because this matter has already been dealt with a number of times in the Chamber today and yesterday. I have just four brief questions on the Australian defence satellite communications station to be situated at Geraldton, Western Australia, which is, of course, of concern to all Western Australians. I will not ask the cost of the glossy brochure which was put out by the Department of Defence, of which I have here a photocopy. But I would like to say that this brochure really has a bit of the naive soft-sell about it. It has the usual salesman's ingredients. First of all there is a little fear: the suggestion that the spy-base is important to Australia's defence. Then there is a bit of flag waving: the suggestion that it will all be Australian owned. Then there is a bit of local fervour: the suggestion that it will be tremendous for the local shopkeepers. Finally, there is a sop to the conservationists: the suggestion that the Army will look after the environment. I repeat that: the Army will look after the environment. The first of the four questions I want to ask has already been asked, but I would also like an answer to it. The Government White Paper cited the cost of this station to be in the region of $25m. The figure being bandied around now is in the region of $300m. How much will it cost? Secondly, as it appears that we do not have the technology ourselves to operate such a station on our own, will the guts of the station be all United States technology? That is, are we going to have United States made computers and receivers so that they can receive information from United States satellites? Thirdly, because Australia is a signatory to the little-known United Kingdom-United States secret information treaty, will the information that we collect go to the United Kingdom and the United States? Fourthly, will that information then be passed back to us? I would like to remind the Senate that we have not had the whole truth by any means about the other bases which we have in Australia, which are not Australian-owned, as this is purported to be. Also, governments in the past have been quite content to pass on the naive untruths, or not full truths, given to them by other nations. I would appreciate truthful answers to these questions this time. Senator WOOD(New South Wales)(12.21) —With the minimum of rhetoric, I have a number of brief questions about training. Who will train the personnel required to staff the Geraldton base? Will there be a need for advisers in the early stages of the operation of the base from other than Australia to get the whole thing on line? Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(12.22) —I would like to reinforce Senator MacGibbon's opening comments about the gross inadequacy of the appropriations for the Department of Defence. A mere two weeks ago, we debated, as a matter of urgency, the crisis that is occurring within the defence forces. We are in a situation of national crisis, and that crisis, and the remedy for it, are not reflected in these appropriations. They reflect the Government's attitude, which is traditionally to ignore service problems because they are not represented in a high profile way. I would suggest that the climate is changing. I would like to cite the attitude of the Regular Defence Force Welfare Association in relation to these matters. Like, I would imagine, most other senators, I have received a letter bearing the signature of Major General John Whitelaw, the National President of the Regular Defence Force Welfare Association, in which he lists the grave concerns of those in the Services, and their families, today. It suggests that they are well and truly aware that we are in a state of crisis, and that they will be demanding action in a way not previously used by defence personnel. I quote partially from Major General Whitelaw's letter. He had already spoken about their concerns over the 2 per cent discounting of Defence Force retirement benefits, but that was not the essence of his comments. He was just citing previous ways in which Defence personnel had been maltreated by the present Government. He said: I now wish to draw your attention to some other matters of concern to our Association: proposed changes to the Defence Service Homes Loans Scheme. the proposed introduction of the Military Compensation Scheme. the inordinate delay in establishing the Defence Housing Authority. the present unrealistic Service Allowance. cuts in the ``Repairs and Maintenance'' Budget resulting in a continuing deplorable standard of Service Housing. unacceptable restrictions on the payment of Education Allowance. the non-implementation of the recommendations of the Hamilton Report-only one of the 15 recommendations has been partially implemented. He has cited there six areas of grave concern to serving personnel. He continues: Should these matters not be quickly and satisfactorily resolved the result will be further dissatisfaction in the Services, a decline in morale, an increased resignation rate, a reduction in Defence capability and increased costs. Members of this Association and indeed most responsible Australians are greatly concerned about this state of affairs. We propose vigorously to press for an early resolution of these issues, and look forward to your active support. That letter went to all parliamentarians. It is an expression of the extraordinary level of dissatisfaction that exists among serving personnel. It is a warning to this Government and, one would imagine, subsequent governments, that there is a level of concern that will lead to unprecedented actions. Senator MacGibbon has cited the fact that the lead times to put into effect solutions to problems of this magnitude are in the vicinity of one or two decades. Those are the generalised comments. I would like to offer the Minister an alternative analogy about our capabilities to one that Senator MacGibbon offered and which, in broad terms, I would endorse. But let us make it more specific and cite the comments that senior Army officers made recently in the Press following major exercises which, in summary, admit that we could not defend a major metropolitan centre in this nation against conventional attack for beyond two weeks. I do not believe that to be an exaggeration. Those are not the words, but they are a reasonable translation, of statements made by those who are commanding our defence forces. The realities are that we have gross inadequacies. We have rampant low morale and resign- ation rates, and an extraordinary crisis, acknowledged here in this letter by the formal representative of those serving within the defence forces. That is not acknowledged but in fact denied by the present Government, to a level of irresponsibility which will cause a backlash from history that will condemn this Government as having totally neglected the defence of our continent and our nation. Those were fairly broad condemnations, probably as broad as one could get, so I would now like to cite something more specific, and that is in relation to the Government's proposed actions to reorganise the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO). The reorganisation to make the DSTO a more effective and efficient organisation was announced by the Government on 12 October. As the Government may know, the manner and implication of this reorganisation is causing concern within the DSTO work force, and amongst unions associated with that work force. Unfortunately, we have another area of low morale emerging, and one that will undoubtedly grow as a result of a measure announced by the Government as recently as 12 October. The concerns about the reorganisation of the DSTO can be put under three headings. First, there is opposition to the rationale of the reorganisation. There are those who simply reject the reasoning behind it. The essential thrust of the reorganisation is to concentrate more DSTO work on high level research and development. That would seem, on the surface, to be an appropriate emphasis. Existing routine work is to become the province of the private sector through contracted projects with the DSTO. On the surface, that would appear to be a reasonable suggestion. However, a valid question here might be: To what extent has the Government investigated the capacity and willingness of the private sector to do this before announcing the reorganisation? There is an assumption that the private sector is both willing and able to assume these responsibilities should that reorganisation be put into effect. This question is relevant to the second major concern of the work force, about the proposed reduction in the work force numbers, and the extent to which target numbers will be achieved through redundancies. Will lost employment and positions in the DSTO be made up for by the private sector taking up more contract work from the DSTO? Even if the private sector does so, of course, that does not deny the fact that those within the DSTO are likely to be faced with redundancy. It does not prove the fact that, by bearing that redundancy, in the long run the reorganisation will be more effective and efficient anyway. Finally, I refer to the animosity within the work force as to the manner in which the reorganisation is proceeding. There are complaints of lack of consultation and apparent vagueness of the process-vagueness in terms of its cost, its benefit and its progressive impact on the people involved and on people in the defence science and technology area in general. It would thus appear that the reorganisation is worth our close initial and ongoing examination. This does not necessarily mean that we should oppose the rationale of the reorganisation, but we are simply questioning its costs and its cost effectiveness. Although it is a form of privatisation, it may have its merits. The attitude of the Australian Democrats towards privatisation is to consider each proposal on its merits. It may well be that this proposal has merits, but there is no evidence in the Government's announcing of the proposal that it has examined the proposal in terms of its costs versus its benefits. Therefore, my question is: When is the Government going to address, in terms of appropriations and policy, the extraordinary historical crises that we have on our hands in relation to our defence capability? Lastly, I ask the Minister to address himself to the specific questions I have posed in relation to the reorganisation of the DSTO. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(12.32) —I will respond to a few of the contributions that were made. Senator Vallentine made a contribution. When I asked her yesterday why she was breaking the conventions of this place, she said that she was not bound by them. Neither am I in her case, so I will proceed to the next contribution. Senator MacGibbon gave a far more mellow and constructive speech on the second occasion on which he spoke. I congratulate him on his improved form. He gave a detailed analysis of the problems that occur in the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). I do not contest much of what he said. We are trying to redress those problems. I think that Senator MacGibbon would have to concede that those separation rates are somewhat distorted by what we call the `Vietnam bulge effect'; those recruited in the Vietnam period-in other words, the 20-yearers-are tending to be a disproportionate number of those who are resigning. It would be equally futile to argue that that is the sole or dominant reason for pilot separations in the RAAF. Senator Jenkins raised a number of matters. She mentioned, firstly, the cost of the Geraldton project. I do not think that it was Senator Jenkins who mentioned the amount of $25m initially. We have searched the defence White Paper to try to find that figure and we cannot. If any honourable senator can assist us as to where it is in the defence White Paper, I would be interested to know because it has evaded our searches so far. I represent the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) in this chamber and his instruction to me is that he will not release the cost of that project at this stage, especially any specific allocations of money. On the question of the technology involved, again if we are to give a detailed exposition of all the technology used we might as well have tourist tours around the base at Geraldton and tell everyone exactly what we are doing there. I was asked whether the information goes to the United Kingdom and to the United States of America. I am not able to assist the honourable senator on that matter. I do not have knowledge in that area. Whether the Minister for Defence will want to respond to that question, I will have to see. However, that is one matter I will send over for his consideration. Senator Jenkins also asked whether that information boomerangs back. Again, that is related to the question: `Have we got the whole truth?'. No, honourable senators have not got the whole amount of facts that are available although that is not a result of a deliberate desire to mislead or distort. So the question of whether we have told the whole truth is an unfair one to my way of thinking. The answer to the question of whether we are going to make available the full facts about Geraldton, its purposes, exactly what it does and what it receives is categorically, no. I was asked whether we are giving truthful answers. I do not give a high morality to truth. I tend to be truthful out of expedience and pragmatism. It is much more difficult if one gets caught not telling the truth. Of course, if I am not telling all, there is confusion about whether I am telling the truth. I leave that philosophical question in Senator Jenkins's good hands. Senator McLean made a number of points, almost to the point of being a harping critic. I ask Senator McLean: How much of the gross domestic product should we spend on defence? What other Government programs should we take money away from to reallocate to defence? If I had $2 billion, $3 billion, $4 billion or $5 billion given to me tomorrow and was told that I could spend it on extras for the Defence Force, I would be absolutely delighted. An almost infinite amount of money could be spent on defence. I would love to see more money spent on defence. Of course, Senator McLean is sitting there in the luxury of never having been in government, the luxury of being a carping critic and the luxury of appealing to every minority group in the community, without ever having realistically to outline the way in which he would raise the revenue, how he would carve it up and how he would deal with thousands of different priorities. That is an easy life. We do not have those sorts of easy lives. Some of the criticisms Senator McLean has made are not justified; others are. However, he has to understand that in terms of framing a Budget we do not have an infinite amount of money to make available for defence. I would love to be a fly on the wall in Senator McLean's party room. Given the pacifist views of many other honourable senators in his party room, if we were to walk into this chamber and say that we were going to spend an extra $2 billion, $3 billion, $4 billion or $8 billion on defence, I wonder what the response would be. We would be accused of being fascists, of being militarists and of trying to provoke and destabilise this region by such a massive increase in defence spending. It is the old trick of the soft and hard cop working two sides of the street. I do not accept it. I ask Senator McLean to correct me if I am wrong, but the one or two specific points he made referred to Defence Science and Technology Organisation loans. The working party on that will be reporting shortly, I am informed. I think Senator McLean raised also the question of military compensation. We are awaiting the Government's response in relation to the overall issue of compensation. I think that matter is before Cabinet at the moment. It is considering the compensation issue in regard to all Government departments. Of course, the Defence Housing Authority has now been established. Finally, I think Senator McLean made a point about the service allowance. The Australian defence forces argued this matter at the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal hearing. On this occasion it failed to convince the Tribunal. Senator Newman —The Government argued against it. Senator ROBERT RAY —The Government often intervenes in cases. Senator MacGibbon —The Government does not intervene. Senator ROBERT RAY —Of course we do. Of course we have intervened on occasions. As Senator MacGibbon would know, we have just intervened in the building industry matter to put a case before a variety of tribunals. Indeed, it was only last week that the Government intervened on the Remuneration Tribunal to put the case that the 11.7 per cent wage increase was not justified for the honourable senator and me. The Government does intervene. I hope that Senator MacGibbon at least agrees with that. He may say that we do not intervene enough or in the method or mode that he would like. As I said, the Tribunal did not, on that occasion, uphold the allowance that was sought. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(12.39) —I take on board the criticisms of the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray). I suppose at this stage it is reasonable to make the observation that I have only been critical. However, I intend to be constructive in my suggestions as time goes on in this place. The Minister might refer to my maiden speech, in which I-- Senator Robert Ray —I missed it, I am sorry. Senator McLEAN —I will send the Minister a copy. Senator Robert Ray —Signed? Senator McLEAN —Yes, indeed. In my maiden speech I commended to the Government the process of lateral thinking in relation to lots of things. One particular suggestion I made was that if it could do some lateral thinking in shifting the emphasis from the military defence model to a civil-military defence model, project its thinking three or four decades ahead and completely change the whole rationale on which we plan and expend in relation to defence the moneys would be readily available. I cited the fact that we fund our volunteer bushfire brigades, our volunteer coastal patrols and our volunteer rescue organisations by selling lamingtons on street corners. As a result, those organisations are grossly inadequate. Yet we expend literally billions of dollars on and in areas of defence which only can be judged to be a complete and utter waste of public expenditure. If we did some lateral thinking and shifted from the essentially historical, outdated and outmoded model of military offensive-defensive thinking to a civil-military model, we would get better value for money and the $7.6 billion appropriated to defence would be used much more effectively. It is my intention to develop that model. If I contribute nothing more to this place, one of my primary objectives in the next three years is to develop an alternative model along those lines. I am delighted that the Minister has said that he would love to consider any propositions we put on the table in relation to defence. Senator Robert Ray —And revenue. Senator McLEAN —Yes, and revenue. I must correct one of the Minister's fundamental misconceptions about the Australian Democrats. The Democrats are not anti-defence. We are pro-defence but anti-nuclear. That distinction should not be beyond the Minister or anybody in this chamber. I enunciate it quite clearly here and now so that the confusion the Minister has just fallen into hopefully can be avoided in the future. So I take on board the criticisms the Minister has made. I offer the promise-that is a dangerous word, I realise-hopefully to make a contribution of alternative approaches to defence which will be considerably cheaper and much more cost-effective. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(12.42) —In response to Senator McLean, of course we look forward to any suggestions. I stand by my comments on the Australian Democrats. I have just defended myself from the same accusation from Senator MacGibbon as Senator McLean has just done today. I guess we can both feel affronted in the one day because we have a very similar attitude; that is, a strong Australian defence. We are working for world-wide disarmament, especially in the nuclear area. I have listened to a lot of fairly pacifist speeches from the Democrats over the years and have drawn my own conclusion. But no doubt somewhere in the Democrats' extensive national platform there is a fully-fledged defence policy. I understand that the sort of lateral thinking the honourable senator has in mind will now be accommodated by slightly new decision-making processes in the Democrats, where democratic centralism will play a little more prominent role than it did previously. I knew 10 years ago that that would eventually occur if the Democrats wanted to develop an up to date, flexible and intelligent policy. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(12.43) —I have a number of things to raise in the appropriations debate concerning the Department of Defence. In view of the approaching suspension of the sitting I will not have long to do so. However, I would like to begin by complimenting the Department-I am sure that will shock it more than anything else I can say-on having changed its approach to Estimates committee hearings. The Department would well know, although not all honourable senators would know, that over many years the Estimates committee investigating the Department of Defence has been extremely critical of the numbers of people from the Department who have attended the hearings but who have still been unable to answer questions on the day and have taken so many questions on notice. Nasty aspersions have been cast by many senators on the Department for the reasons behind this. I hate to be considered to be overly cynical but it seems to be a very convenient arrangement for any department to take its questions on notice and so polish the answers to suit either the Department's or the Government's purpose. Senator Robert Ray —At least they are all answered. Senator NEWMAN —No, they are not-not this time. Senator Robert Ray —There are three to come. Senator NEWMAN —Where have they been answered? The Minister can have his turn later; I am having mine now. I am pleased to tell the Committee that this time the Department sent far fewer officers but, on the whole, much more senior ones. It was very refreshing to be able to question senior serving officers. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., I shall report progress. The Temporary Chairman having reported accordingly- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Burns) —Order! The Senate will now proceed to matters of public interest. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(12.45) —I would like to address my comments to some remarks Senator Stone made at the committee stage of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) on 20 November. Senator Stone used that occasion to launch a personal attack on Jack Marks, a leading trade unionist in Western Australia. I have known Jack Marks for many years. He has held a number of elected positions within the trade union movement during that time. He was elected to those positions because he had the confidence of the rank and file membership of the union to which he has dedicated his working life-the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union. The reality is that one does not become or remain an elected official in the trade union movement without displaying qualities of integrity and leadership, but Senator Stone and his ilk do not want to deal in industrial realities. They want to create myths in order to attack the trade union movement. Senator Stone described Jack Marks as being `a notably malevolent member of the trade union movement in this country' who led, among others, `a small band of trade union thugs operating at Pannawonica and Wickham in the Pilbara'. My dictionary defines `malevolent' as `wishing evil or harm on others, malicious'. The term `thug' means `rough, brutal gangster or robber, originally a member of a fanatical religious organisation in India'. They are words which, properly used, would sit easily with Senator Stone. The whole fanaticism of Senator Stone's beloved New Right movement is directed to exploiting the working people of Australia for the benefit of the rich and powerful. That is real thuggery. Senator Stone, who has spent the main part of his career as an unelected and closeted senior bureaucrat far from the hard reality of the production of real goods, is again displaying his wilful and abysmal ignorance of industrial relations matters. The reality is that Jack Marks, as President of the Mining Unions Association, and other trade union leaders spent a great deal of time and effort persuading workers to resist management attempts to provoke confrontation at Robe River. That is not my version of what happened; it can be seen on the public record if Senator Stone and his friends are prepared to examine the public record in an impartial way. Marks and many other union officials were severely criticised by many within the trade union movement for not seeking to escalate the dispute at Robe River to a Pilbara-wide or even an Australia-wide dispute. Perhaps Senator Stone might like to debate the issue with Jack Marks on live radio or television, then the public can determine for itself exactly who is or has been malevolent or a thug. I would be happy to help organise that debate because I am confident who would win. It would not be Senator Stone. Senator WOOD(New South Wales)(12.49) —I wish to speak briefly today about an issue which has received relatively little public attention to date, and certainly not in our major capital cities, but which represents a disturbing development in furthering Australian involvement in the international nuclear industry. It concerns a $7m development application to convert a disused brewery at Tuncester, on the outskirts of Lismore, into a rare earth processing plant. The application has been lodged with the Lismore City Council by the Queensland company Deckhand Pty Ltd, which is a wholly owned company of Currumbin Minerals Pty Ltd, an Australian sand mining and heavy mineral processing company producing monazite, rutile and zircon. The function of this plant would be to process monazite and other mineral by-products of sand mining in order to extract mineral components known as rare earths. These elements have uses in the glass, ceramics, illumination and chemicals industries but are also vital to the metallurgy, electronics, weaponry and nuclear industries. This obviously is where my primary interest in the matter lies since the products and by-products of this operation are highly radioactive. Australia currently dominates the world monazite market, with approximately 85 per cent of international sales, but has not to date been involved in the processing or purifying of rare earths which increases their value to 10 to 15 times that of the raw product. Australia presently exports monazite concentrate to France, the United States of America and Japan for processing. The proposed plant at Tuncester would be Australia's only rare earth processing facility. The development of this new industry raises some serious concerns about effects on the health of the local people and plant workers and its impact on the environment of the region, as well as local primary industry, tourism and property values. Consequently, there exists very strong local feeling against the Deckhand proposal. Seven thousand Lismore residents have felt strongly enough about the issue to sign petitions opposing the plant's establishment. They represent a quarter of the population and include a wide cross-section of people in that area. The people of Lismore and elsewhere oppose the plant on a number of grounds, not least of which is the use of rare earth products in nuclear technology. The sand mining industry has for many years been closely tied to the nuclear industry. The development of this plant could potentially implicate Australia even more deeply in the supply of radioactive materials to the international nuclear industry. Although only a relatively small proportion of the world's rare earth compounds are used in this way, their applications are disturbing. Thorium 232 can be reprocessed to produce uranium 233, and thus becomes a principle fuel for fast breeder reactors-as in India and the United States. Uranium 233 is also used in nuclear weapons manufacture and rare earths generally are vital components in supermagnets, superconductors, missile guidance systems and lasers-all of which are employed by the United States strategic defence initiative (SDI) program. The Government claims to be opposed to the Reagan Administration's Star Wars efforts, yet such opposition is completely at odds with the processing and export to the United States of strategic materials which are vital to the SDI program-the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons notwithstanding. In addition, there are enormous health and environmental questions to address. Deckhand would annually produce and store 865 tonnes of radioactive toxic waste, including thorium, uranium, radium and lead residues. Thorium, for example, remains radioactive for 14 million years. It is more highly radioactive than uranium tailings and emits radon gas. There is no known safe method of disposal for such waste. Yet the company intends to establish the plant and-as is characteristic of the nuclear industry-cross its fingers and hope that technology will provide it with a means of disposal at some time in the future. In the meantime Deckhand proposes to store its radioactive waste on site in sealed fuel drums for `temporary storage' of three years with an extension every two years from then on if no national waste repository site has been found and established. Potentially, then, the waste materials could be on site beyond the 20-year working life of the plant. What guarantees do we have that Tuncester will not attract wastes from other plants and very quickly become a de facto toxic waste dump? A question also exists as to whether or not the proposed storage drums will be capable of safely containing these wastes over time. Decomposition will result in a liquid waste with a Ph level sufficient to breach the plastic seals, allowing acid liquid to contact the steel drums, resulting in rapid corrosion. Potentially, then, highly radioactive liquid materials could escape into the storage areas. Even if the form of storage proposed by Deckhand were to be as effective as it expects, the company claims that the containment will only absorb most of the residue radiation. Exactly how much this amounts to is not specified; in fact, the lack of quantitative data in the development application generally is very disturbing. In addition to the extremely serious and unsolved problems of waste storage and disposal, the environment will be further damaged by waste water from the plant. According to Deckhand's submission, 320 million litres of radioactive and toxic waste water will be piped from the plant every year. It will include 13 kilograms of thorium, 0.68 kilograms of uranium and traces of radium 226 and lead 210. Mr Brian Thomas, Deckhand's Director and the head of the Department of Physics at the Queensland Institute of Technology, claims that the plant will be completely and utterly safe because thorium and uranium levels are below those permissible under New South Wales legislation. However, it is worth while noting that the relevant legislation-the New South Wales Radioactive Substances Act and Regulations-was enacted in 1957 and 1959 respectively. Can we regard 30-year-old legislation pertaining to safe radiation levels as adequate? The company proposes to pipe its radioactive waste water to the South Lismore sewerage works for unspecified treatment and then to the Wilson and Richmond rivers before reaching the sea at Ballina. Deckhand's environmental impact study does not deal with the environmental effects on the aquatic environment and specifically the likelihood of biomagnification of contaminants; that is, the concentration of toxins up the food chain to birds and other animals. Radioactive contaminants have implications for the entire ecosystem of the Lismore region. It is estimated that wastes in the water system could accumulate at levels up to 10,000 times higher than those of the surrounding environment. The plant would also pump additional phosphate and nitrogen wastes into a river system already struggling to cope with its present levels of pollutants. The company has also not considered the environmental effects of a burst or fracture to the three-kilometre long waste water line between the plant and the sewerage treatment works. The former occupant, Carlton and United Breweries, experienced a number of these breakages. West German academic, Associate Professor of Physics Phillip Jennings, notes that ruptures of the liquid waste pipelines have been a frequent event at the SCM plant at Australind in Western Australia. The groundwater there is now heavily polluted. The environmental future for the Lismore area appears to be even more alarming when one considers the chemical component of the proposed plant's operations. Eighteen truckloads of volatile chemicals and fuels will arrive at the plant every week-18,000 tonnes per annum-and up to 700 tonnes will be stored on site at any one time. Aside from the obvious risks of fire and explosion, which the company attempts to minimise in its submission, there remains the question of spillage either in transit or on site. According to Professor Jennings, `some spillages are inevitable'. Airborne radioactive contaminants pose a further health risk to the area. Deckhand admits that the radioactive gases, radon and thoron, will be released into the atmosphere from both the processing plant and the waste treatment plant. Prevailing winds will carry these gases towards Lismore. In addition, the dust created by the process poses risks to those working with and transporting monazite. The company estimates the leakage of radioactive dust from the mill room to be as high as 10 per cent per hour. Inhaled mineral sands dust is considered by health workers to present the greatest risk because the inhaled dust can remain in the lungs for long periods of time whilst it continues to emit radiation. The Queensland Government has recently accepted a compensation claim by a Brisbane metal worker who is dying of leukaemia after being exposed to radioactive mineral sands mined and sold by Currumbin Minerals. This company failed to reprocess its beach sand to remove the radioactive minerals before selling it for sand blasting purposes. Currumbin Minerals did not take the opportunity to make its product safe, and it is the parent company of Deckhand Pty Ltd which now seeks approval for the establishment of a mineral sands processing plant situated within a 10 minute drive of a large population. Despite evidence such as this, the company seeks to claim our trust by saying that it can and will operate this facility safely and without risk to the public. Even the health of Deckhand's potential employees has not been properly considered, let alone the health of the people of Lismore. For example, the plant caretaker's cottage is situated directly between the radioactive processing area where radon gases are released from the stack and the waste repository site. Deckhand's environmental impact study admits, at page 85, that the public and employees will be subject to radiation exposure. Does it really expect the public to accept happily and compliantly its claims that these exposures will be `as low as reasonably achievable'? In view of the industry's record, the assurance which the company gives about acceptable limits must be viewed somewhat sceptically. Its application constantly refers to acceptable levels of risk and minimal environmental effects. How many times over the past decade have we been given such assurances by profit motivated, vested interests who want us to accept new technology in our backyards, only to find that these assurances counted for nothing? Witness organochlorides, DDT, thalidomide and nuclear energy. Deckhand's assurances are predicated on the belief that there is such a thing as a safe level of radiation. This belief must be refuted. Maximum permissible exposure rates have been reduced again and again in recent years as more has become known about the effects of radiation. Dr Karl Morgan, former President of the International Commission for Radiological Protection, states that there is overwhelming evidence to show that there is no safe level of exposure and no dose of radiation so low that the risk of malignancy is zero. Furthermore, the risk is cumulative; that is, plant workers will be subject to repeated exposures, as will the local population. Overseas research in similar plants has shown death rates amongst plant workers to be significantly higher than the national average and that they experience an increased incidence of genetic disorders and infertility. Even if we disregard for the moment the health and environmental risks of this rare earth proposal, there remains the question of the plant's economic feasibility. Deckhand is inexperienced in this field and may soon be competing against a similar plant proposed by the French company Rhone-Poulenc at Pinjarra in Western Australia. This company is the world leader in rare earth processing and its proposed plant would have the capacity to process all of Australia's monazite output. Mineral sands processing is a highly competitive industry and many companies have gone bankrupt. For example, the Port Pirie plant in South Australia ceased operations in mid-1972 after only a few years of operation because it could not break into the world market. It is instructive to note that mineral sands enterprises elsewhere have also gone bankrupt, leaving behind their radioactive mess-for example, the Wonnerup plant in Western Australia, where the State Government is currently footing the bill to clean up the site since the company is no longer in business. What are the provisions for clean-up if Deckhand also goes out of business in the event of mismanagement? There is no indication that the company will be insured for clean-up costs if the venture fails to be profitable. After decommissioning, the plant may become a huge drain on the public purse and perhaps even a site to be guarded for many decades to come. If the company does experience financial difficulties the first rule of business is to cut costs. In the past this industry has looked first to stinting on the environmental and health safeguards which companies consider to be expensive. We should note the poor environmental records of other plants which process mineral sands-for example, those in Western Australia and Tasmania which have all been subject to Environment Protection Authority inquiries because of toxic gas emissions, liquid waste spillages and groundwater contamination. I do not need to recite the many problems which this industry has caused, they are catalogued in the reports of two Western Australian Government inquiries-the Winn report on radiation effects and the Playford report on environmental effects. Experience must make us sceptical about Deckhand's assurances. The Lismore Chamber of Commerce strongly supports Deckhand's proposed rare earth plant but one must surely question the overall advantage of providing a mere 20 jobs-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Burns) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator Wood —I seek leave to extend my remarks for a minute or so. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Messner —No. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There being objection, leave is not granted. Senator Wood —Perhaps I should move that so much of Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent me from continuing my remarks. Senator Button —Why don't you give him a couple of minutes and don't be so churlish? Senator Messner —I have discussed the matter with the Government Whip, and the arrangements were made with him. If Senator Button has a contribution to make he should make it. We would like to know who is running the Parliament. Does the Government know? The point is that we are past 1 o'clock, and I believe that in that situation we are not able to take votes in this place and consequently I cannot see how Senator Wood's proposition can be accepted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I point out to Senator Wood that a vote cannot be taken until 2 o'clock. Senator Wood —For the sake of two minutes, some grace from the honourable senator would have been appreciated. Very often in this place we are asked to give leave for one thing or another. In fact this place could not run if individual senators refused leave to other senators, and I would ask the honourable senator to reconsider his objection to granting leave. Senator McKiernan —Mr Acting Deputy President, I am not going to prolong the debate on this issue. Under Sessional Orders no votes can be taken at the moment. The simple solution to the dilemma that we are in-and I have passed a note to Senator Wood to this effect-is that all he need do is wait until Senator Watson makes his contribution and he can then stand again, gain the recognition of the Chair and conclude his remarks. Everybody knows-and Senator Wood should know-that this debate is limited to 15 minutes per person, and we should all understand the need to keep within the confines of that restriction. It is very unusual to ask for extensions of time in the Senate; I cannot recall any such occasion in the short period of three years that I have been here. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —My ruling stands. There being an objection, leave is not granted. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(1.06) —I wish to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to discuss the loss of continuity of the Senate and to offer some proposals aimed at trying to resolve double dissolution deadlocks. When the Parliament was dissolved on 5 June this year, no senator had actually served the full six-year term for which he or she was elected. The continuity of the Senate, therefore, has been eroded by the trend in recent years increasingly to make use of section 57 of the Constitution, which relates to double dissolution. In the 73 years between Federation and 1974, there were actually only two double dissolutions-on 5 September 1914 and 28 April 1951. Yet in the 13 years since then we have seen four double dissolutions-18 May 1974, 13 December 1975, 5 March 1983 and 5 June 1987. Clearly the circumstances have changed since our founding fathers settled on the formula for the resolution of legislative deadlocks between the Senate and the House of Representatives. Both major parties must take some responsibility, because there are problems with double dissolution provisions. The first, of course, is the loss of continuity of the Senate, and the second is that it may be merely a trigger for an early election rather than a genuine means for resolving a deadlock between the Upper House and the Lower House. So far as the loss of continuity of the Senate is concerned, one of my concerns is that one of the principal tasks of the Senate is to act as a House of review. Traditionally, it is in this chamber that alternative views may be presented for discussion, and amendments suggested to proposed legislation. In order to assist the Senate in the function of review, it was a continuous body, to be dissolved only by a double dissolution. To achieve this continuity, section 13 of the Constitution provides for the rotation of senators. While actual events modelled themselves on this theory for many years, the frequency of double dissolutions in recent times has really led to the Senate becoming more reactionary and a political body. The Senate's function as a House of review, I contend, is being undermined. In the words of Professor Geoffrey Sawer, recorded at page 17 of Odgers' Australian Senate Practice: . . . there is no point in having a House of review unless you have some degree of difference between the points of view of the Houses, and you get that more with the staggered system of election. If we wish to maintain the traditional role of the Senate, perhaps it is time to conduct a review of the conditions that have lead to the dissolution of the Upper House four times in the past 13 years. It has long been the contention that a double dissolution ought not to follow the Senate's legitimate exercise of its function of review, but should apply where responsible Government is impossible. Unfortunately, nowadays it is becoming a tool for granting a political advantage. So while the principle draws broad support, the definition of the circumstances that prevent responsible government have often sparked heated debate. While the rhetoric runs high about the importance of the Bills that trigger double dissolutions, actions often suggest that they are of less significance than the onlooker may have believed. Take, for example, the most recent election. The Australia Card Bill provided the trigger for a double dissolution when, on 2 April 1987, it was defeated in the Senate for the second time. Yet it was not until 28 May, some two months later, that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) actually requested that the Governor-General exercise his power to dissolve both Houses of Parliament. Should we then perpetuate a system that allows a mechanism designed to resolve genuine deadlocks between both Houses to be manipulated simply for political gain at the cost of undermining the traditional function of the Senate as a House of review? I ask: Would it not be more prudent to start investigating some alternatives for the resolution of deadlocks that are actually less vulnerable to political manipulation and place a greater responsibility on the elected representatives to try to solve their differences for the benefit of Australia as a whole? I think some of the alternative proposals that we should look at should be based on this principle of conciliation as the aim rather than confrontation. For example, there is reason to give some consideration to alternative proposals, or the clarification of existing provisions for the resolution of differences between the two Houses. Some of these mechanisms might include, for example, a managers conference. In my State of Tasmania the State Parliament selects representatives from both Houses to meet and attempt to resolve these differences. Secondly, we could have more referendums on the particular issues which are actually in question. Whatever the outcome may be, I believe now is the time for a reconsideration of existing provisions. The last time there was a substantial discussion was about 37 years ago when a select committee of the Senate was appointed to discuss the Constitution Alteration (Avoidance of Double Dissolution Deadlocks) Bill. But circumstances really have changed quite a lot in that time. A joint all-party committee should be established, as a matter of some urgency, by this Parliament to review all the mechanisms for resolving the differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives. Naturally the Constitutional Commission could look at this. The point I am making is that a lot more effort is required by both Houses of Parliament to try to resolve issues of deadlock between the two Houses than is presently the case. Senator WOOD(New South Wales) —I seek leave to continue the speech I was making before my time expired, Mr Acting Deputy President. Leave granted. Senator WOOD —I thank the Senate and regret any inconvenience that may have been caused by my inexperience. Senator Button —Your inexperience is manifested by your courtesy, Senator. Senator WOOD —I thank Senator Button. The Lismore Chamber of Commerce strongly supports Deckhand Pty Ltd's proposed rare earth plant, but one must surely question the overall advantage of providing a mere 20 jobs for 20 years in an area with an unemployment rate of 20 per cent. Even if the plant could provide full employment in the region, would it be worth the risks it represents? In response to public pressure, the New South Wales Minister for Planning and Environment has appointed an inquiry into the proposal. This inquiry has received 50 submissions against the plant and only five in favour of it. Mr Unsworth himself has indicated some concerns about the proposal despite his previous enthusiasm for the development of the industry. Unfortunately, though, even the commissioner conducting the inquiry on behalf of the Lismore City Council does not have the power to subpoena very relevant information about the company's proposal. Commissioner Simpson is forced to rely on that information which Deckhand decides to present freely. The company will not even release the exact routes by which the monazite will be transported between the source of supply and the proposed plant because of `commercial considerations'. The company, I would suggest, would not disclose these routes precisely because to do so would have revealed the sites of its current stockpiles of mineral sands. Not surprisingly, it fears that public knowledge might generate a controversy similar to that which erupted in the early 1980s over the radioactive contamination of the Byron Bay area. The residents of Lismore are, therefore, being denied access to information about the transit of radioactive substances through their own community. Local residents are now calling on the Federal Government to appoint a royal commission to inquire into all aspects of the Lismore rare earth proposal and the industry generally in an effort to extract information not currently available to them about the ways in which this proposed plant will affect the health of themselves, their families and the natural environment of the area in which they have chosen to live. Deckhand, like so many other commercial interests, is scrambling to gain a slice of the pie in this relatively new industry without proper regard and respect for the health, safeguards, storage, waste disposal and environmental impacts of its proposal. What price will residents of Lismore pay for such development? The Chernobyl and Three Mile Island disasters stand as silent testimony to the folly of science and technology in developing an industry before they were prepared for or capable of dealing with its hazards. Sitting suspended from 1.16 to 2 p.m. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate that Senator Tate will be absent from the chamber for Question Time today as he is attending the National Crime Authority Inter-Governmental Committee in Hobart. Any questions which would normally be directed to Senator Tate in relation to his portfolio or those he represents should be directed to Senator Reynolds. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Is it a fact that the exit interest rates being earned by the Commonwealth superannuation fund have fallen from 23 per cent in July to zero per cent at the end of November? Is it a fact that contributors to the Commonwealth superannuation fund who have recently retired but who will not receive any payouts from the fund until after next Monday, 30 November 1987, will receive zero per cent interest on their money in the fund since 1 July this year? If this is so, is it publicly known? Is it also a fact that a senior officer of the Commonwealth superannuation fund board submitted his resignation on Tuesday, 24 November and officially retired yesterday and is to receive the 23 per cent for this period? Does the Minister know whether this officer has received privileged treatment? If he does not, will he make immediate inquiries and let the Parliament know today what the position is? Senator WALSH —Senator Chaney has put me in an awkward position, not because I mind disclosing the facts but because I had intended to put out a Press release tomorrow that would be a bit more comprehensive than the answer I am able to give here. Since I have been asked the question, it is probably just as well that I put out the essential facts now. The 22 per cent, which I think is a correct figure, was the exit rate-- Senator Chaney —I was given 23 per cent. Senator WALSH —It was 23 per cent or something like that. That was the figure for the entire financial year. It has been the practice within a financial year for a quarterly exit rate to be declared, based on the apparent earnings of the fund in that quarterly period. People who retire within that quarter receive a pro-rata amount calculated in that way. I mentioned last week that the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust is less exposed than most other superannuation funds to the decline in the share market, but it appears that, following that decline, the earnings rate to the end of October is probably negative. However, the law, I am advised, does not allow a negative notional payment, so I have made a determination that the exit rate for the September quarter will be zero. I was hesitant there not because of the zero figure but because I was not certain precisely what it applied to, but I think it is the September quarter. I suppose that should be taken as a formal announcement. As for the resignation, I know nothing about that. I would like to check this but I am fairly confident that it is correct. I just thought of something else. I am not trying to be evasive; I am trying to think of what advantages might be conferred on certain people by making this available. If, however, someone did resign on 24 November, my expectation is that that person would not gain from it because no exit rate had previously been determined for the September quarter or any subsequent period. I will check that out. Senator CHANEY —Mr Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for that answer. I note the final part where he expressed the view that somebody with inside information, if you like, would be unlikely to gain. I simply ask, in light of the fact that that matter clearly has been raised with the Opposition, whether he can make inquiries and give us an answer as early as possible. I think the Minister would agree that that sort of allegation goes to the confidence that people feel in the system. I will be grateful if the Minister can indicate that he will check the position and let us know, preferably today, but, if not, as early as possible. Senator WALSH —Yes. Senator McKIERNAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister seen a transcript of an interview of Liberal Party President, John Elliott, on Michael Schildberger's radio program this morning? Does the transcript add any greater definition to the proposals for a mini-Budget to bring in a $3 billion surplus this year, which Mr Elliott has put forward a number of times over the last couple of weeks? Will the Government examine the proposals with a view to their implementation? Senator WALSH —I have seen the transcript of this morning's Schildberger program, during which Mr Elliott said, among other things: I made two comments, one, there ought to be a $3 billion cut in expenditure and I think that's right that was Elders view and the other one is that you cannot have the Reserve Bank propping up the dollar. I think there's been a bit of that and it's better to let it fall to its natural level. I think those two comments hold. That is a fairly significant expression of an opinion about policy coming from somebody who has said that he will not publicly offer opinions about policy. In reply to Senator McKiernan's question, that statement has significantly clarified Mr Elliott's view. Previously he had called for a $3 billion Budget surplus, leaving open the question as to whether that was to be achieved by reductions in expenditure, increases in taxation or a mixture of both. It is now quite clear that he believes that it should be done by reductions in expenditure. That again emphasises the difference between the Liberal Party's extraparliamentary leadership and its parliamentary leadership. The view put by the Opposition during the election campaign was that expenditure should be cut to fund tax cuts. Mr Elliott's view is that expenditure should be cut; implicitly, taxation left alone; and a Budget surplus produced instead of the neutral Budget or the balanced Budget which Mr Howard was talking about during the election campaign, although, of course, he failed to address the specifics as to how that was to be achieved and made a $1,500m error with his arithmetic as well. Mr Elliott is, at least implicitly, if not explicitly, rejecting the Howard tax cuts proposal. I also note from the Schildberger transcript that Mr Elliott has left open the opinion of the Liberal Party including a consumption tax in its policy, thereby effectively repeating the statement which he was reported in the Australian Financial Review of 26 October as having made the day before. The report stated: Mr Elliott told reporters in Port Kembla last week that as President he would continue his push to change the Liberal tax policy in the direction of broadening the indirect tax base . . . He still remains of that view and he is still publicly canvassing that as a policy option in spite of commitments that he is alleged to have given previously. I note again the comments by Mr Michael Pratt, the would be latter day Andrew Jones and the endorsed Liberal Party candidate for the Federal seat of Adelaide, who said: 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. So if there should be a by-election for the Federal seat of Adelaide I look forward to seeing Mr Pratt campaigning on the application of a consumption tax and an assets test amongst other things. Senator STONE —I refer the Minister for Finance to the annual report of the Australian Audit Office tabled yesterday in which the retiring Auditor-General, Mr John Monaghan, drew attention to formal advice from the Department of Finance in the wake of this year's Budget process which made explicit that Department's ambition to confine and limit the scope of the Audit Office's external audit function. I ask the Minister whether he can confirm that the Department of Finance has sought to circumscribe the Auditor-General's clear audit mandate in this way; and, secondly, whether he is prepared to provide an unequivocal assurance to the Senate that the Auditor-General will be provided with sufficient resources and functional independence from ministerial or Executive interference to enable him to continue to discharge his crucial responsibilities to the Parliament. Senator WALSH —It is important to make a very clear distinction between functional independence-that is, not being subject to ministerial direction-and financial autonomy. I want to make this very clear again: every publicly funded agency or department or unit, including the Parliament, will have its appropriations set by the Executive Government, which of course means whatever group of people or parties has a majority in the House of Representatives. The proposition which Senator Stone seems to be endorsing, that some people who have no responsibility for the raising of revenue should have ad lib access to the Government bank account, in my view is untenable. It is certainly not accepted by me, whether it be the Auditor-General or anybody else. The functional independence of the Auditor-General is another matter. I make absolutely no apology for holding that view. It is a fundamental tenant of responsible government that whoever has the responsibility for raising public revenue has the control of its expenditure and I do not intend to resile from that position. What appears to be the principal complaint of the Auditor-General-I must confess I have not had time to read the report but I have read a summary of it-is the proposition to install computer equipment which I think involved the expenditure of, from memory, about $8m over a period of years. The Department of Finance did a cost-benefit analysis of that, insofar as it is possible to do such cost-benefit analyses, and presented a report on it to the Expenditure Review Committee. The conclusion which the Department had come to was that in strict cost-benefit terms that expenditure was not viable and had any other department or agency been involved the Finance recommendation would have been that the expenditure not proceed because, on the best possible assessment, it would not give an adequate return on the capital investment. However, because it involved the Auditor-General the Department of Finance left that question open. The expenditure was authorised by the Expenditure Review Committee and ultimately by the Budget Cabinet, although it has slipped a little in time. The Auditor-General has also been provided with additional staff-off the top of my head I think it is 15-in the last Budget in recognition of the case that has been put forward for a higher level of auditing activity. But I repeat-and I am surprised that Senator Stone does not share this view-that every agency of the Government, every agency which is funded by public funds, by revenue raised by taxes imposed by the Government, will have its appropriations set by the Government. Senator STONE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In view of the lecture given the Senate by the Minister in his response, will he agree, first, that the Australian Audit Office is not an agency of the Government but is an agency of this Parliament and that the Auditor-General is responsible to this Parliament and not to the Minister or to the Executive branch of Government? Secondly, will he agree that his distinction between functional independence on the one hand and financial provision on the other is a meaningless one if in fact the reduction of financial provisions is such as to reduce the meaningfulness of functional independence? Senator WALSH —The term I used towards the end of my answer was any unit, organisation funded by public money raised by the Commonwealth Government-- Senator Stone —You corrected your initial slip of the tongue. Senator WALSH —I said `agency' and then I said any unit funded by public money-be it the Senate or anything else-will have its appropriations set by the Executive Government. Neither the Auditor-General nor anybody else, as long as I am Finance Minister anyway, will be given ad lib access to the Government's bank account; that is, ad lib access to public moneys raised from taxes. Nobody will be given that ad lib access and I am surprised that Senator Stone should be suggesting otherwise because I would be astounded, quite frankly, if it was his view when he was Secretary to the Treasury that people should be able to come along and write out cheques to whatever amounts they like on the public bank account. Senator COATES —I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the distorted report by Ross Dunn in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald about the pecuniary interest register in the article headed `Senators shy about interest register'. The report asserted that Government senators were refusing to go ahead with the public register of their financial interests. Is it not a fact that there is no such refusal by Government senators, that it is Government policy that there be such a register for senators as well as members of the House of Representatives (MHRs) and that the Leader of the Government moved the necessary motions in the last Parliament and intends to do so again? Also, is it not a fact that it is the Opposition in the Senate which is the stumbling block to a Senate register of pecuniary interests since it would not only oppose it but do so at such great length that there would not be sufficient debating time this year to deal with this amongst all the other matters which must be dealt with by the Senate? Does he not agree that both Houses should have similar rules on this matter and without any more delay than necessary? Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Inaccuracies in questions are common often enough in this chamber but when inaccuracies are inaccuracies that are disclosed by the record of the Senate itself, I think you might have some role to play. Senator Coates is wrong on several counts. For example, no such motion was ever moved in the Senate; a motion was given notice of. No motion was moved so the honourable senator is clearly inaccurate in what he stated, his facts are wrong, and I suggest that the question be ruled out of order. The honourable senator should go away and at least get his facts straight before he presumes to ask a question. Senator Coates —Mr President, on the point of order: I will certainly check the record but there is very little difference between giving notice of a motion and moving one. In any case, I think Senator Button spoke to the notice of motion. It was adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I will allow the question. I ask the Minister to deal only with that part that falls within his responsibilities. Senator BUTTON —I think the circumstances of the question require a benign answer. The answer to the first part of that question is: Yes, I am aware of the article by Ross Dunn in the Sydney Morning Herald. It is not a fact that there is opposition amongst Government senators to the pecuniary interests register, and that should be corrected right at the start. Senator Chaney —What about Caucus? Senator BUTTON —No, Senator, it is a fact that there is not opposition among Government senators to a pecuniary interests register. Of course, there may be disagreement about the nature of particular proposals. If that is what Senator Chaney is drawing my attention to, that is an appropriate correction. It is Government policy that there be such a register for senators as well as MHRs. As Leader of the Government in the Senate, I gave notice of the necessary motions in the last Parliament and I intend to do so again. It is also a fact that the Opposition in the Senate appears to be opposed to a Senate register of pecuniary interests. That would create difficulties for the Senate in terms of the business list which the Senate has, if we were to spend a great deal of time debating that issue. So Government legislation on this matter is appropriately a question of priority in terms of the business of the Senate. I certainly agree that both Houses should have similar rules on the matter. Any assistance we can get from either House in making those rules as workable and as sensible as possible will, of course, be appreciated. Senator MACKLIN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade aware of a report from a major church group on recent events in New Caledonia which indicate that the French Government does not intend to move towards democratic self-government of that country, but is reinforcing its colonial power through the proposed so-called Pons statute, giving ultimate power to a French Government official, as well as intensive lobbying in international forums? Is the Minister further aware of persistent rumours that the Australian Government will succumb to this pressure from the French Government and intends to reverse its present policy of independence for New Caledonia? Does the Minister appreciate the damage such action would cause to Australia's standing in the region? Can he give an assurance that no such change of policy is contemplated and that the Australian Government will continue its efforts to achieve independence and democratic self-government for New Caledonia? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not aware of the particular report from the church group to which Senator Macklin referred. Of course, we have our own sources of information on and assessment of political developments in the region and, on the basis of that information, we are perfectly capable of forming our own views on what is happening. It would appear that the proposed statute-- Senator Hill —Where did you get your information from? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is rather better information than that which impressed the Opposition's former spokesman, Mr Brown, in Fiji, I seem to recall. Senator Hill should not wax too lyrical about that. I refer in particular to the statute to which Senator Macklin referred. It is clear on our analysis that the proposed statute that has been referred to by Prime Minister Chirac and the DOM-TOM Minister Pons will not accord New Caledonia the same degree of autonomy as that enjoyed by French Polynesia, for example, and the powers accorded to the regions will not be as wide as those under the Fabius-Pisani statute of the previous French Government. The Pons statute, apparently, has just been approved by the French Cabinet. It is understood that it will complete its parliamentary process in France before the end of this year. The passage of that statute will not alter the basic policy stance which we have had and continue to maintain in respect of New Caledonia, which I think can be described as follows. We would like to see a peaceful, orderly transition to multi-racial independence which recognises the rights of the indigenous people and safeguards the rights of all other long term residents. Australia wants to maintain a constructive dialogue with all parties involved in the New Caledonian issue, including the French Government. Australia's position takes into account the strong support for independence in New Caledonia expressed by the South Pacific Forum island countries, as shown in the communique of the Apia forum. Australia supported reinscription of New Caledonia at the United Nations General Assembly No. 41 as a means of ensuring that the territory's progress towards self-government and independence was regularly reviewed by the United Nations (UN). The UN Committee of 24 has since considered the question of New Caledonia, and adopted a resolution in August this year. Australia supports a free and genuine act of self-determination in New Caledonia which is consistent with the universally accepted decolonisation practices and principles of the UN. We take the view that the referendum that was held by France on 13 September was inconsistent with that requirement. Finally, in general terms, our wish remains to help to ensure that a long term, viable, peaceful political solution can be found to the problems that continue to beset New Caledonia. Senator CHILDS —Can the Minister for Local Government inform us of the effects that the Commonwealth's new general purpose financial assistance arrangements for local government are having on rural local councils? Is it true that the new system discriminates against councils outside the capital cities because the grants are now determined on the basis of population and the needs of councils are not taken into account? Senator REYNOLDS —It is not true that the new system discriminates against rural councils, but I thank Senator Childs for his question. Last year the Commonwealth introduced the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1986. The purpose of the Act is to provide untied financial assistance to local councils to compensate them for disadvantages they suffer in raising revenue and meeting the needs of their residents. Councils that are most disadvantaged in respect of raising revenue and meeting needs will be helped the most under the new system. For instance, rural councils whose communities may be facing a decline in economic capacity, which in turn can have an effect on the ratable capacity of the land, should be advantaged under the Act. It is simply not fair to say that the new system is discriminating against rural councils in favour of capital cities. For instance, I know of a number of rural councils in Queensland that have been advantaged. Brisbane City Council, for example, is facing a loss of revenue. As I have said before in this place, grants are not determined just on a population basis. Many factors, including revenue, which I have just mentioned, and the costs associated with providing all the services expected of local councils, such as roads, health, welfare and libraries, are taken into account. In fact, this year some of the largest increases in grants have gone to rural councils. For instance, in New South Wales-Senator Childs's own State-Wagga Wagga received an increase of over $123,000, Albury received an extra $80,000 and a number of other councils, such as Culcairn and Wentworth, received increases. Senator ALSTON —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. I refer to various newspaper reports suggesting that Telecom Australia has unmasked an international phone fraud ring involving Telecom operators and customers in four States and overseas. Is it a fact that this scam came to light only because of painstaking cross-matching of computer records by the Overseas Telecommunications Commission? Did Telecom have any independent monitoring program in place? Is it correct that detections to date may well be the tip of the iceberg and that there are likely to be several hundred more persons involved? What is the estimated cost to revenue of this racket? Will the Minister order a full inquiry into the state of Telecom's internal fraud detection techniques? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will take those detailed questions on notice. But in the context of the general issue of fraud detection and security, at the beginning of this week I referred to the general security inquiry which Telecom had set in train at the beginning of this year, which covered not only, as I understand it, physical security, but also the kinds of issues to which Senator Alston referred. The organisation is acutely conscious of the need to maintain maximum security of all its telecommunications operations. I am sure that the nature of the present exercise, which has been partially revealed in the Press so far, is only part of a quite intensive ongoing security operation. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. The Minister will recall that on 2 November I asked her about Japanese nationals working on the Gold Coast. Did the Minister indicate that a particular store was employing seven Japanese staff, of whom four were working holiday- makers? Has the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs reviewed the employment and entry conditions of the other three and, if so, what are the results of that review? Senator REYNOLDS —In my reply of 2 November to Senator Colston, I said that initial inquiries by the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs indicated that four of the seven were working holidaymakers. Following a visit to the store by staff of the regional office of the Department in Brisbane, I can now confirm that this is the case. In addition, the review of the employment and entry conditions of the other three has in fact been completed and they are also in Australia as working holidaymakers. The working holidaymakers scheme, which is reciprocal, allows for young people from other countries to undertake casual employment, usually no more than three to six months, with the one employer, to help them finance their holiday. All of the seven people in question had been employed at the store for less than three months. The departmental officers, at the time of their visit, took the opportunity to point out to the store management what their responsibilities were when employing expatriate staff. Senator LEWIS —My question to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce concerns offsets. The Minister will be aware of the warning by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts of the major potential for abuse in the offsets program. Is it a fact that the offsets group in the Minister's Department has been disbanded and the staff scattered throughout the Department? Is this a result of recent allegations made to the Public Accounts Committee of impropriety? If not, what is the reason? Senator BUTTON —First of all, that has not happened, so I can only be speculative about the other parts of Senator Lewis's question. What has happened is that some 20 people in one division in my Department have been moved to another division. There is nothing abnormal about that. That has taken place because, particularly in the information industries, there has been a creative process in policy making which now leads to an administrative role which is best carried on in another division of the Department. That has happened. So the speculation which is inherent in the honourable senator's question is something which, I suspect, we can leave in the air because it does not follow from the premise. Senator LEWIS —I ask a supplementary question. What security systems, if any, has the Minister introduced to overcome the possibilities of abuse or corruption, as indicated in the Public Accounts Committee's report? What measures have been taken to ensure that future administration of the offsets program is effective, that outstanding offsets obligations are satisfied and that comprehensive records are maintained? Senator BUTTON —That, of course, is not a supplementary question. It is a totally different question. In fact, it is a speech and not a question at all. But a number of steps have been taken in relation to all those matters. I think it is probably better that, rather than take up the whole of Question Time, I provide the honourable senator with a more comprehensive and detailed answer as soon as possible. I will do that. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. I refer the Minister to statements in the House of Representatives on 18 November by the honourable member for Fadden, Mr Jull, about the availability of inbound seats to Australia. As the Minister would be aware, these statements have been reported in a number of newspapers. Can the Minister advise the House whether these statements accurately reflect the situation of airline seat availability into and out of Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —After the Opposition spokesman on tourism, Mr Sharp, made a comprehensive fool of himself in the other place last week when his attack on the tourism Minister, Mr Brown, backfired, Mr Jull leapt into the act with a speech on airline capacity into Australia which was described by Mr Warwick Costin in a number of Sunday newspapers and, indeed, in newspapers elsewhere, in the following terms: Mr Jull got a hero's reception from his leaders and colleagues for turning the debate into one of underlying worth. He was backslapped, congratulated and later asked to write a briefing paper for all Opposition MPs. Can I say that that gives a wonderful insight into the knowledge and sense of discrimination of members of the Opposition, because when one looks at the terms of that hero's speech by Mr Jull, one finds that it not only is inaccurate in a number of respects but also lacks analysis, draws conclusions which are misleading and distorted and is, in a number of respects, quite out of date. Let me state the facts as they are. Of the 11 airlines mentioned by Mr Jull as not having spare seats into Australia, he has neglected to say that permanent capacity increases have been negotiated with a number of them at airline level-that is, Malaysian Airline System (MAS), Thai Airways International Ltd and Singapore Airlines Ltd. Singapore Airlines in particular will be entitled to operate two extra services from December. With the exception of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, none of the remainder of the 11 airlines has sought any increased capacity. I repeat: none of them has sought any increased capacity. Moreover, two of these carriers-Air India and Alitalia-have in recent years reduced the level of their scheduled services into Australia and could, if they wished, without any further steps being taken by anyone, increase their services again. I acknowledge that KLM has since applied for additional permanent capacity and this is being negotiated with the Dutch Government. However, it is only KLM of the 11 of which that is true. Mr Jull neglected to mention that, of the 11 carriers he did mention, only three of them-MAS, Olympic Airways and Singapore Airlines-have filed to operate supplementaries over the current period and all those filings have been approved by my Department, as I indicated several days ago would be the case. There are 14 overseas airlines which between them are now operating some 75 supplementary flights between now and February. But the vast majority of overseas operators into Australia are not seeking supplementary flights at all. Take, for example, United Airlines Inc., a major provider of services whose public affairs manager in Australia, Mr Sean McNamara, was quoted recently as saying that it does not have enough aircraft to operate supplementary flights. He was then quoted as saying that this was not just an Australian problem, but a world problem with passenger numbers having gone through the roof. Then we had from Mr Jull an exposition on the subject of wait list numbers. Certainly, for Singapore Airlines, it looks large. The Press has claimed, and this figure has been often repeated, something like 4,500 wait listed for that area alone. What Mr Jull and others, however, have not taken into account is that while some wait lists look large, they are really quite dramatically exacerbated by multiple bookings as people seek to secure their preferred flight. Those figures need to be adjusted accordingly. Let me now just describe to the Senate the real situation on seat availability as it presently exists, both into and out of Australia. This is the information on the situation as it now stands, through to the end of February. Senator Lewis —Come on, you can incorporate it. Senator GARETH EVANS —I know it hurts Senator Lewis. I understand the indignity and stress that he is caused to hear one of the Opposition spokesmen so revealed for naked pig ignorance. But this is the truth of the matter. I am sure that honourable senators, with the forthcoming season in mind, will be very interested to know, on behalf of not only themselves but also their constituents, what the wait list situation is. On the United Kingdom (UK)-Europe-Singapore-Bangkok route there are presently 15,164 inbound seats available between now and February and 26,583 outbound seats available; for the United States of America-Canada route there are 10,803 inbound and 14,123 outbound; in Asia otherwise, there are 6,559 inbound and 11,736 outbound. Those figures do not include a further 48 supplementary flights which Qantas Airways Ltd has yet to release for sale. This represents approximately an additional 18,000 seats into and out of Australia and, on inbound sectors, will add an extra 27 from Asia, 20 from Europe, United Kingdom and Singapore and one from the UK in terms of flights. Finally, Mr Jull made some further ill- informed comments about the Government's so-called restrictive approach to charters. What he does not seem to have appreciated-this hero of the Opposition-is that on 7 October I announced relaxed guidelines for international charter flights that are designed, of course, to promote the development of inbound tourism by allowing passenger charter flights to play a very real and very complementary role to scheduled flights. To the extent that Mr Jull utterly failed to acknowledge that statement, this is another perfect demonstration of the total ignorance with which he foisted his views upon the Parliament. He makes no reference whatsoever to those new guidelines, showing that he is simply quite unable to keep up to date with the developments as they have occurred. All I can say, in conclusion, is that it is manifest that Mr Jull satisfies that description that Senator Stone so kindly put on the record for us, as reported on page 2255 of Monday's Hansard-and I recommend it to the reading of all honourable senators-when he referred to the number of duds purporting to be spokesmen for the Opposition. It is a classic demonstration of just how many duds there are and in how many areas they purport to state the truth but fundamentally and comprehensively get it wrong. Senator CHAPMAN —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I preface my question by referring to claims by Philippine military intelligence sources that six Australian organisations have supplied funds to the Communist Party of the Philippines and its military wing-the New People's Army (NPA). Is the Government concerned that any such action by the organisations named in several newspaper reports could contribute to undermining the Aquino Government and have serious ramifications for Australia's relations with the Philippines? Does the Minister agree that the only effective way of checking the truth or otherwise of the allegations is an inquiry by an Australian security organisation? Will the Government institute such an inquiry to establish beyond doubt, firstly, whether any funds from Australia have found their way-perhaps as a result of laundering through front organisations-to those Philippine communist organisations and, secondly, whether any public money is involved? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that Philippine military intelligence sources have been quoted in the Press as claiming that a number of Australian non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have provided funds to the Communist Party of the Philippines and its military wing-the New People's Army. No evidence is available to the Government which would uphold those claims. The Australian International Development Assistance Bureau (AIDAB) has mechanisms in place to assess carefully all NGO projects which are funded by the Government. Philippines Defence Secretary Ileto is reported to have said that the Philippines Government had asked some foreign governments for assistance in investigating such allegations. I place on record the fact that no such request has been made of the Australian Government. I should say, finally, that the violent activity which is pursued by the Communist Party of the Philippines, through the NPA, against the democratically elected Government of the Philippines is opposed by the Australian Government and is regarded by us as totally contrary to Australian values. Senator CHAPMAN —I ask a supplementary question. In the light of the Minister's response, I ask: In what way did AIDAB check out the claims that have been made, and does the Minister regard whatever inquiry AIDAB has undertaken as a satisfactory substitute for an inquiry by an Australian intelligence organisation? Senator GARETH EVANS —I regard AIDAB as having more credibility than, firstly, the Press and, secondly, the present questioner; but I will seek further details on what mechanisms may have been implemented to check out the grants in question. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Justice. I ask the Minister whether her attention has been drawn to Press reports that stated that it would be unjust and oppressive for 16 New South Wales Aborigines to be sent to Queensland gaols to stand trial in view of the racial discrimination and inhuman gaol conditions in that State. In light of this report and further reports that referred to gaol conditions, especially at Boggo Road Gaol and, in particular, the proposed opening of the black hole section to house Aborigines, I further ask the Minister: Has any approach been made to the Attorney-General's Department or the Federal Government to assist in resisting the opening of the section of Boggo Road Gaol known as the black hole because it is claimed that this section does not meet the international standards of human rights to which the Australian Government is a consenting party? In what area does this section of the gaol infringe those international standards set on human rights? It seems quite obvious from the interjections by honourable senators opposite that they do not believe a great deal in human rights. Senator REYNOLDS —I thank Senator Jones for his question. While I am acting for Senator Tate, I would not want to answer the detail of Senator Jones's questions, except to say that obviously there is a great deal of concern in the general community and in this chamber, other than those who chose to snigger, as to the very serious question that Senator Jones has raised in this place today. It is of significant concern to all Australians that the Queensland Government, such as it is on this historic day in Queensland, should even consider re-opening the black hole at Boggo Road. I can only hope that, as there has been a change in leadership in Queensland today-I assume that the new leadership will be somewhat more open-minded than the one that has existed for over 19 years-that very serious question will be one of the first priorities of the new leadership. I will refer the detail of Senator Jones's question to Senator Tate. Senator SHORT —I refer the Minister for Home Affairs to an article in the Australian newspaper of 20 November entitled `Verdict may force Senate election'. Can the Minister confirm that on 19 November the High Court of Australia announced that a petition from a New South Wales Senate candidate, Mrs Nile, challenging the election of Senator Robert Wood as a senator for New South Wales in July 1987 has constitutional implications and has, therefore, decided to relist the hearing for 9 December? What advice has the Minister received from the Australian Electoral Commission regarding Mrs Nile's challenge, and on what grounds did the Commission originally argue against Mrs Nile's petition? Can he confirm the statement in the Press report that the Electoral Commission will try to persuade the High Court to declare the whole Senate election for New South Wales void if the Court upholds the petition? What would be the implications of the High Court's upholding of Mrs Nile's petition? Senator ROBERT RAY —I can confirm that the matter is before the High Court and has been adjourned until 9 December. In adjourning it, the Bench made it quite clear that there were constitutional implications. Also, it thought it appropriate that State governments or State Attorneys-General be consulted in this regard. Senator Short asked me what advice I have had from the Electoral Commission. The answer is not a lot, and I am not about to reveal advice from part of my Department to myself. Of course, that does not preclude me from going to some of the other issues which the honourable senator raised. He asked: On what grounds did the Commission originally argue against Mrs Nile's petition? Essentially, the Commission is represented there because it has a peripheral involvement in these matters, which are basically constitutional. I think that they go to section 44 of the Constitution. Senator Wood should answer this question in terms of the details. There is also a section in the Commonwealth Electoral Act that says that no person shall nominate for election unless he is capable of taking his seat in the Parliament. That was an amendment we made to the Electoral Act in 1983 or 1984. The Commission has some interest in these matters in that regard. Senator Short asked me to confirm a Press report that the Electoral Commission will try to persuade the High Court to declare the whole New South Wales election void. I would point out that it was a newspaper report which was well-informed in some areas and fairly basic and weak in others. I have no knowledge of the Electoral Commission arguing publicly or privately that the election should be regarded as void if Mrs Nile's petition is upheld. I would not like to test the extent to which I can direct the Electoral Commission, which we created basically as an independent body. It is not my view that it should be arguing that. I would be very surprised if that section of the Press report had any validity at all. Senator Short went on to ask: What would be the implications of the High Court's upholding of Mrs Nile's petition? The High Court-or the Court of Disputed Returns-could eventually do a variety of things. Firstly, it could dismiss the complaint. We have at least one vote for that already. Secondly, it could declare Senator Wood not eligible and nominate another of the candidates to replace him. Whether that would be done by way of a count-through or just by its choice, I am not certain. Thirdly, it could declare the election absolutely void. The consequences of that are a bit like a curate's egg-both good and bad. The worst aspect, Mr President, is that you would have to vacate the chair for three months. Whilst that would be a loss to the Senate, I could not stand another election campaign when you were running for President. My colleague who is on sick leave at the moment, Senator Richardson, would also be a little agitated, although I understand that a person can be a Minister for, I think, three months without being a member of parliament. My other New South Wales colleagues on this side of the chamber, none of whom are present at the moment, would be somewhat distressed because, as I recall, one of the provisions is that if their positions were declared void they would have to pay back all their salaries and allowances to the point of 11 July. I am not sure whether Senator Walsh would consider an act of grace payment in these particular circumstances. As for honourable senators opposite, we would have the normal sorts of problems. Where would poor old Senator Brownhill end up on the ticket? Would he be put at No. 3, 4 or 5? Having two Baumes run for pre-selection also causes problems opposite. At least I would not have to worry about Senator Bishop's new office in Parramatta if she gets tossed out. As for Senator Puplick, well, he has had a nice stay on the front bench. I am sure he will be back if he is removed. This matter does raise a serious point, one which may have to be looked at in terms of Senate elections. By the way, I am not suggesting that there is any fault at all involved here or that there is any validity to the case. But to have 11 duly elected senators forfeit their positions, through no fault of their own, because of a problem with the twelfth seems to me incongruous. But we recently saw something similar occur in the Northern Territory. Mr Tuxworth, through no fault of his own, had to vacate his seat and re-contest the by-election. I am not trying to nobble or in any way influence the Court's decision. I just say generally that the disqualification, the expense of an election and the disruption that would be caused seem to me a rather pointless exercise. Senator AULICH —Can the Special Minister of State advise the Senate of the Government's commitment to research into effective treatment and rehabilitation programs for drug and alcohol abuse? Does the Minister support the establishment of centres throughout Australia to conduct research in the areas of drug and alcohol abuse? Senator RYAN —The answer to the second part of Senator Aulich's question is yes. In fact tomorrow, at the University of New South Wales, I will be opening Australia's second centre for research into effective treatment and rehabilitation programs for drug and alcohol abuse. The centre will receive $1.2m for the current financial year under the national campaign against drug abuse. The centre will conduct research into effective treatment and rehabilitation programs as well as basic research on social and psychological factors relating to drug dependence. A particular facet of the research will be to explain why approximately two-thirds of people treated for drug and alcohol problems relapse shortly after discharge from treatment. The centre will concentrate on the development and evaluation of treatment methods for the early recognition of drug and alcohol problems and ways of moderating consumption or promoting abstinence. The research will concentrate on alcohol, tobacco and opiate drugs, which represent major areas of concern in our society. The Government wants to get the message across that the whole community needs to understand that we are all open to the problem of drugs and we all need to be aware of how to cope with them. The Government has allocated $2.6m to the national campaign against drug abuse for research into this area between 1985 and 1988. Senator PANIZZA —I refer the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to the answer he gave me regarding the import duty on diesel injection pump parts and turbo charger parts. I quote his reply: Importers of replacement parts used for diesel injection pumps and turbo chargers not manufactured in Australia will continue to have the opportunity to import their goods at 2% duty irrespective of the proposed tariff changes referred to by the honourable senator. My questions are: What exactly does he mean by `have the opportunity to import their goods at 2 per cent'? Secondly, is it automatic that those specialised parts not manufactured in Australia will remain at 2 per cent? Or does it mean that the importer will have to reapply to obtain that concession, thereby causing those importers to pay the higher 25 per cent rate of duty until the decision is made and then apply for a refund? Senator BUTTON —I ask the honourable senator to put the question on notice. Senator HARRADINE —My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health. I refer to a statement made earlier this week by the Hon. Dr Cornwall in the debate in the South Australian Parliament on the Reproductive Technology Bill in which he advised the South Australian Parliament that Senator Ryan had spoken to him on two occasions about the need for uniform legislation in this area of major public importance. My question to the Minister is: On what dates did the Minister speak to Dr Cornwall about this particular matter? I ask also whether the need she saw for uniform legislation coincided with the recommendation of the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985, which is contained on page xv of the Committee's report, and which includes: making unlawful any destructive non-therapeutic experimentation which frustrated the development of the human embryo. If it was not that advice, what advice did the Minister give Dr Cornwall? Senator RYAN —As Senator Harradine will be aware-because I have answered questions from him on this subject before-the Government is considering a response to the Senate Committee's report, and the Government is considering a broader approach to the whole bioethics question. What we have undertaken at this stage is to establish a national bioethics committee which will operate as an expert and representative body to which references could be sent by the Commonwealth or by State governments. I have told Senator Harradine before-and I repeat this-that the Government is not anticipating Federal legislation in these areas at this stage; that is, we currently have no such plans. It is also the case that, as a part of considering the way in which the Commonwealth can play a constructive role in this extremely complex and sensitive area, we have looked at what the States are doing. It is very much my view that it would serve the interests of the Australian people if we can avoid a situation where States have legislation in these areas that differs quite markedly from that of other States. For example, in the area of in vitro fertilisation, it does not seem to me to be in the interests of Australians if States differ in their legislative criteria for eligibility for going into such a program. If there were such different criteria from State to State, we would have what I would consider to be the unfortunate position of women or couples moving around, State hopping, trying to find legislation which suited them. It is a new area for governments to be involved in legislatively. It is an enormously complex area. It touches on very deeply held views of different sections of the community, and it brings to the fore the pluralism of our society, because there is no doubt that there is a very wide range of moral and ethical views held sincerely by different sections of society on what is the right way to proceed in these matters. I repeat that I believe it is in the interests of Australia that the States, in the event of their wishing to legislate, do so in consultation with each other and with the Federal Government in an effort to establish common ground and a common approach to legislation. It is, of course, up to the States to legislate as they wish. Victoria has already legislated and South Australia is in the process of enacting legislation. However, I think it is in the interests of everybody for the States and the Commonwealth to find common ground for this legislation. I have not had the opportunity to visit Dr Cornwall to have formal discussions at any length on this matter. I have seen Dr Cornwall from time to time and no doubt those matters have been discussed informally. The most recent occasion of my meeting with Dr Cornwall was at the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy which, as I recall, was held on 5 or 6 November. But I can find that date more accurately for Senator Harradine. I would like to say that Senator Harradine has expressed a great interest in this matter. Indeed, he has a record in this place of having a very active interest in such matters. But I would point out that his views on the matter are not the only views that are held within society. There are, as I said, a range of views held within the scientific community, amongst people who concern themselves with ethical matters and amongst legislators. I would ask him to consider that the Government, in arriving at its position on such a complex matter, must endeavour to arrive at a position which does justice to the variety of views which are held in the community, and does not simply adopt one view at the expense of other views which are held with equal passion and conviction. Senator HARRADINE —I ask a supplementary question. I was talking not about my views but about the advice given by the Minister. If the Minister has spoken to Dr Cornwall about this matter, how was she able yesterday to say, in answer to a question that I raised on the appropriations, that she had not had discussions with the South Australian Government about this particular question? Is she aware of the fact that the South Australian Parliament last night went some way towards adopting the Senate Committee's recommendations by amending the legislation to ensure that there were no detrimental experiments on embryos? Senator RYAN —When Senator Harradine asked me yesterday about discussions, I answered by saying that I had not had a special meeting with Dr Cornwall on that matter. There have been officer level discussions and certainly the view that Dr Cornwall has put forward, as quoted by Senator Harradine-that I believe that uniformity of approach is desirable-is my view, and no doubt it is a view that has been conveyed to Dr Cornwall's office by my officers. I have not had the opportunity to have full formal discussions on this matter with Dr Cornwall, although it is probably the case that we have discussed it on other occasions when we have met with other agendas. However, if the South Australian legislation has looked closely at the Senate Committee's recommendations and adopted some of them, that is quite a useful course of action. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs-I promised a further answer to Senator Newman. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has now provided additional information. I seek leave to incorporate his answer in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- During Question Time on Tuesday of this week, Senator Newman asked several questions relating to the causes of officer resignations in the Australian Defence Force. She also tabled a report which contained the results of an Army survey of its officer resignations. In particular she asked: Whether the Government had been in possession of this report? Whether Ministers had misled parliament over the last two months by failing to acknowledge the underlying reasons for the rate of service resignations. The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel has provided the following answers to the Honourable Senator's questions: The report referred to covered the period mid-February to August 1987. It is an initial report issued internally within Army and is still subject to further analysis. Ministers have not misled Parliament. On the contrary, this Government has shown a determination to tackle problem areas that have arisen for a variety of reasons and is doing something about them. Senator Newman also asked supplementary questions as follows: Had the Government obtained similar reports into the reasons for resignations of officers from the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force? If so, will the Government table those reports and make them available to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in its enquiry into separation rates? The Minister has provided the following answers to these questions: Yes. Such surveys are normal management practices within the Services. The Government has no intention to table reports which are essentially working documents for the internal use of the Department and the Services. However, a consolidated and fully analysed paper is being prepared for submission to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs) —The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has provided additional information in answer to Senator Hamer's question without notice of 23 November. I seek leave to incorporate the answer in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- The Dibb Review of Australia's defence capabilities recommended in 1986 that, while individual services should retain an advisory role, the ADF's military planning and policy, including forward equipment planning, should be centralised under the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) working in close association with civilian staff under the Secretary. As a result the Government last year created the position of Vice Chief of the Defence Force with specific responsibilities to CDF for long term planning and for the co-ordination of ADF force development planning. Single Service Chiefs of development were made directly responsible to CDF (through VCDF) for aspects of ADF force development. The Minister for Defence announced the creation of the position of VCDF on 3 June last year when tabling the Dibb Review in Parliament. This measure was part of a continuing process designed to increase the oversight of single services by the headquarters of the ADF and to encourage a comprehensive approach towards the structuring of the ADF for our strategic circumstances. The Secretary to the Department of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force have together informed the Minister for Defence that they regard as fundamentally sound the joint process whereby the Government is presented with professional civilian and military advice on the development of the ADF. This joint advisory process has been supported by successive Governments since at least the Second World War. Over time improvements can be sought but these need only be at the margins rather than by radical change. In this regard, the Force Development and Analysis Division will remain under the Secretary of the Department of Defence and will continue to play a major part in the examination of proposals for new major capital equipment. The PRESIDENT —I present the second report for the sixty-third session of the Procedure Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Ordered that consideration of the report be an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting. The PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the report of the Auditor-General on an efficiency audit of the Australian Taxation Office. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia) —I present the second report of the Standing Committee on Publications. Report-by leave-adopted. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia) —On behalf of Senator Aulich, I table further additional information received by Estimates Committee E. Assent to the following Bills reported: Income Tax Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 Medicare Levy Amendment Bill 1987 Consideration resumed. GROUP E Department of Defence Proposed expenditure, $7,150,478,000 Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(3.05) —Before lunch I was saying how refreshing it was to be able to question senior serving uniformed officers and to receive their frank, clear and honest answers. The Estimates Committee inquiring into the Department of Defence has not always had the pleasure of that sort of direct approach and I hope that it is one that the Department will see its way clear to continue in the future. I was about to draw attention to the number of questions to which answers had still to come forward, but I understand that, due to no fault of the Department or my office, there was a hiccup on the delivery of answers to members of the Estimates Committee. They have now arrived, but I have had the benefit of looking at some of these answers only during Question Time. I thank the Department for its efficient handling of the Estimates Committee. A number of questions were put on notice earlier on by the members of the Committee, and these were answered prior to the hearing. A number of other questions were taken on notice during the hearing, and we have now received most, though by no means all, answers and I give credit for that. Earlier in this debate, my colleagues referred to the report from the 1 Psych Unit to the Military Secretary, which I tabled in the Senate on Tuesday. It seems to me that the sad thing about that report is the number of times on which leadership was referred to as being something which was lacking in the Services and the provision of which would have been an important factor in keeping officers in the Army. It is leadership at both political and military levels that is required. Of the most serious 12 factors, four relate to senior officers. There was a need for a more positive commitment to be shown by senior officers towards service conditions, better leadership by superiors was needed, greater loyalty was required from senior officers, and a more positive commitment needed to be shown by senior officers towards defence issues. Equally, politicians and governments have to take the blame. The report said that if a more positive commitment had been shown by politicians to defence forces and national defence conditions of service, if there had been a better understanding by politicians of the problems of Army personnel, these things would have helped persuade officers to stay in the Army. We desperately need leadership from the top for our service men and women. A lot of factors affect the high separation rates that we are currently suffering. Many of them can be dealt with in dollars and cents, but by no means all. It is very sad, and a terribly serious matter, that at both political and service levels, these men and women feel that they are lacking leadership. Serious also is the fact that they feel that they need more open career management, greater responsibility and more autonomy in their work tasks and greater acceleration of promotion for persons of demonstrated performance and that they would like to see more weight being given to merit than to seniority in promotion. There are a lot of other factors that contribute to the dissatisfaction of the families, which we have debated before a number of times in Parliament, especially in relation to the education of the children of service personnel. I think we must take serious note of these matters that are raised in the report. No doubt, it was a confidential report within the Department of Defence but I, for one, feel that it is in the interests of Australia's defence that these matters be made public. It is interesting to note that among the answers to questions on notice which I received only during Question Time today, one answer related to separation studies. I draw the Senate's attention to the answer which stated: The more common themes emerging from these studies are: (a) Locational, Societal Aspects. Families are less mobile because of the increasing importance across society of maintaining the existing employment of spouses for economic and self-actualisation reasons, and to maintain educational stability for children, particularly in secondary school. (b) Service Conditions. Personnel do have perceptions as to the relative standing of the ADF in the community, particularly in regard to conditions of service. (c) Other. A range of issues relating to feelings and attitudes about individual career prospects through to the nature of the working environment in the ADF. I think that is a very poor response. I am very disappointed that the Department feels that it can describe studies into the reasons for separation in those gobbledegook terms when we have, fortunately, the benefit now of reading the actual study from the 1 Psyche Unit to the Military Secretary which really sets out what the worries are. Who would know the seriousness of the leadership problems from reading that gobbledegook? Who would know the seriousness of the career management problems and who would know the seriousness of the family problems from reading that rubbish? I would like to turn now to another question that relates to the separation figures, or to the lack of them. We are all aware that the figures that used to be produced for members of Parliament ceased to be produced at the end of June. Since that time we have been advised publicly that anyone who wishes to apply for the separation figures on the defence forces should make application. When that announcement was made early this financial year my office rang the Department requesting that figures be provided to me on a monthly basis. The Department said to ring the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly). My office did so and was told that it would be taken care of. On 7 November, still having had no figures, I wrote to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel requesting figures for July, August, September and October. On 18 November my office was phoned by a member of the Minister's staff who, in a very abrupt and unpleasant manner, said that requests should be made to the Department every month. My officer said that she had called the Department in the first place and that she had been told to talk to the Minister's office. This member of the Minister's staff said that at that time the procedures were not in place but that they now were and that this matter was being handled by the Department. He was clearly not interested. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that in the report to the Senate of Estimates Committee E the Committee expressed quite a bit of concern about this matter. I turn to page 11 of that report where it is stated: The Committee was aware of the decision by the Minister for Defence to discontinue the Departmental practice of publishing monthly statistics. Having considered this matter the Committee requested that any member of parliament, who makes a written request for monthly separation rates and other defence statistics of the kind previously made available, should be supplied with those materials on a regular and continuous basis without having to make repeated monthly requests. Monthly requests are a lot of nonsense. It is a bureaucratic attempt to prevent members of parliament from receiving this information. It is a stupid nonsense. It is made worse by the fact that when we get these figures, I understand, they will be nothing like the quality of the figures previously available to members of Parliament. I understand it will just be a brief sheet of figures, whereas we used to get a very excellent break-up of the figures so we could truly have an understanding of what was happening in the defence forces. I draw the Committee's attention to that criticism in the Committee's report and I urge the Department to take action accordingly. I would also like to refer to other matters contained in that Estimates Committee report. The Committee addressed itself to a number of matters relating to the Department of Defence. One of them concerned the availability of the departmental annual reports. It seems to be a very cynical exercise. Perhaps I have a suspicious nature, but my colleagues obviously felt the same way, because the report condemned the fact that the Department of Defence report was available one week after the Estimates Committee hearings finished. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that when the Attorney-General's Department was to appear before the self-same Estimates Committee it had the courtesy to provide the Committee with a draft copy of its report. I fail to see why the Department of Defence is not able to do equally well. I urge it to improve its game in that area in the future. I wish also to raise the question concerning the amount of expenditure on personnel in the defence budget. I think it was Mr Ives who gave some information about the break-down of the defence expenditure. He said that 29.6 per cent of the budget went into capital procurement, 42.2 per cent went on personnel and 28.3 per cent on operating costs. I would like to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that I have received a letter from a former senior officer commenting on this break-down. I think it would be worth the while of honourable senators to ponder on these facts. He said: The British Forces had by 1978 reached about that same ratio and many of their servicemen were on welfare payments. I remind the Senate that with the new family assistance supplement we are going to have numbers of junior ranks with children in receipt of welfare payments from this Government. So the situations are very similar. He goes on to point out: Almost every viable and comparable organisation from BHP to private schools appears to budget for personnel costs of about 50-60 per cent. One cannot deny the need for new and better equipment for the ADF, but the introduction of this equipment carries a personnel and logistic cost if it is to be introduced in an orderly fashion. What has been happening is that the new equipment is being introduced at the expense of everything else, and in the face of a diminishing overall budget. Something has to give, and the major symptom of this is in the form of personnel departures. I urge the Government to take serious stock of the break-down of the defence budget to see whether it has perhaps not launched off too far into capital procurement costs at the expense of personnel costs. In my view it is dangerous to go too far down that track and get the defence budget out of balance. Lastly I would like to draw attention to the article in the Australian newspaper to which my colleague Senator MacGibbon referred earlier concerning the guidelines introduced for service spouses when they meet the Minister. I think it is a desperately sad situation when we find that service spouses who are not under military law, they are not under the command of commanding officers of units, are being instructed as to how to behave when they meet their Ministers. I feel it is a terrible shame. It is incredible that the Australian Labor Party would countenance such a thing. I cannot imagine, for example, trade union spouses in a similar situation, putting up with that for one minute. Senator Walters —Being asked to discuss it over a cup of tea. Senator NEWMAN —Yes, as Senator Walters said, being asked to discuss it over a cup of tea. It is incredible to imagine. One wonders whether they are going off in their white gloves to courtsey, as Peter Young suggested. How can the service personnel get their message across to the Ministers and to the nation if their spouses are muzzled? It is the only opportunity they have to express a point of view. They do not have the freedom of trade unionists to organise their labour to speak out publicly. They are able to be represented only by their spouses. This amounts to intimidation either by Ministers or by the chiefs. I would like to get to the bottom of that matter. I signal just how serious it is. The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel said in the House of Representatives yesterday that she had made no complaint to General Gration, nor would she make any. She said: Any guidelines that the Chief of the Defence Force would issue would be at his own prerogative and of his own doing, and I would have nothing whatsoever to do with them. I hope that is correct, but somebody has issued those guidelines and decided that that is how Ministers must be treated by service spouses. It is quite appalling. (Extension of time granted) I would like to ask just who took the decision that guidelines of this kind would be issued to service spouses. I would like to know whether the chiefs took that decision on their own initiative or whether complaints were made by Deputy Secretary A when he returned from the meeting at Holsworthy, which I also attended. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that Deputy Secretary A represented the Minister at that meeting; he was her official representative. He also had the hide to tell those angry and worried people that the Government has the right to give them their pay and conditions and has the right to take them away. The people at the meeting, naturally, howled at him and were furious. Somebody asked him to repeat that statement. Either with total insensitivity or lack of any sort of political nous, or arrogance-I cannot think why-he cheerfully repeated it. If that person was a representative of the Minister, Ministers and their representatives deserve whatever they get when they go out to visit service spouses. I would like to know the answers to those questions before I ask further questions. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(3.22) —After such a peremptory demand, I jump to my feet. Senator Puplick —It is the least you could do. Senator ROBERT RAY —I think so. Senator Newman made a few points along the track. She made a few comments on the survey. That matter was raised earlier in debate. The survey, as she says, is interesting. Surveys that go just to the problems of the disaffected and not the whole service can have slightly distorting effects, especially when the questions are listed, not for an actual response, but for a tick or a cross or something else. Nevertheless, that document will be analysed at great length. Senator Newman commented on the difficulties she has had in getting the separation rate figures. If the story she has outlined today is accurate in all respects, I have some sympathy with the points she is making. I will have her comments drawn to the attention of the Minister. Figures are either published or they are not. One does not set up a merry-go-round just to make it hard for people to get such figures. That is not productive for anyone. If we expect a 4 per cent second tier pay rise, Senator Newman's case today is one thing that could argue against it. Concerning Senator Newman's question about the Department of Defence annual report not being available, I am advised-and I have not checked it-that it is the standing practice of the Department to negotiate a publication timetable with the printer. The practice was followed in respect of the 1986-87 Defence Report. The timetable was determined with a view to the report being tabled by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) concurrently with his delivering the Defence budget statement on 8 October. The Department adhered to the timetable and provided clearance for final galley proofs to the publisher in accordance with the timetable agreed. However, printed copies were not available until 28 October, the day before the report was tabled. Again I say that I do not think it would be deliberate policy to delay the publication of these reports so that the Estimates committees would be over and done with. That would also presuppose some genius calculating when the Estimates committees were going to consider and complete their tasks. It would be beyond me. I do not know whether it would be beyond Senator Newman to know exactly when they would be finished but I think it would be beyond the Defence Department. So I doubt that that was a deliberate policy, although if there were four, five or 10 coincidences in a row there might be some doubts. But that is the explanation at this stage. The final issue Senator Newman raised about guidelines for the behaviour of spouses when meeting the Minister has been blown up a little. I might be able to assist her with some points that have been placed at my disposal. The guidelines were directed at commanding officers and provided advice-I stress `advice'-on fostering meetings of service spouses with the Minister, when the meetings are held on Defence property. It is the normal meeting practice to have an identifiable convenor. The guidelines are to facilitate ministerial contact with spouses. Ministers can answer, without notice, policy questions, but need warning as to specific questions in depth. When a meeting is intended to be for spouses it is reasonable, I think, that spouses have the Minister to themselves. The wearing of civilian clothes is intended to foster the atmosphere when the Minister is talking to spouses without the inhibition of service personnel of various ranks being present. If, on the other hand, local groups would like the Minister to meet mixed groups of service personnel and spouses, the invitation should advise the Minister accordingly. The guidelines also reiterate that meetings arranged by service spouses should not be gate-crashed. That is the extent so far of my advice on some of the issues Senator Newman has raised. Whilst Mr Peter Young's argument in his newspaper article could not be described as not factual, it certainly bent around a few issues and somewhat sensationalised the approach. I do not think that there is anything particularly wrong with structured meetings if one wants a productive result. I do not think that those guidelines, in any way, are meant to inhibit debate or be patronising towards the spouses of service personnel. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(3.27) —I would like to place it on the record that the meeting at Holsworthy, where there were 500 soldiers, sailors and airmen and their spouses, was entirely organised by the local branch of the national consultative group of service spouses. It was an extremely orderly, but cross, meeting. The women ran it entirely and although many cross people were there they were continually reminded by the chairperson that the people invited were the guests of the organisation and were to be treated accordingly. The meeting responded. So I do not understand why there is any need for these guidelines. I have asked the Minister what caused them to be prepared and distributed. I would also like to know what is the end purpose of them. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(3.28) —Senator Newman asked whether the Government would be prepared to distribute copies of those guidelines or make them available. Senator Newman —I have got them. Senator ROBERT RAY —What is the point of the honourable senator's question? Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(3.28) —I did not ask that at all. I asked: What was the end purpose of distributing them and, after the behaviour at Holsworthy which was exemplary except verbally, to the representative of the Minister-who really incited the abuse-who decided that these guidelines would be distributed, on whose complaint was it done, and for what purpose? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(3.29) —At this stage I cannot assist the honourable senator with an answer to that question. It is not within my knowledge or of that of the immediate officers who are here to assist me. I will seek advice on that matter and try to get an answer for the honourable senator before these proceedings are over, as to who decided to issue the guidelines and under what circumstances they were issued. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(3.30) —I thank the Minister for his answer. I am concerned that this is an attempt to muzzle the service spouses. I dare say that there is not much point in asking the Minister whether that was the case, as I am sure he will deny it, but that is how it will look to defence families. I would like to know whether the chiefs will withdraw the guidelines, whether the Government will withdraw the guidelines or whether they endorse them. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(3.31) —We are getting beyond the purposes of the Committee. The honourable senator is asking me to comment on future Government policy. She knows that I am not in a position to do so. I am the Minister representing the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly). I cannot give Senator Newman a guarantee today that those guidelines will be withdrawn or tell her which future policy is associated with them. Indeed, I have already said in a previous answer that I am not sure who issued those guidelines, let alone being able to make an assumption on who could withdraw them. It is just not possible to answer those sorts of questions in an Estimates debate. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(3.32) —I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that paragraph (1) of the guidelines states, `where service spouses are invited to talk to the Minister for Defence or the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel'. These are the guidelines agreed to by the Chief of the Defence Force for meetings which are held within service establishments. Am I to understand from that that Minister Beazley is also requesting to be so protected? If that is the case, there seems to be an internal contradiction within the document. Although he is specifically referred to in paragraph (1), in paragraph (3) the references to the Minister are continually in the feminine. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(3.32) —I do not have an answer to that contradiction concerning the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). One explanation is that when he is on leave Mrs Kelly acts as the Minister for Defence as well as being the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, but I doubt whether it is contrived for that reason. I will seek advice to see whether the guidelines are intended to cover Mr Beazley also. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(3.33) —I ask the Minister why spouses who are also service personnel are not to wear uniform at these occasions. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(3.33) —I said in the second last point I made in answer to an earlier question that it was in the hope of fostering the atmosphere of a particular meeting that everyone was asked to be in civilian attire. I can add nothing further to that. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(3.34) —I wish to ask a question which is directly related to the Estimates concerning the subject of capital procurement for the Defence Force. This is not a criticism of Senator Newman's questions, which were also directly related to the Estimates. My question concerns the structure under which the Defence Force's capital procurement is organised. Unlike the United States Congress, we do not go through the proposed capital procurements item by item, discussing them and then rejecting or approving them. Nevertheless, I think we are entitled to know, in view of the very large amounts spent on capital procurement, whether the structure and the arrangements are sensible. A week or so ago I asked a question about this of Senator Ray. I have now received from the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) a complete non-answer-what might be generously described as bureaucratic gobbledegook. Senator Newman —There is a lot of that. Senator HAMER —Did the honourable senator say, `Join the club'? There is quite a lot of that going on. The problem in the past has been that the three separate Services have each had their own structure for their forward equipment. In fact, one could make a good case for saying that they appeared to be fighting different wars. One of the advantages of the Department of Defence is that for the first time we might have a coherent approach to the role, function and equipment of the Defence Force as a whole rather than an uneasy amalgam of three separate Service bids. I think the position of Vice-Chief of the Defence Force was established with a view to facilitating that. I ask a question which seems to me to be fundamental: Has the Vice-Chief of the Defence Force taken over the task of proposing the equipment and the structure of the whole Defence Force-not an amalgam of the three separate forces? In the past the three Services were putting up bids on their own. They were competing with each other and the Public Service by manipulating and playing off against each other, managing to keep control in their own hands, very much, in my view, to the disadvantage of the efficiency of our Defence Force, certainly because of the antagonism it produced between the uniformed professional members of the defence forces and the civilian elements. I see in the answer I have received from the Minister that the latter are described as `professional civilians'. I am not quite sure what a professional civilian is. Perhaps the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) will be prepared to explain that expression in the answer she gives me to this question. These professional civilians managed to keep control of the structure of the Defence Force in their hands. This was very damaging to the efficiency of the Defence Force. Structural and equipment decisions were made which were not right in the light of what the Australian Defence Force as a whole needed in view of the available capital resources. I again ask: Does the Vice-Chief of the Defence Force, representing the Chief of the Defence Force, now have responsibility for determining and recommending the structure and equipment of the Defence Force in the future rather than acting as a mere co-ordinator of bids from the three separate Services? In particular, are the officers in each Service who were previously responsible for the planning of the equipment and structure of their own Service still responsible in this role to the Chief of Staff of their own Service, or are they responsible to the Vice-Chief of the Defence Force? That is fundamental. Until that responsibility is transferred we will have made no progress. It is urgently necessary for the officers responsible-in the Royal Australian Navy, the Army and the Royal Australian Air Force-for looking at the future needs of their side of the Services in relation to the Defence Force role as a whole, if it is to work, to be responsible to the Vice-Chief of the Defence Force, not their own Chief of Staff. If they remain responsible to their own Chief of Staff we will continue to face the same problem. The other question which I asked, and to which I got what seemed to me to be a rather bizarre answer, concerned the Force Development and Analysis Division. This body looks, very properly, using operational analysis, at the various possible equipment options. In a system where the Chief of the Defence Force is looking at the future equipment of the Force, the people using operational research techniques to examine the relative merits of various solutions must be responsible to the person making the equipment recommendations. It appears from the answer to my question that the Force Development and Analysis Division is responsible to the Secretary. That is the old system of confrontation and division, giving the Secretary ammunition so that he can shoot at the recommendations of the Chief of the Defence Force. That has been very divisive in the past and, if it continues, will be very divisive in the future. I ask the Minister: Are the Service officers responsible for planning the future equipment of the Defence Force responsible to their chiefs of staff, or are they directly responsible to the Vice-Chief of the Defence Force? Is the Force Development and Analysis Division responsible to the civilian Secretary, a professional civilian, as he is described in the answer I have received, or to the Vice-Chief of the Defence Force, who I understood was to be responsible for the future equipment programming of the Defence Force? Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(3.39) —In the debate on the appropriations for the Department of Defence I tabled the Hogg report and sought leave for the incorporation in Hansard of its recommendations. The observation was made that it was an abnormally long document for inclusion in Hansard. To incorporate in Hansard only that portion of the recommendations which is precisely recommendations, and excluding all the comment, would bring the document back, I would imagine, to about one column length of Hansard print. I seek leave to have the recommendations, excluding the comments, incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CABINET Part `A' The following are recommendations for Cabinet consideration on matters raised by the VVAA in response to the Evatt Commission's findings, conclusions and recommendations together with those matters arising from my examination. 1. On the matter of the request from the VVAA for a further scientific inquiry into the work of the Evatt Royal Commission, I recommend the following: A. that the VVAA be advised that the Government will not proceed with any further inquiry into the work of the Evatt Royal Commission, as whatever its deficiencies are, no benefit would accrue to the health of Vietnam veterans from such an inquiry; B. that the Government proceed with the following scientific inquiries to be conducted by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) or an equally appropriate authority. i. The mortality study of Australian Vietnam Veterans be regularly updated over the next 15 years, with the first update commencing forthwith, followed by further updates at suitable intervals. ii. That the epidemiological study of the morbidity of Vietnam veterans in Australia referred to in the Evatt Commission be reactivated and proceed forthwith. iii. That the Government in conjunction with the state governments arrange a nationwide study of the mortality experience of all agricultural workers who have been exposed to 2, 4-D and 2, 4, 5-T or a combination thereof, in the course of their work. iv. That the Government request the NHMRC to examine the feasibility and benefit of a birth effects study on women who are believed to have been or are likely to have been exposed to 2, 4-D, 2, 4, 5-T or a combination thereof. v. That the Government immediately establish an epidemiological study into the possible health effects arising from the use of Dapsone. 2. On the matter of the claims laid against the Evatt Commission by the VVAA and in other official correspondence, published letters and specifically the rebuttals of November 1985, April 1986, March 1987 and July 1987, I recommend the following: A. That the VVAA be supplied copies of the replies prepared by the Special Projects Section of the Department of Veterans' Affairs with the advice that they conclude the government's response to matters relating to the conduct of the inquiry. B. On the many claims of bias and plagiarism, we advise the VVAA, in line with the opinion of the Attorney-General's Department on bias and mine on plagiarism as expressed in my report: i. that whilst the government does not endorse all aspects of the Evatt Commission's work, it does not accept that it acted with bias. ii. and that whilst regretting the Evatt Commission did not act less clumsily and with greater sensitivity in its use of sections of Monsanto's submissions and Efron's ``The Apocalyptics'', the government does not accept that the inadequately attributed inclusions constituted plagiarism. C. On the conclusion of the Evatt Commission of Agent Orange NOT Guilty. I recommend the government maintains a position consistent with: ``No causal connection between the use of Agent Orange and the ill health of veterans or their families has been proven.'' D. On the possible matter of any future Royal Commissions of a kind where scientific knowledge or inquiry will play a relevant part, I recommend: that the Government establish such Commission(s) headed by a judge sitting with one or more fellow commissioners drawn from the appropriate scientific profession. E. On the handling of the release of any future scientific studies as recommended, the government ensure that the media is properly briefed as to the intent of the study and the meaning of its findings prior to their reporting from a base of ignorance or misinformation. That for those outlets with the capacity, coverage should be handled by their scientific reporters. Part `B' The following are additional recommendations which amend some of the responses prepared by the Department of Veterans' Affairs in its draft Cabinet Submission of July 1986. 1. Benefit Claims-In the consideration of claims for benefits relating to stress, mental health disorders, cancer, alcoholism and circulatory system diseases, the post war circumstances of the veteran should be taken into account. Any alienation from the community resulting from its seeming indifference or disdain to those who served should be a factor for consideration. 2. Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service-That the government commits itself to maintaining, extending and improving this service for a period of five years at which time it will be subject to review. 3. Veterans Day-Monument-That the draft recommendation on a Vietnam Veterans Day and monument be adjusted, if necessary, to benefit from the experience of the October 3 Welcome Home Parade. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(3.40) —I draw the Committee's attention to the report of Senate Estimates Committee E insofar as it relates to the quality and supply of current Army footwear. The Committee was told that the matter was a very sensitive one. Although there are stocks of all sizes of general purpose boots, there is not an adequate stock of any one size. There is quite an explanation in the Committee's report. The Committee considers that the provision of comfortable and reliable footwear to service personnel is a serious matter. The Committee was little comforted by Major-General Fitzgerald's frank admission that those responsible for solving problems such as defective material in boots `have been singularly unsuccessful in doing so over recent years'. I gave examples of boots which were losing all their eyelets after three weeks of use and boots which were so designed that they were giving blisters to wearers who had never had blisters before. Major-General Fitzgerald said that what I had described was absolutely true. Why has the Department been so singularly unsuccessful over so many years in achieving a satisfactory boot? We have had armed forces since Federation and I would have thought that some expertise would have been developed in the design and size of boots necessary to ensure that they wear well and do the job. I have to ask in open committee a simple question: Why can we not do it? Why are we not doing it? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(3.42) —I think I would have preferred that the honourable senator asked that on the night of the Estimates Committee hearing. She might have got a more accurate response than I can give her today. I do not know why that piece of apparel is so poor. We got a partial explanation, from memory. We are now starting to head back in territory a few weeks. The position is not satisfactory, as was noted in the report of Estimates Committee E to this chamber. This will obviously come to the attention of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) as a matter of urgency. Senator Hamer, having been provided with what he calls a bland answer of gobbledegook-- Senator Hamer —Non-answer. Senator ROBERT RAY —A non-answer. He now seeks from me a more firm answer in the foreknowledge that I do not have any further information. Rather than give him an extended non-answer, I simply say that I cannot add to the points he has made at this time. The question may have to be pursued in the future. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(3.43) —I will not keep the Committee much longer. I have a question relating to the education allowance. During the Estimates Committee hearings we were told that only 87 children received the education allowance although there are 70,000 service personnel, of whom a high proportion are single. The average amount received is $4,425. The payment is governed by a set of eligibility criteria which is applied at unit and service office levels. Comprehensive statistics on applications and reasons for rejections are not kept. My first question is: Why can the statistics on applications and the reasons for rejections not be kept in the light of the widespread understanding in the defence forces that it is practically an impossibility to get this allowance? It is widely recognised, and it was recognised by the Hamilton report of the Review of Effect of Service Life on Spouses, which looked into conditions for families, that education of their children was one of the major concerns. Yet we have a determination as to the education allowance which sets out that children in a boarding school can, in certain circumstances, get up to $3,958 a year for their tuition and $2,918 a year towards their board. If day pupils want to board at a guest house or hostel, they can get only $2,055 towards their board and nothing towards their tuition. If they want to board privately-which is convenient for many of them-they can get only $1,925 per annum towards that board and, once again, nothing for their tuition. Quite apart from it being extremely difficult to get the allowance because of the way in which the criteria are interpreted, there are two kinds of school children. We have those going to expensive schools with parents who perhaps have a private income-and God knows there are few enough of those in the Services these days-and can get assistance for both their tuition fees and their boarding school fees. But those going to non-government schools and boarding privately or living in a hostel cannot get any assistance for their tuition and get a lesser amount for their board. If they board privately they get very little help at all. If they are in a government school maybe they do not need the same amount of assistance towards their tuition fees but I still regard the allowances for a hostel or private board as being quite inadequate when parents are trying to keep teenage children-which is the age we are usually considering-at a great distance from the parents, who might be at the other end of Australia. There is almost an insuperable hurdle in finding boarding accommodation for children who are not already attending a school which has such facilities. Although the allowance serves the needs of very few, it really is poorly structured for the majority. I welcome the recent announcement of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) since the Estimates committee hearings that some assistance will be given for remedial tuition or coaching if children move to another State. But so many families would prefer to leave their children in the State system where they have the major part of their secondary education. I want to know why more information is not being kept on the number of people who apply for the allowance and why they are rejected? Why are the guidelines not being eased? Why are the amounts not being improved? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(3.48) —The statistics are not kept. These decisions are made at a unit level. It seems to me that if we were to keep all these statistics that may be useful to absolutely anything we would come into this chamber and suddenly be accused of hiring thousands of bureaucrats to keep meaningless statistics. It is sort of a vicious circle: whether to devolve or whether to centralise. Those decisions being made at a unit level, the statistics on why people have not qualified for the allowance are not kept at a central location. Criticism was raised about why the level of funding has not risen. That is a matter that I do not have any details on. I do not know why the criteria are not modified in a way which would be of benefit to other service personnel. I do not know how long those criteria have existed. Sometimes they just sit there-as in any government policy area-untouched for several years until someone is reminded that it may be about time to review them. There have been a lot of changes in the defence area. It is not possible to change everything at the one time. That particular concern, whilst it is not dealt with in the Estimates Committee report, may well be worth drawing to the Minister's attention for some consideration in future or to the attention of Assistant Minister Kelly. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(3.49) —Senator Hamer's comments brought something to mind. In about February this year the Department of Defence issued an invitation to register interest for the new surface combatant for the Royal Australian Navy. In general, it went out to Australian shipbuilders asking them to make proposals on the design and construction for what has become the Anzac Class. As I understand this-and I seek confirmation of it-in September or October of this year the rules of the game were changed so that only those yards that had facilities already in place could tender. In other words, unless they had all the construction facilities and equipment on hand they were not allowed to tender for the contract. It seems to me that this restricts the contract to Williamstown and the Newcastle State Dockyard. Last night I was in the Parliamentary Library. I am not sure of the publication but I think in the International Defence Review there was the record of an interview with Minister Beazley. He said quite bluntly, `In my judgment there are only two yards in Australia that can build this surface combatant'. Is that an accurate representation of where we stand in regard to contracting? If it is, what about the money that those companies have spent in good faith in responding to the invitation to register interest at the start of the year? Surely, in light of the history of shipbuilding in Australia, the last two places in which we would build ships would be the Williamstown dockyard in Melbourne and the Newcastle State Dockyard in New South Wales. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(3.50) —I am informed that at this stage there are no contracts. In fact, we are still in the process of selecting the design; therefore, no particular shipyard has been chosen. I have not seen Mr Beazley's comments on the subject. They may be based on history or on his knowledge of the general construction area. Who could disagree with the comments on Williamstown and Newcastle in terms of past performance? In terms of future viability, though, they will either be able to produce efficiently or they will not get contracts. It is not as though nothing has happened in that regard. A majority of the work force is starting to become convinced that the old game of starting to build a ship and then holding everything to ransom has long since gone. I think that this Government's record in that area is one of an improving situation. We have made it very clear that it is not in the interests of the taxpayer to pour more and more funds into dockyards to see them wasted by either industrial disruption or inefficiency. Unless those two places reach efficiency levels, they simply will not get contracts. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(3.52) —Has there been a significant narrowing of the eligibility of companies to tender for this contract after the initial request for registration of interest was called for? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(3.52) —I am sorry; I cannot assist Senator MacGibbon any further. I am not aware that that is the case. I am never that definitive in saying no, there has not been, but we are not aware of it. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(3.52) —I noticed earlier that Mr Finnegan was advising the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray). I am not sure whether he is still here. During the Estimates committee hearings Mr Finnegan answered some questions from me concerning temporary rental accommodation and the reimbursement of families, particularly in the Sydney area, where so many high costs must be outlaid before they can be reimbursed. I have been advised from a number of sources that there were delays in reimbursing these families. Mr Finnegan said that he had not heard of this and that he would be prepared to examine it. I asked him to take another look at the matter and he said he would do so. I wonder whether any up to date information is available as to whether this matter has been speeded up and what the delays are before families are reimbursed. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(3.53) —This morning the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) asked me from where I obtained the figure of $25m regarding the cost of the Geraldton satellite station. That figure is contained in a paper produced by the Parliamentary Library Legislative Research Service. To put it in context, the station is to be staffed and operated by the Defence Signals Directorate of the Department of Defence. A figure of about $25m has been placed on the project. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(3.54) —Senator Newman might like to again raise the issue that she has just raised. I was distracted while she was speaking. I think there are two things to say about Senator Jenkins's remarks. First, if the paper from the Parliamentary Library did not source the figure, one might have some considerable doubt about it. Secondly, there is a long-standing practice in this chamber not to quote from and attribute things to papers provided by the Library. In relation to a matter raised earlier, I am advised that it was the Chief of the Defence Force who initiated or set out the guidelines. I am also advised that that initiative involved some discussion with staff of the office of Mrs Kelly. I am not precisely clear, from the very brief notes I have, as to who took the initiative to discuss this before the guidelines were issued. If I can get further advice, I will let Senator Newman know. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(3.55) —I thank the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) for that response. I feel that it is important that we get some more information on that matter. I would be obliged if he could flesh out that answer, because I asked a number of questions relating to that matter. I do not feel I have yet had a detailed response. I would appreciate it if he would see what better information he could get for me. I did ask, while he was speaking to his advisers, what was happening regarding delays in reimbursement to families of moneys that they had to outlay when they were going into temporary rental accommodation, particularly in the Sydney area. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(3.56) —I am afraid I do not have a specific answer to that particular question. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(3.56) —During the course of the Committee's hearings into the estimates for the Department of Administrative Services (DAS), a number of questions were asked concerning the removals section. In the Estimates Committee report facts were referred to in that only a small number of removalists had had to be suspended twice, but no removalist had actually been struck off the list and that it did not appear that they were being struck off the list at times when lucrative removal contracts were available to them. The Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ray, undertook to convey the Committee's concerns for the maintenance of high standards in removals to the responsible Minister, Mr West. I welcome the Minister's undertaking in that area as, I am sure, the Committee did. But there are still problems with service removals. I have recently been shown minutes of a consultative group of service spouses meeting which show that a representative of the Chief Personnel Services Organisation advised that if the removalist company has complaints made about it, it is unable to tender for any DAS removals. I would have thought, in light of the evidence that was given to the Committee, about people being struck off for a maximum of a month, and then they come back on the list again, that this information is inaccurate. The Minister is unlikely to be able to answer that question now, but I would like it placed on the record that I hope that the CPSO or the Department will check these facts and see that spouses are given the correct information. During the Committee hearings concerning the Department of Defence I remarked that, when families see removalist trucks coming back into service areas and they know that serious complaints have been made about them, they are not to know that they have been struck off for a month. They come back and it seems as though they have never had to suffer. If they are being told that they have only to put in a written complaint, or that if the removalist company has a written complaint made about it is unable to tender for any DAS removals, that is an exaggeration, and the families should be made aware of it. I also draw attention to an answer that I received in the written answers to questions. It relates to the pensionable and non-pensionable members who are separating from the forces. I appreciate that a lot of figures were given to me. It is hard to take them all in in a short time. But it did seem to me that, although the numbers were not huge, there were disturbing numbers of people who were separating either with no pension entitlements or with only part pension entitlements. It means that they have been in the forces for 20 years, but they have not yet reached the retirement age for their rank. I refer to the answer I received to my question regarding what justification there was for an expected decrease in wastage numbers of non-pensionable members. The estimates suggest that there would be a decrease in the number of non-pensionable members leaving the forces. The only answer I got was, `The recent higher than normal level of separations by non-pensionable members is not expected to continue'. I ask the Minister: What justification is there for the claim by the Department that these higher than normal levels of separations by non-pensionable members are not expected to continue? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(4.00) —Senator Newman has raised two issues, one of which relates to the damage of property by removalists. It is quite clear that service personnel are not isolated from this treatment. I think the figures indicate that 2 to 3 per cent of cases are unsatisfactory. Senator Newman —One in every 2.3 is unsatisfactory. Senator ROBERT RAY —I was not aware that it is that high. What I am saying is that the members of the defence forces are suffering to the same extent as any other government employee who moves or, indeed, anyone in the private sector. I do not know where removalists get their training. I suspect that they start off by loading bags on to planes and graduate from there. We heard during the Estimates committee examination of the estimates of the Department of Administrative Services that removalists who are guilty of such practices are punished by being suspended. There have been a lot of cases in this regard. When those on the other side were in government, I remember the case of one serviceman who, having come back unexpectedly early from a posting overseas for three years, found that all of his furniture had been rented out rather than stored. So this problem goes back a long way. This is a particular problem in the services area because of the mobility involved. It is bad enough for the children of servicemen to have to shift school and everything else when families have to move around for reasons of promotion without finding one's furniture and everything else wrecked along the way. This is a problem and we hope to see some improvement in this area. The honourable senator asked a second question. I do not have any additional information as to why there is an expectation that there will be a reduction in the wastage numbers of non-pensionable members. This could come from definitive evidence, graphs and patterns; it could come from high hopes. I simply do not know at this stage. It could come from a view that the current level is slightly abnormal and it has been assumed that the situation will return to normal. I am not sure what is the case. I think that the honourable senator's question deserves to be pursued and answered. However, an answer will probably not be forthcoming by the time these proceedings wind up. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(4.03) —Senator Ray recently was reported in this chamber as saying that the Government was working towards increasing the compulsory retiring age of pilots of wing commander rank in the Royal Australian Air Force to 55 years. I thought perhaps that this might have been a mistake. Then I checked and found that the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Mrs Kelly, had used exactly the same words in the other place. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that this matter is of particular concern to all officers in the Australian Defence Force as this change could mean that one of the following courses is contemplated: the retiring age of only wing commanders would be increased to age 55, which would cause mass resignations of wing commander pilots who have not completed 20 years service to qualify for the pension and squadron leader pilots who have completed 20 years but who might be promoted soon; the retiring age for wing commander pilots and other service equivalents-commander, Royal Australian Navy and lieutenant-colonel, Australian Army-would be increased, causing mass resignations of those people who have not achieved retiring age and also amongst squadron leaders, lieutenant-commanders and majors who have served over 20 years and who might be promoted; or the retiring age scales for all service officer ranks would be increased, since to imply an increase to one rank within one service would be discriminatory in the extreme, thus causing mass resignations from the three services. I ask the Minister: Is the Government really aware of what it is doing when it is talking about working towards increasing the compulsory retiring age of pilots of wing commander rank to 55 years? It seems to me that there could well be a case for working towards increasing an optional retiring age. But if the retiring age is made compulsory, I would have thought that this would create a complete distortion within the three services which could accelerate the very problem that I hope the Government is currently trying to deal with. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(4.05) —I think these thoughts were particularly targeted at the pilots in the services. I will have to seek a response from the Minister on the eventual effects on the other arms of the services. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(4.05) —Is the Minister not aware of the fact that if this is what the Government is going to do, there will be a very quick mass exodus from the Royal Australian Air Force, particularly of squadron leader pilots who have completed 20 years of service and who think they might be promoted soon or of wing commanders who have not completed 20 years service to qualify for the pension? Would not the Government be likely to undo what it is trying to achieve? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(4.06) —That proposition is hypothetical, but obviously it has to be taken into account in any final decision that is made on this matter. Senator Reid —It hasn't been thought through. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Reid interjects that it has not been thought through. I would rather not go into depth on subjects that I do not know enough about. After all, I am representing the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). I do not read every defence report that comes across my desk; indeed, I am not shown all the reports. So rather than postulate on the honourable senator's hypothesis, I should get a considered response. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(4.07) —I recognise that it is sensible of the Minister to get a considered response, but I also draw attention to the fact that within a couple of days both Senator Ray and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) used exactly the same expression in the two chambers. So I alert the Minister to the danger of causing more of a problem than we already have. I want to wind up by drawing the Committee's attention again to the report of the Estimates committee which says that on many occasions it has raised the question of the high rates of resignation from the Defence Force. It is not something that is brand new. It is something that we all should be concerned about because of the loss of time and money that is invested in the training and skills of service personnel and also the possibility of a diminution in our defence capability. We had a lot of first hand evidence from senior uniformed officers, including Air-Vice Marshal Bradford, who is quoted in the committee report. But it is not just a question of the Air Force. All three services are suffering from these same problems. It is easy for the other services to be lost sight of in the concentration that is continually given to the loss of our pilots. So I am glad to think that the committee considered this matter to be of such seriousness that it allocated a considerable proportion of its report to this matter. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Administrative Services Proposed expenditure, $1,355,369,000 Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(4.09) —The Budget Papers reveal an incredible increased expenditure in sections of the Department of Administrative Services. There is, for example, an increase of 63 per cent, or $55.9m, in expenditure on Commonwealth offices. There is an increase of 54 per cent, or $74m, in property management and services. If one looks at the tables in the back of the Budget Papers one will see that these rises are part of a continuing exercise in a massive expenditure rise by this Government on administrative services, particularly on accommodation of various kinds. Since this Government came to power there has been an increase of something like 50 per cent, from $127m to $186m, in construction services. There is a fourfold increase, from $46m to $144m, for Commonwealth offices. There is a threefold increase, from $70m to $211m, for property management and services. There is a 3.7 times increase, from $100m to $373m, for rent. One thing that this Government is doing is looking after itself fairly well at a time of restraint. Let us examine some of these movements. The Government's response might be, `Ah, but we are being very good; we are selling off $1 billion worth of assets and, in that way, are reducing the net cost to the taxpayer'. I wonder how much we are saving by selling assets. I would like the Minister to tell us what costs will be involved in the move from Chifley Square to the temporary accommodation and then the permanent accommodation in Haymarket. I understand that this move is to take place this financial year. I think that the Chifley Square building is included in the $1,000m worth of sales this financial year. To my knowledge the Haymarket building has not yet been constructed. I understand that some offices are to be provided in Phillip Street to officeholders. I do not know where the visiting members' and senators' rooms will be for the time being. It is on those grounds that I ask another question: What has been the usage rate of the visiting senators' and members' rooms that are provided in Chifley Square? In other words, will surplus rooms need to be provided for that purpose in either the temporary or final accommodation? What will be the cost of that temporary situation and what will be the cost of moving to the final accommodation in Haymarket? Senator Bishop said that a full floor of offices in Morgan Grenfell House in Phillip Street is to be fitted out for use by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on his occasional visits to Sydney. I wonder whether the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West), who is in charge of providing those facilities, has any idea of the usage rate of the existing facilities, which have been in the Commonwealth Banking Corporation building for many years, and what the anticipated usage rates are, as well as the cost of the Morgan Grenfell accommodation. I understand that the fitting out costs involve some $250,000 of expenditure and are included somewhere in the Administrative Services portfolio. I would be grateful if those costs could be confirmed. I would also be grateful if the Minister could give us some idea as to why the fit-out costs for leased premises in the current year are to increase by about 70 per cent to $138.4m and whether that $58m-odd is one of the costs involved in selling Chifley Square and other areas. I wonder whether the Minister can examine the question of empty premises. I wonder how many premises remain empty for more than six months as a result of the Department's activities in fitting out. The Minister is aware of the situation relating to the William Street property which, hopefully, is now occupied by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. As I recall it, it was empty for a very long time and involved something like $4m in dead rent. The Minister may well ask why I did not ask these questions at the appropriate Estimates committee meeting. Unfortunately, I was attending another Estimates committee meeting. There is a degree of concern about putting questions to Estimates committees on notice. In fact, one Estimates committee Chairman has sought to prohibit senators who are not members of that committee from putting questions on notice. I raise that as evidence of some of the problems that exist presently. In view of the considerable cost of the prime ministerial suite in Morgan Grenfell House, I would be grateful for, firstly, confirmation of that cost and, secondly, some indication from the Government as to what kind of usage it is expected to get. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(4.15) —Senator Michael Baume has anticipated part of my answer. It is very difficult in the Committee of the Whole to provide answers to the 15 to 20 questions he managed to chalk up in about eight minutes. It is more appropriate to ask such questions at the Estimates committee stage, especially in terms of something as specific as costs. For a start, I do not know whether accurate statistics are kept as to the use of visiting members' and Ministers' rooms, et cetera. I dare say that if statistics were put in front of me suggesting that Senator Crichton-Browne had used an office in Sydney 14 times and I were to use them, he would probably think that it was an invasion of privacy. We can keep only so many statistics. Senator Baume raised what I regard as an interesting point. We have to provide a whole range of facilities round this country. After all, the Liberals established a big Cabinet room in Treasury Place in Melbourne and, apart from its annex, I do not think that it has been used for years. It may well be that we are underutilising visiting members' and Ministers' rooms. Whether we measure that by keeping accurate statistics, and therefore maybe invade privacy, or just by getting enough anecdotal evidence to believe that the space is wasted, I do not know. But from time to time there are wastes of space in many of these buildings. I understand from what I have read recently that in the Phillip Street building there will be a slight reduction in the number of visiting Ministers' suites. As to the general question, in Phillip Street we are involved in housing several Ministers, including the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the Prime Minister Mr Hawke, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) and those sitting members who seek to have city accommodation and not to move out into the suburbs or the country. There are a few of those. There are even a couple of members of the House of Representatives who do not believe they should have an office on their own patch but prefer to have a city office. That is their choice, although they are an ever reducing number. These days, most senators seek to get closer to the people by relocating in marginal seat territory. Senator Baume asked about figures relating to vacant premises. I am sure that figures are available somewhere about the extent to which dead rent is paid. I do not have any figures available to me at the moment, but I am fairly certain that this question has arisen, perhaps in the evidence of Finance. The general view is that the dead rent money paid by the Government is about the same as would occur in private enterprise. I recall that it is a declining matter as a percentage term of all rented buildings, but I will have that checked. I know that Senator Baume is worried about the expenditure of money. Equally, I know that he is trying to say that we are a profligate government looking after our own. For instance, he is saying, `Look at all the money we spent on The Lodge'-even though the Official Establishments Trust asked for the money to be spent-`and look how much we are spending on Kirribilli, the ninth floor in Phillip Street, et cetera'. How do I know what is his motive? I know because I have sat on the other side of the chamber and have made the same speech several times. It gets a bit of a run from time to time, but it will be a bit hard to get a big run on this today with Joh getting sacked, et cetera. By all means the honourable senator can pursue it. But I am serious in saying that I do not think we can turn the appropriations debate into a second Estimates committee hearing. We can comment on answers given in previous Estimates committee hearings, but I do not think we can open up the whole field to a wide range of fresh questions. It is very unfair to expect either the Minister or three or four officers to carry that knowledge in their heads. The alternative is to have the galleries around us filled with officers who could stick their hands up and assist us with particular questions. One never knows, the honourable senator might be able to assist us in the supplementary hearings whenever they are held in May. He might spend his time more profitably ferreting around in our Committee than in any other. I do sympathise with him in his problem of trying to attend the hearings of different committees. Often one seeks an answer and is told that that matter is being dealt with by another committee which has just passed on from that matter. It is a difficult thing, which a few of us may be reviewing to try to make the Estimates committees work more profitably for the honourable senators concerned. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(4.21) —I thank the Minister very much for that answer. Could I say that I would be quite happy for the Department to take on notice those questions for which answers do not readily come to hand. In fact, those questions are on notice for the Supplementary Estimates. I hope we will not have the intolerable situation we have had this year of volumes of questions being taken on notice when asked of the bureaucracy at the time. I am not saying that this Department was guilty of that. I would not like that impression to be created. All I am saying is that the Department is getting about six months notice that answers to those questions will be required. I still would like an answer to the question of whether the visiting offices, the office of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), honourable members' offices and so on will all be transferred to the Haymarket building when it is completed. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(4.22) —I make a comment on Senator Michael Baume's earlier point. In his previous contribution he asked eight or 10 questions. I will try to get answers to him for those long before six months time. If they were to multiply to 500 or 600, I would suddenly start to say, `Hold on, I will not go to all that expense when the honourable member can ask them in six months time anyway'. As far as I know, most people will be moving to Phillip Street, which is the Haymarket site. Senator Michael Baume —George Street is the Haymarket site. Senator ROBERT RAY —I am sorry. Most of the people the honourable senator mentioned will be moving to Phillip Street into what I would assume to be permanent accommodation. I am informed that the Haymarket site is four years away from being ready. I think the situation at the moment at Phillip Street is that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is there and the President is there, and Mr Brown and Senator Richardson will be moving in there shortly, as will Mr Howard and Mr Sinclair. I am sorry to confuse Phillip Street and the Haymarket site. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(4.23) —I am now more confused because I am wondering whether `permanent' means four years, or whether the ultimate intention is for everyone to be in the new Commonwealth Centre in Haymarket when it is eventually finished in four years time. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(4.25) —I am not certain whether it is intended that the people who are being moved from all around the place into Phillip Street will then go into this other building. I have seen a fair deal of correspondence and papers associated with this matter; I have never seen that as an intention. I would make the point that outfitting these particular premises is quite expensive and I do not think we can get on to a merry-go-round of swapping from one office block to another. But I will check on the matter for the honourable senator, in case there have been any plans prior to my involvement in any of this that did suggest that sort of hopscotch from the Commonwealth Bank to Phillip Street and then to Haymarket. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(4.26) —I want to ask a question in approximately the same area. I understand that the Minister has been sympathetic towards the problem, but I ask: What is to be the long term position with respect to office accommodation for senators and members in Western Australia in St Martin's Tower? I ask this question because I think that, almost without exception, the area available to members and senators is decidedly less than that which the Government generally makes available. I think it is 7.8 squares, as distinct from the nine or 10 squares that is supposed to be available. For those of us who have Aboriginal trainee schemes functioning in our offices also the situation is almost intolerable in terms of working space and arrangements. I understand that the Minister has been sympathetic to the point of allowing extra space providing the senator or member goes outside the city centre. But I have always taken the view that, if one is going to be in the city, one has to be in the centre of the city; otherwise one might as well have an office in the suburb next to one's home. I am one who has an office in Martin's Tower and my best judgment is that the Government has no intention to provide the entitlement for the time being, and that is causing enormous difficulties for all of us. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(4.28) —I can understand the honourable senator's concern at offices of the size of about 78 square metres. Not all Senator Crichton-Browne's colleagues take his view and say that they will stay. I can assure the honourable senator that many are deserting the fold there and looking for greener pastures. We have tried to be as flexible as possible in office allocation and also in terms of office size. In some cases we have exceeded the limit. I am not encouraging members and senators to move just because they are on the limit. We take into account rent, too, of course, and we try to do a cross-comparison between rent and the size of the building. From time to time we just have no choice: if an honourable senator wants to move, we may have to find him or her another spot in the central business district of, say, Perth. We object at some point when the rent goes too high but, as I say, we try to accommodate the senator's or member's needs. It is very important to the role of members and senators in the democratic process that they are satisfied with their offices and that their staff work under at least reasonable conditions. No one could ever argue that the staff of parliamentarians-the staff of backbenchers at least-are overpaid. The honourable senator has also pointed out that he has a trainee, so that is four staff members. We are sympathetic to the honourable senator's plight. These things cannot be done overnight. As we have just discussed, many of the Sydney members will suddenly get an upgrade by moving to new Commonwealth premises. We will keep looking at that matter. There is a restriction, of course, on expenditure. We cannot just slosh money about everywhere, as the honourable senator knows, in a tight budgetary situation. I am sure that, given the Opposition's policy in the last election, the honourable senator would not encourage us to do so, because he believes in fiscal restraint. One thing we have to acknowledge is-I do not accuse Senator Crichton-Browne of offending in this regard and I do not even necessarily apply it to the other side of the chamber-when we talk about fiscal restraint, we should mean fiscal restraint across the board, and not just fiscal restraint except when it comes to our rights, entitlements, staffing, office, machines and all the rest. It is too often a function of parliamentarians to say that we should have fiscal restraint everywhere but in our own entitlements and rights-but I am not saying that the honourable senator is saying that. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.29) —I have a question with regard to the Government's expenditure on members of parliament. It basically concerns whether or not the Government has looked at whether savings can be made in outlays-probably not for this financial year, but certainly for next financial year-through the rationalisation of the various groups that look after members of parliament. For example, I understand that in almost every other comparable country the electorate officers and parliamentary officers are in fact looked after by the same department. I wonder whether the Government has actually looked at that to see whether any savings could be made and hence whether, for the same amount of outlays, additional services might be provided. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(4.30) —It has been true that, from time to time, there have been differences between the property sections of the old Department of Administrative Service and the ministerial and parliamentary services of the Department of the Special Minister of State. They are now both within the same portfolio, and after a bit of initial head-butting, they are now starting to co-operate closely together so that we do not get so much duplication. The other area of duplication, which I do not see being resolved, is that between what is provided by the Senate department, or in the other case, the House of Representatives department, and what is provided by ministerial and parliamentary services. A lot of it is to do with jurisdiction. It is not that anybody is being greedy in terms of the demarcation dispute. It is probably in the interests of this chamber not to fund everything, because it is subject to funding cutbacks. For instance, the Department of the Senate supplies a lot of the equipment in this building and a lot of other services within the building. The Department with which I am associated deals with electoral offices. It was shown with the computers that that relationship does not always work perfectly. The departments do not always communicate with each other perfectly. I am not about to ascribe any blame in this regard and, if I were, it would not be to anybody in my immediate vicinity. From that point of view, we have made some progress. That was one of the reasons why we sought to have a reduction from 28 ministries to 17, so that many more of the common services areas, especially in Administrative Services, were in the one area rather than competing against each other from one department to the other. As a result of that reduction, we will get more co-operation in this area. Senator PARER(Queensland)(4.32) —I would like to refer to the Parliament House Construction Authority. The Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) will be aware of the matter as he was the Minister who, on Estimates Committee E, gave many of the responses which exposed certain anomalies and contradictions. The answer generally bore out the Auditor-General's criticism that there had been significant management inadequacies in the new Parliament House, which have operated to the detriment of the interests of the Commonwealth and, ultimately, the taxpayer. Of particular concern was the confirmation by the Authority that the site's 200 plumbers each received a $500 pay-out following a nine-week strike, simply to return to work. The Authority admitted that it was reimbursing some of the plumbing contractors for this payment that they had made to their employees. Yet, despite the fact that the Authority, and ultimately the taxpayer, is paying for the deal, it was claimed that the arrangement was made without the Authority's knowledge or approval, and, at the time of Estimates Committees E, we did not know how the plumbing contractors were being reimbursed by the Authority. Worse still, it was admitted that if the Authority had known about the payment, it would not have agreed to it because, as it conceded, the deal was outside the Government's industrial relations policy. I submit that it is utter hypocrisy for the Authority to claim as it did in its response to the efficiency audit, that it had effectively applied the project's industrial relations policy of not giving into the unions' demands just to have the building completed on time. Furthermore, the Authority was complacent about the deal and its implications, and it apparently plans, as I understand from evidence given to Estimates Committee E, to do nothing about recouping the payouts. It seems that the Authority's only concern, according to the Chief Executive, was that, at the end of the day, payments did not exceed the approved amounts for the contract. This raises the question: if the contract does not exceed the approved amount, how much fat has been built into the new Parliament House contract so that it can absorb the cost of deals like this payment? This deal alone cost $100,000. Even if the payments do exceed the approved amount, the Authority will no doubt insist that the cost has not overrun budget. The Authority will simply apply its own particular brand of Yes Minister logic, which has allowed it to say that the cost of constructing the new Parliament House has not blown out. The $500 payout to each of the plumbers reinforces the Auditor-General's criticism. This is really what I want to get on to. He stated: The Authority's continued reluctance to take action against the construction manager for an unauthorised expenditure indicates a lack of effective control. Of greater magnitude and concern than the plumbers' payout is the reponse given in answer to me about a question in respect of the longer running dispute. In the Estimates Committee I asked the Construction Authority the following question: In another response to the Auditor-General you stated that the construction manager's response to the unions' claim for severance pay in 1983-84 was that the claim should be pursued through the Arbitration Commission and the claim would be resisted. I believe, and I mentioned this in the introduction to the report, that the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) had made a similar remark. This explanation is at odds with the Auditor-General's report which states: The Authority accepted liability for costs to contractors- which was approximately $6.5m- . . . the CM may have improperly given unions reason to believe that a severance pay scheme might be favourably considered as part of the renegotiation of the Site Agreement. I asked the Construction Authority how this anomaly could be explained. Mr Peatey, on behalf of the Construction Authority, replied: It is obviously an opinion of the Auditor-General; it is not an opinion the Authority shared. That is the point that I wish to discuss. Recently, I received a copy of a letter from the Auditor-General, dated 16 November 1987, to the Chairman of Estimates Committee E, Senator Aulich. In regard to the point I have just raised, the Auditor-General had this to say: Senator Parer referred to the comment in the Auditor-General's report (paragraph 5.12.2) that the Authority accepted liability for costs to contractors affected by the strike in 1983-84 because the construction manager (CM) may have improperly given unions reason to believe a severance pay scheme might be considered favourably. He repeated the answer given to me by the Authority's Chief Executive, Mr Peatey, that that was the opinion of the Auditor-General, but not the opinion of the Authority, and went on to say: The question of whether the Authority accepted that liability is not one of opinion, but of fact. The Authority received legal advice at the time which indicated that the CM failed to discharge properly its duty to manage industrial matters and that the contractors would be entitled to reimbursement by the Authority of extra costs incurred. After considering the advice, the Authority informed the CM: formal agreement has now been obtained to accept valid claims from contractors which flow from events to the recent site stoppage on severance pay. Here we have an Estimates Committee, questions are asked, answers are given and they are incorrect. It is apparent from the Auditor-General's letter, to which I have just referred and which came to my desk today, that, one way or another, the members of the Senate Committee were misled by the Construction Authority. I am not sure whether this was deliberate or not, but we were misled. It seems extraordinary that the Construction Authority would say to me that that is simply an opinion of the Auditor-General, and not the opinion of the Authority when we are now aware-it was in the Auditor-General's report, as I subsequently found-that it received a legal opinion on this matter. I would like an answer to these questions. Were we misled? If so, why, and what does the Government intend to do about it? I have another point that I would like to raise. In the Estimates Committee, I asked a question which was subsequently responded to about the number of working days lost through industrial disputation from September 1985 to the present. I think the response to this question is worth recording. It states: The site has not been closed down since the 14 week dispute in 1984. Records are not kept in a manner that would provide a direct answer to this question. However, in order to assess the cost the project of industrial disputes, after 1984 a formula was agreed between the Authority, the Departments of Finance and Administrative Services (then Housing and Construction). Part of that formula provides an assessment of `project days' lost through disputes. In the period September 1985 to September 1987 (inclusive) the assessed project days lost was 133.5, or an average of 5.6 days per month . . . That 5.6 days a month means that one week of project days was lost each month for two years. I think that it can be safely anticipated that, in view of the past record of the construction of the new Parliament House, in the closing stages of the construction unreasonable demands and, hence, disputes can be expected to escalate. I ask: What contingent plans does the Authority have to handle this situation? In view of a nominated opening date will the Authority simply pay up at taxpayers' expense? Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(4.41) —It is to be regretted that the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) is not here at the moment because I want to add to something said earlier by Senator Crichton-Browne about St Martin's Tower in Perth. I want to draw to the attention of the Minister an article in yesterday's West Australian newspaper under the heading `Concrete Cancer'. This building in Perth which houses the Commonwealth's parliamentary offices is described as having the disease, concrete cancer. It is fairly common knowledge that, in fact, pieces of the building's cladding have been falling off for a number of years. There are a number of Western Australian senators, including myself, who are situated on the thirtieth and thirty-first floor of that building. The Committee can understand that I have a very personal interest in this matter. I presume that the lease paid by the Commonwealth under the appropriation for the Department of Administrative Services includes an allocation towards the cost of the maintenance of the exterior of that building. This is worrying because also in the article in yesterday's newspaper to which I referred it was stated that there is litigation because of the state of the exterior of the building, involving the owners of the building, the builders, the architects, the structural engineers and the concrete suppliers. Therefore, I presume-I hope I am correct-that under the appropriation money has been set aside for the possible relocation of senators if the lease has to be terminated and, also, in the event of damage to Commonwealth personnel or property, due to structural movement or collapse of the building, there would be suitable compensation payable. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.44) —I have just one question. I thank the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) for the letter he sent me in relation to Deakin Offices. I ask: Are there any non-Australian Government tenants of the Deakin Offices building; if so, who are they? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(4.44) —To the best of my knowledge, I think I can say that there are almost certainly no non-Australian Government tenants. Senator Walters asked a question at the Estimates committee as to who occupies the Deakin Offices building. Senator Walters —What departments? Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Walters asks, `What departments?'. Certainly as far as I know there are no other occupants. The reason I hesitate is that in my first letter to Senator Walters, out of a sense of natural modesty and otherwise, I said `include the following departments' and Senator Walters automatically assumed that there must be other departments. That is why I have come back to be a little more definitive in my answer. I think I should say something a little more broadly-based about the Deakin Offices because all sorts of conspiracy theories have been going around as to what is being done there. These theories seem to have emanated from a one-time employee of the Department of Social Security who is writing all sorts of conspiracy theories now and bolting them around the traps. I am not saying that any honourable senator would be gullible enough to believe them, but such rumours create other stories from more reasonable people and they are transferred on until finally they are brought in here. Just recently the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, wrote a four-page explanation to all Ministers explaining the background of such rumours. Part of the accusation was that only the Minister for Science and Small Business, Mr Barry Jones, would understand what is really happening in Deakin Offices. A few weeks ago Mr Barry Jones wandered down there and had a wander through. To put all things at rest in terms of what is going to happen, I understand that the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, with all its computer experts, will have a thorough and complete coverage of everything in the building. Hopefully, that will bury the rumours first, that it is a secret Australia Card headquarters where we are printing away Australia Cards for everyone and, secondly, that it is being used as the offices to re-elect Labor for a fourth term, or anything else. As far as I know, and with almost absolute certainty, I can say that normal Government processes and computer operations are occurring in that building. The conspiracy theories have little or no foundation. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.47) —In case there is any suggestion that I would be taking information from anyone outside, as I told the Minister in the Estimates committee hearings, I rang and asked whoever answered the phone to tell me what departments had offices in the Deakin Offices. I was told that no, they could not tell me; if I wanted to know anything they had been instructed not to tell me and I was to apply to the Department of Administrative Services. As I also said, when a member of my staff went to Deakin Offices to inquire he was told, `No, sir, I cannot answer your question. Would you please leave'. When he did leave, the number of his car was taken and he was checked up on. The Minister must admit that that raises certain queries in senators' minds. Such questions do not have to come from outside this place. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(4.48) —Heaven forbid that I should accuse Senator Walters of falling prey to a conspiracy theory. I was quite explicit in excluding any honourable senator. All I was saying is that such rumours have done the rounds. Apparently someone who holds a position in that building has been a little overzealous in taking the action he did. Of course, we deplore that sort of behaviour. In my view, it is a fairly mindless act. I repeat that the Public Accounts Committee is going to go to that building and give it the once over in terms of looking at all its computers and anything else. No doubt, it will report to this Parliament. I think the Committee is due to go on about 6 December, I cannot quite recall the correspondence. Certainly, first, that Committee has made the decision to go and, secondly, it has been given permission to go and look at all aspects of the building. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(4.49) —In the consideration of the estimates for the Department of Defence a short time ago, the question of removals came up. Senator Ray queried my claim that evidence had been given at the Estimates committee hearings of the Department of Administrative Services estimates of one damage claim for every 2.3 removals. I have checked and that figure does not appear in the Hansard of the Estimates. However, evidence was given that the rate has remained approximately the same for a number of years and the Department has not been able to get that rate down despite strong efforts. I think it is a matter of concern that the Department has not been able to get that rate down. However, I am convinced that the small nature of the penalty which the Department imposes, that is, one month's suspension, clearly is not enough to sheet home a few lessons. I am glad to draw it again to the Minister's attention and hope that we will see an improvement by means of stiffer penalties. The other interesting thing to which I would like to draw the Committee's attention is the evidence given by the Government Printer, Mr Rubie, when talking about the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. It is a very interesting outcome of the user pays principle because the number of Commonwealth gazettes produced has been reduced, because people have to pay for them, from something like 12,000 to around 8,000. Apparently the Government Printer did predict this. It is one of the consequences of moving towards cost recovery, where people have to pay for what they use. I am very glad to see that economics are being made in such sensible directions and I give credit for it. Evidence was also given, however, that some departments-and the department mentioned was the Attorney-General's Department-were not producing their material in a camera-ready form so that cost savings could be made in what went into the Gazette. That, these days, is paid for by the client departments. In the case of the Attorney-General's Department there was quite a high cost for gazetting pages and pages of marriage celebrants. I hope the Government Printer will be teaching his clients how to make cost savings in the amount of gazettal space they use in future. I have a couple of questions. One relates to an answer given by the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) in connection with the list of Defence properties for sale. The answer was quite detailed but I found it a little hard to follow. I wonder whether any elucidation could be given now. I am told that the total target revenue in 1987-88 from the disposal of Defence properties is $59.5m. It was said in the answer: The Government has decided that the Department of Defence should be responsible for raising about half of this amount ($30m). That Department is therefore undertaking all necessary action to dispose of particular properties. My first question relating to this answer is: Why is the Department of Defence responsible for raising that $30m? Why is this not being done through the Department of Administrative Services? With regard to the $30m, the Department of Defence apparently has asked DAS to dispose of some of the properties, to the tune of $7m. If Defence has been told to dispose of the properties, as distinct from DAS disposing of them, why does it then ask DAS to do it? A sentence in the answer said: The balance of the program ($13.5m) remains unspecified. Why is it unspecified and how long will it remain so? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(4.53) —I understand that most of those Department of Defence properties were well under way for disposal at the start of this year. The honourable senator asks why Defence is disposing of them. I cannot put it more bluntly than to say that it won the battle in the Cabinet room. However, the Department of Administrative Services will not be divorced from the process. It will be involved in the process of the disposal of those properties to make sure the proper methodology is used. That answers the question in regard to the $30m. I apologise to Senator Jenkins for not being here to answer her questions. I had anticipated a slightly longer speech on the new Parliament House, which I have heard many times before-and I wanted a brief break. Concerning the problems she raised with regard to St Martin's Tower, I will seek a report in the next two or three days on all aspects of concern by honourable senators. I probably will not table that report but I will write to her and other interested members of parliament indicating the salient points in that report. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(4.54) —I would just like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that at the April Estimates hearings I would like more information about that Department of Defence list. I am afraid that some of the Minister's answer was a bit beyond my understanding. It may be simply that I have not yet had the benefit of the joy of the tussle within Cabinet. I fail to see why that should have anything to do with who sells properties when it is clearly the responsibility of the Department of Administrative Services to buy and sell Defence assets. Perhaps the Minister can explain that to me at another time. I move on to questions relating to the Constitutional Commission. In response to questions to the Attorney-General's Department we were told that $70,000 had been spent on publicising preparations for the launches of the advisory committee reports and for the advertising of hearings and the work associated with those hearings of the five advisory committees. Was a consultant engaged to advise on or arrange this publicity and advertising? If so, was this arranged through the Department of Administrative Services? Is this not required by the Department of Finance guidelines? The Constitutional Commission published a book called Australia's Constitution: Time to Update, which was not published through the Australian Government Publishing Service. Did the Attorney-General's Department, for example, give the Constitutional Commission the right to go outside the guidelines for Commonwealth departments and statutory bodies and not publish through the Australian Government Publishing Service or did the Constitutional Commission take it upon itself not to follow the guidelines? Who makes the decisions as to whether a statutory body such as this does not follow guidelines? I would have thought that, as this body uses public moneys to do its job and comes under the umbrella of the Attorney-General's Department, it should follow the requirements for consultants and the guidelines for printing. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(4.56) —I do not have any specific information on that matter. That question is more appropriate for the original Estimates committee processes. Maybe it can be raised when the Attorney-General's Department is brought back on, as I understand it will be, because those opposite missed the boat this morning and let the votes for that Department slip through. In a burst of enormous generosity we will call that Department back on. The Department of Administrative Services does not know anything about the matter at this stage. It could be pursued with the Attorney-General's Department. If we can find out anything in the meantime, we will certainly let Senator Newman know. As happens so often, specific questions requiring such specific detail cannot be answered in the debate in the Committee of the Whole. The questions should first have been asked at the Estimates committee hearings. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(4.58) —During the Estimates Committee hearings I referred to the use of architectural and engineering consultants in the Northern Territory by the Department of Administrative Services and the Department of Defence. I was given a number of answers by departmental officers. I refer in particular to the reply given by Mr Martin: The general process for some time has been that the Darwin office is a subset of the Adelaide office, but there is a definite policy to try to maximise the placement of consultancies in the Northern Territory. I am concerned that this procedure appears to be back to front or the wrong way about. The extent of capital works that take place in both South Australia and the Northern Territory would indicate that the Department ought to look very seriously at locating its principal office and principal professional and technical staff in Darwin, rather than Adelaide. The current 1987-88 works in the Northern Territory, excluding Tindal, amount to some $50m, while in South Australia the extent of the capital works program is some $6.7m. Whereas the number of professional and technical staff engaged by the Department in the Northern Territory is 76, in South Australia it is 287. There appears to be a great deal of inefficiency in the way in which the Department is currently administering its activities in South Australia and the Northern Territory. This problem should be seriously addressed. The Adelaide office is in the process of seconding additional staff to work on projects. Seconding is always a suspicious staffing arrangement because, ultimately, it entrenches the engagement of consultant mechanisms. Once we second people from existing offices, the mechanisms build in a certain creep and a certain process whereby the work takes place. I believe that the Department needs very seriously to look at the capacities that currently exist in the Northern Territory for major utilisation of the private sector architectural and engineering consultants and at reversing the process of transferring staff out of the Northern Territory and into South Australia when the principal construction work load is in the Northern Territory. I look forward to the Minister's reply as to how this matter is being addressed. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(5.00) —I want to raise a couple of matters that arise out of the answers given in the Estimates committee hearings. They relate particularly to the cost of Government advertising and to the operations of the National Media Liaison Service (NMLS). So far as the cost of Government advertising is concerned, the figures presented in the detailed answers to the questions that were asked are very revealing indeed. They give us a very clear example of the very large amount of money being spent on government advertising for the purpose of promoting the Government rather than informing the electorate generally. I ask for a comment from the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) on this matter. I think it is of very real concern that enormous amounts of money are now being spent on government advertising for no apparent purpose other than to promote the image of the Government rather than on advertising in the normal sense of the word. Work that has been done in response to information obtained through freedom of information requests and from other sources has shown, for example, that in 1985-86-these figures are a year old-the Government's advertising bill increased to $34.64m, of which $23m was spent on campaigns and $11m on the day to day advertising of government jobs and public notices, with which latter advertising, of course, we would have no complaint at all. As pointed out by Senator Michael Baume as a result of the work of the Opposition's Waste Watch Committee last year, that $34m was almost double the amount spent in the last full financial year of the preceding government. There has been an enormous escalation in expenditure, not on explaining what government is doing but on promoting, I would say improperly, contentious decisions or promoting the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Ministers. I do not believe that that ought to be the objective of the use of taxpayers' money on government advertising. The figures have reached an extraordinarily high level. I believe that it is a matter of very great concern to the public. Even in terms of the promotion of government programs, millions of dollars are being spent on advertising programs that either have not been effective or have yielded very little indeed. For example, in response to questions asked in Estimates Committee E, a figure of more than $1m was given for the advertising of the apparent virtues of the Australian traineeship scheme in 1986-87, yet the results, lamentably, have been miles below the Government's own targets. The Government had estimated that in 1986-87 15,000 people would commence traineeships, but it was revealed in Estimates Committee D that the actual result was in the vicinity of fewer than 7,000. As for 1987-88, officials of the relevant department acknowledged that the results would fall far below target. As for the famous target which occasioned so much publicity and on which so much was spent in government advertising-that, in the year ahead or thereabouts, 75,000 traineeship places would be made available and filled-it is acknowledged by all concerned that that target has no hope of being met. Similar comments could be made in principle about the money spent on advertising the International Year of Peace (IYP). The figures presented to us show that $319,643 was spent on advertising IYP. I would like to have a comment from the Minister as to whether he seriously believes that any of that expenditure has made the world any more peaceful or has had a beneficial influence on the attitudes of Australians towards what is obviously a very important issue. I am not decrying the importance of the issue; I am decrying the way in which taxpayers' money has been spent to promote government rather than anything else. The business migration program is another example. Approximately $34,000 has been spent on advertising that program, yet we have had examples in recent times of enormous delays in the processing of applications. We have had topsyturvy changes to policy and decisions have been made without any guarantees to the Parliament that the new arrangements being introduced will not open up new avenues for corruption and will not increase difficulties in the whole area. More than $2m has been spent on the Australian made campaign. I note in passing that that is one of the John Singleton advertising agency promotions. I would have thought that the benefit that has been derived from that was little or nil. Something like $2m has been spent on promoting the Government's policy on the fringe benefits tax. That to me was simply a promotion in the community of a contentious policy. I do not believe that government or taxpayers' money can legitimately be used in any shape or form in advertising campaigns in such areas as that. I again express the concern of the Opposition about what this Government is doing in the area of advertising. I think it is improper. The Government and the Minister must take a look at this matter. If they are really fair dinkum about restraining government expenditure and operating properly on behalf of the taxpayers, these are quite improper uses of taxpayers' funds. I have a similar comment to make about the operations of the National Media Liaison Service. That service is costing the taxpayer something like $1m this year. It is a ubiquitous service. The staff are attached to ministerial officers. In response to a House of Representatives question on notice it was stated on 26 October by the Minister for Administrative Services on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs that the Director of the National Media Liaison Service and the Ministerial Media Group, Colin Parks, worked at Australian Labor Party headquarters during the last election campaign. He acted as the co-ordinator of ministerial activity during that election campaign. Senator Michael Baume —Was he still on the payroll? Senator SHORT —Not only was he on the payroll but he was not even on leave. He did not seek official leave during that period. Senator Michael Baume —That is a disgrace. Senator SHORT —I believe that is an absolute disgrace. I think I am right in saying that the problem that Senator Baume struck towards the end of the election campaign was in relation to some comments on radio that were picked up as part of the election campaign by the NMLS representative in Hobart. We have no objection, of course, to the Government having its own intelligence network in terms of media liaison. Any government or any party worth its salt will do that. But it is an absolute disgrace for taxpayers' money to be used for that purpose. We are now talking about taxpayers' money of the order of $1m per year. Salaries of the National Media Liaison Service this year are estimated at $600,000. There are other costs. In response to a question from me in Estimates Committee E on 8 October the answer I received was that other costs for the NMLS on top of the $600,000 for salaries form part of the total additional funds provided for the NMLS and the Ministerial Media Group which are estimated at $526,000 in 1987-88. So we are talking about a figure in excess of $1.1m and a total staff of 20. I reiterate to the Minister the great concern that I have and that the Opposition has about the use of taxpayers' money for these purely party political purposes. I guess it is asking too much to expect that he will take any notice of what I am saying, but I can assure him that there are many people out in the community who are very concerned about what they would regard as a totally wrong use of their taxpayers' funds. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(5.13) —Senator Short is a fascinating study here today. It is a pity we do not have a time machine because I would like to go back to 1980 when he was defeated as member for Ballarat. I do not raise that in a derogatory sense; the tide was against him. It must have been like being hit by a truck because he has suddenly got political amnesia and he does not recall what happened between 1975 and 1980 when he was a government member. His Government and the Government that continued in office during the 2 1/2 years he was on the, let us say, interchange bench of politics, spent enormous amounts of money on government advertising. This Government has set no new patterns, no new record levels. When was there any criticism from Senator Short when he was in Parliament or a candidate for the Senate on the level of government advertising by the Liberal Party of Australia in coalition with the National Party of Australia? Was there any criticism then? Senator Michael Baume —I think you criticised it. Senator ROBERT RAY —There is a difference: I admit my inconsistency on these matters. I have already confessed to it today. I remember the old Government Information Unit. Does Senator Short not recall that? It used to be the propaganda wing of the Liberal Party of Australia, nothing more-so much so that it would not even give the National Party much of a run. Senator Short makes a great point that the National Media Liaison Service may have played some political role. I hope John Howard's staff went on holiday for the whole of the campaign! The trouble is that every time he was filmed around the country there was the ubiquitous Graham Morris-or whatever his name is, the bloke you cannot miss-in the background all the time. What was he doing and what were all the rest of them doing there? Of course every member of the Opposition uses his parliamentary staff in election campaigns. Of course, the Opposition uses its allocation in the election campaigns. Senator Stone —That is nothing to do with the National Media Liaison Service. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Stone is not stupid. He is not going to go out and campaign all around this country by himself. He will use his research staff and anyone else he can to assist him in this way. What is really galling, of course, is that-Senator Short has let the cat of the bag-we caught Senator Baume and the result is that we have moved him 11 feet in this chamber, from where Senator Short sits up to the second row. It was a bit unfortunate in terms of the timing; I agree. That was a very efficient operation. Let us recall the events. Senator Baume was, I think, in Ballarat. Through the marvels of modern technology he was rung from Tasmania. He was then asked a series of questions about the Liberal Party tax policy. It must have been very irritating to Senator Baume because the bloke asked him the question about nine times. When Senator Baume finally made a stumble, the caller said, `Thank you very much. Good bye' and he hung up in Senator Baume's ear before he probably even had a chance to correct that answer. That is quite possible. It was a beautiful piece of cross-examination: the Queen's Counsel finally elicits the answer he wants and asks no more questions. So it was picked up by some diligent officer. So what; that was his job. So it was transmitted to the Labor Party. So we did ambush John Howard with it at the National Press Club and the wheels fell off the Opposition's campaign for the second time. That is bad luck. The Government Information Unit would have done the same in 1980. Senator Stone —The National Media Liaison Service. Senator ROBERT RAY —No, I am talking about the Liberal one. The Liberal one would have done exactly the same. Of course it would have. It worked as a servant of the Government for whatever political purposes that Government put to it. Let us cut out the hypocrisy here. Senator Stone —No, you are wrong. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Stone says I am wrong; I say I am right. Let us cut out the hypocrisy. We had this out in Estimates Committee C from 1981 to 1983. The only difficulty was that it was a lot harder to pull information out then than it is today. In 1982 we had to sit on nine occasions to get a lot of that information. We were told in 1982 that there was no post-Budget survey on the Budget. We were told time and time again. Amazing! At the ninth meeting we got the copy of the results of the survey. So Senator Stone should not come along here and say, `No, it was not put to that purpose'. The truth was rarely told about these matters. Senator Short says that government advertising and the levels of it are of concern to him because most of the advertisements are of a political complexion. I deny that most are. I concede that it could be construed that some are, but most are not. The largest single items are for defence. They can hardly be regarded as political advertisements, the ones for the Defence Reserves and so on. The reason that government advertising has gone up substantially over the last few years, really relates to three campaigns: the one on acquired immune deficiency syndrome-I hardly think it was a political point we were making on that-the Australian made campaign and the anti-drug abuse campaign. They were the three big ticket items from 1985-86 to 1986-87. There is also a large component of what one might call functional advertising where we advertise committee hearings, staff positions, et cetera. That amounted to $13m out of $40m, I think, in 1986-87. Six million dollars was spent on creative campaign productions; $21m in actual placement in the media-that comes to $27m-and then the other $13m was almost all spent on essentially things such as advertising for tenders and those sort of machinery type things. Senator Short —I am not objecting to that; I am objecting to the $27m. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Short objects to the $27m. I am saying that at least $11m of that amount goes in the defence area et cetera. A lot of the concern will be, from my point of view, about what is institutionalised; what is not reviewed every year. We have taken steps since I became a Minister to make sure every one of those programs is properly reviewed and evaluated. I would be delighted to cut the figure down. I think $40m a year on government advertising should be about the outside of the envelope. We should, wherever possible, be looking to reduce that amount of expenditure. The role of the ministry of Home Affairs in this is not so much in the initial decision making as to where one should advertise or how much should be spent but in making sure the proper procedures are followed and the right master advertising agencies are used. Also through a ministerial council various advertisements are reviewed to see whether they are effective. I am not trying to deny responsibility in this regard. What I am saying is that we do not have absolute authority in determining which campaign will go and which one will not. Those are usually Cabinet decisions. We then review the nature of the campaign and a variety of things such as expenditure; if the proper tendering processes have not been used, we force them to go through those procedures. But by accumulating a fair bit of information, because one has an overview of every department, one is able to establish whether the priorities of the Government are sufficient, and whether there is enough challenging of previous assumptions. I am not saying that I would make a decision one way or the other, but we would look at whether it is justifiable to spend $11m on defence advertising every year or whether it should be increased in line with the consumer price index. Those are the sorts of decisions that governments must make. In response to the honourable senator's view that the entire $27m concerns straight-out political advertising, I deny that that is so. One could place certain connotations on it-that some of it is supportive of Government policy in terms of the fringe benefits tax. It is very hard to know where to draw the line in regard to the fringe benefits tax-whether one is just supplying information and explaining systems to the public, or whether one is pushing a party political barrow. I defy honourable senators opposite to say, in relation to one of the ads on the fringe benefits tax, that we are pushing our political barrow. It looked more like a play from the Marquis de Sade. I could never follow any part of it. I cannot see how we were pushing a message with that advertisement. That was one of the poorer advertising campaigns that has been seen in this country. I would be interested to hear about the setting up of some definitive moral guidelines, because I know what will happen: when Opposition senators move to this side of the chamber all of those guidelines will be thrown out of the window. They would be into it like we are; that is a reality-- Senator Stone —Like you are. Senator ROBERT RAY —No, to the extent that the Opposition accuses us of doing it, the Opposition would do exactly the same thing. Senator Stone —I hope you are wrong. Senator ROBERT RAY —No, Senator Stone should not hope we are wrong. When he has had a little more political rather than bureaucratic experience, he will see that political history repeats itself. I suggest that he read the transcripts of Estimates committee hearings for the last 15 years. He will see that all the same points have been made: the Lodge is too expensive; we should not fix the leaky roof. It was said in 1976; it was said in 1980; and it was said in 1986. I object only to the pomposity and the moral posturing on some of these issues, not to the fact-- Senator Michael Baume —Didn't you ever do it? Senator ROBERT RAY —Of course I did it. I did it even better than Senator Baume does it. That is one of the reasons why we are on this side of the chamber. We did it very effectively. We certainly had more staying power. Thank goodness that Opposition senators do not, or Estimates Committee E would still be meeting. In regard to the general question of political advertising of which we are accused, if any definition of advertising as being political could be developed, it certainly would not even constitute a majority of government advertising. I cannot put a figure on it. It is very hard; it is a subjective judgment as to whether one regards an advertisement as a fair distribution and dissemination of information, or whether one regards it as propaganda. It is also very much in the eye of the beholder as to whether one makes that particular judgment. In finalising the point on whether Mr Parks or anyone else was misused, governments have always used personal staff members in this way. I do not refer to public servants, because I see a distinction, if that is the one that Senator Stone wants to draw. These people are not public servants, they are personal staff of Ministers. If they wish to involve themselves in a campaign they tend to do so. This occurs on all sides of politics. I would be very interested to look at the travel patterns-if the honourable senator wants to persist with this-of the various staff of the Opposition. I am sure there would be about the same sort of pattern as for staff of Government members. If one goes to 400 Flinders Street-and I do not mean to be derogatory to Senator Powell-in the middle of a Federal election, one is likely to trip over a bundle of Democrat how-to-vote cards and kill oneself. I have already related what happened there to a poor old window cleaner, but it is worth repeating. A poor old window cleaner's machine at 400 Flinders Street broke down. The poor man was in dire strife. The emergency services were sent for. All the television cameras arrived. What did the Democrats do to help? Two of them waddled out-that was the best description I heard-with a little sign saying, `Vote Democrat'. Every time the cameras moved, the sign moved so that it remained on the screen. I do not know whether the poor old window cleaner in fact converted to Labor or Liberal afterwards. I would be very surprised if he did not. I have no specific information for Senator Tambling on the matter he raised, but I make the point that work loads fluctuate. That is a very important point in the consideration of the matters he raised today. When there is a need for officers from Adelaide to go to the Northern Territory, they do so. It is difficult to replicate every Commonwealth service in the Northern Territory, which comprises one Federal electorate. It would be like saying we must replicate every service in each of the 148 electorates. I know he is a passionately parochial supporter of the Northern Territory, as was his predecessor, Senator Kilgariff, as was Senator Robertson and as is Senator Collins; he is very passionate in his defence of Northern Territory rights. We very much like to assist him in most things, but there is a limit to the amount of expenditure we can pour into the Northern Territory. I think that the Commonwealth contribution to the Northern Territory is about $5,900 per head per year compared to, say, $400 for the home State of the shadow Minister and the Minister. So the Northern Territory is not getting too bad a trot, all things considered. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.26) —I was fascinated, when I was listening in my room to the broadcast of the proceedings, to hear the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) say to Senator Stone, `You all indulge in it'. I was a member of the Senate during the time the Opposition was last in government. Following the Whitlam era, during which so much money was spent on advertising Government propaganda, when the coalition came to office I assure the Minister that that stopped. Senator Ray was not here at that time, but I can assure him that that stopped. I can assure him that, in discussions in the party room, when it was suggested that we might be able to get across our message by using the same methods that Mr Whitlam had used, we were told by Mr Fraser that that was not legitimate expenditure of taxpayers' money and that we would not indulge in that type of expenditure. So I really do not think that Senator Ray ought to include the Opposition in the methods used by the Australian Labor Party and, I admit, used continuously. The present Government is no different from the Whitlam Government in that regard; not at all. I admit that it has followed the quite traditional Labor tactics along this line. But Senator Ray should not include us, because that is not right. Indeed, it was specifically talked about on many occasions, and Mr Fraser would not allow it to happen. So Senator Ray should not try, with a charming air, to say, `Yes, we do it, but of course you do, too', because that is just not so. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(5.28) —In 1981, $17.59m was spent on advertising. In the next year it went to $24.84m. I am not too good at maths, but that is about a 20 to 30 per cent increase. Not even at the previous Government's worst excess did it have inflation running at that rate. Does Senator Walters remember the selling of the 1982 Budget? Does she not remember the family group shown on television, flogging off the Budget, about which all the cartoonists had a field day? The average suburban Sullivans, if you like. Can she not remember that? I hope she is not slipping that much, because I have a reasonable respect for her memory. Of course, the previous Government indulged in all forms of political advertising. It is in the eye of the beholder. She would not regard it as political advertising. She would say it was just a matter of explaining government policy. We did the same in opposition as the Opposition is doing now. I am quite sure that people got up in the party room and made pompous contributions, saying, `We won't indulge in this sort of thing'. Fraser said that his Government would not have any sort of a government information unit. But sure enough, it was set up the moment that the going got tough. How often did the previous Government try to justify its policy immediately after making tax cuts? There was advertising for those tax cuts. Hotlines were set up, and all the rest of it, saying, `We will explain your tax cuts to you'. The only time that it did not publicise them was when it took them back. Senator Walters has a sort of rose-tinted glasses approach to the Fraser era. I will not go into a lot of detail; I hate disillusioning people. To Senator Walters, this was a golden age. The reason I admire her so much is that she is one of the very few on the other side of the chamber who will defend those glorious years from 1975 to 1983. The rest of the people here skulk under their seats when this is mentioned. They are too embarrassed to defend that era. So, if Senator Walters does not mind, I will agree to disagree with her. In my view, the attitude of the Liberals or of Fraser at the time is like that of a lot of conservative people to chastity-they talk about it a lot, but they do not practise it much. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(5.31) —I want to say a couple of words in response to the comments of the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray). First of all, I absolutely and totally support Senator Walters's comments, certainly insofar as they related to the five years between 1975 and 1980 when I was a member of the other place. What she said about our attitude in the party room towards this type of political advertising is absolutely correct. The Minister said that all members of the National Media Liaison Service were not public servants but were ministerial staff. Senator Robert Ray —The 10 reporters, yes. Senator SHORT —The 10 journalists. What about the 12 clerical support staff? Senator Robert Ray —I would have to check on that. Senator SHORT —In an answer to a question about the location of members of the NMLS, Senator Newman was told that members of the Service are located in Canberra, each State capital, Darwin and Townsville. Is the Minister saying that all of those people are on the personal staffs of Ministers? Senator Robert Ray —No, my staff. Senator SHORT —On your staff? Senator Robert Ray —That is right. That is how they are allocated. Senator SHORT —But, surely, that does not make them ministerial staff? Senator Robert Ray —They are employed under the same terms and conditions. Senator SHORT —So they are not public servants? Senator Robert Ray —No. Senator SHORT —Are they part of, or in addition to, the ministerial staff allocation? Senator Robert Ray —I will come to that. Senator SHORT —You will come to it? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(5.33) —I was just trying to help Senator Short out by giving a couple of responses so that he could continue his line of questioning. But if he wants me to respond, I will get up each time he asks a question. I just did not want to continue an interchange while I was sitting down. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(5.34) —If the number of staff is over and above the number of ministerial staff allocated to each Minister, I think it is patent nonsense to try to claim that they are in effect ministerial advisers. If, on the other hand, they are in fact part of the ministerial adviser complement, I do not understand what goes to make up the National Media Liaison Service (NMLS); therefore, it becomes a nonsense term. I would like clarification of that. But I suppose the main point-and I will conclude on this-is that the remarks of the Minister really confirm what I was putting to him-that the NMLS certainly, and a large part of his advertising budget certainly, is used to propagate and promote his political party in government rather than to serve the normal legitimate advertising and information provision services of government. It seems to me that the Minister has just accepted my proposition that on both those scores he is really talking about propaganda units. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(5.35) —I have always tried to preface my remarks in regard to that. I said, `In the eye of the beholder'. It is Senator Short's perception that they are propaganda units. I have said, and said very bluntly, that it is very hard to determine the difference between government information programs and propaganda. It depends on one's perspective as to whether one regards it as one or the other. What I have said to the honourable senator is that in my view, leaving that doubtful distinction and material aside, a majority of the $27m spent on creative advertising in the media could not possibly fall into that category. I do not think the Defence Reserve advertisement, and most of those sorts of things, could possibly fall into that category. What I am saying is that less than half of the creative advertising could possibly even be argued about in terms of what the honourable senator has put. Let us be quite clear about what I am saying. I am saying that there is no difference between the approach of this Government and that of previous governments. The honourable senator disputes that. Senator Short —Yes. Senator ROBERT RAY —He can dispute it all he likes. As I said of Senator Walters, I think the honourable senator is looking through rose tinted glasses. If I were looking for blatant examples of political exploitation in advertising, I would go no further than the one Liberal government in this country, that headed by Robin Gray in Tasmania, whose advertising is blatantly political. But one could go north. Senator Stone —The question is: Do you approve of that or not? I take it from your comments that you don't. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Stone has just moved north. Maybe the honourable senator has not been there long enough to catch up with a program called Queensland Unlimited. Senator Stone —That has nothing to do with Commonwealth expenditure. Senator ROBERT RAY —No, but it has everything to do with consistency. When has the honourable senator ever criticised that program? When has he criticised the propaganda arm of the Queensland Government, or Queensland Unlimited and the rest of that Government's material and advertising? The advertising engaged in by some of the State governments has been so bad that the Australian Electoral Commission has been able to obtain an injunction to stop these advertisements going on because they have been regarded as political. The trouble is that honourable senators opposite have dim memories about their own advertising campaigns. Apparently they cannot remember them. Can Senator Short not remember the 1982 campaign about the 1982-83 Budget in which a family photograph was used in television advertisements? Is that lost from his memory? Senator Stone should remember it-he helped produce the 1982-83 Budget. I do not know whether he helped in the selling of it, but he should at least have the memory of that particular form of advertising. Senator Stone —I would ask the Minister to withdraw that insinuation. Senator ROBERT RAY —What have I insinuated? Senator Stone —You said, if I heard you correctly, that you don't know whether I participated in the selling. Senator ROBERT RAY —I do not know whether the honourable senator participated in the decision making to sell it. I do know that the honourable senator had a role in constructing the 1982-83 Budget. I cannot say whether it was an influential role or not, but I am fair in saying that. What I said was that I do not know whether he had a role in trying to sell the Budget as a public enterprise. Senator Stone —Again you have misquoted yourself. A moment ago you corrected yourself by saying that you did not know whether I had a role in deciding to sell it. Senator ROBERT RAY —I do not know. I do not know any of these things. Senator Stone —The two things are quite distinct. Senator ROBERT RAY —I asked the honourable senator the direct question. Senator Stone —For your information, I didn't. Senator ROBERT RAY —Good. I ask the honourable senator the direct question: does he have any memory as a private citizen of anyone in government trying to sell it? Has that campaign escaped him? All I can say is that those opposite have very selective memories. That Budget was sold in a very controversial way. I will not go to the relative merits of that Budget or the assumptions that it was built on. The previous Government launched an advertising campaign to sell that Budget, to explain it. That campaign was blatantly political. It was a far worse example than one can find in any of our advertising because the previous Government was aiming at an early election. There were two reasons why it did not hold an early election. One was that the bottom of the harbour scam hit the fence in a big way and the second was that the Prime Minister at the time had a very bad back and could hardly participate in government for about a month. I remember these issues well. In Estimates Committee C we explored how much the campaign cost and what advertising agency was responsible for it. It was through those inquiries that we realised that the Government had launched into a post-Budget survey. I think it commissioned George Patterson Pty Ltd to survey the public attitudes to its Budget so that it could base on those attitudes an advertising campaign, paid for by the taxpayer, to promote that Budget. Of course that has always occurred. We have never done anything so blatant; we have never done anything along those lines. One could hardly say that the Australia made campaign, the acquired immune deficiency syndrome campaign, the drug abuse campaign or the Defence Reserve campaign were overtly political. One example of a political campaign in this sense has been raised today, and that related to the fringe benefits tax. This was one of the worst and most botched advertising campaigns that I have seen. Does Senator Short really think that that one would have won any votes? We did really well at the height of that fringe benefits advertising campaign! If it was-and I do not concede that it was-intended to be a political campaign, it was a pretty incompetent one. Senator Short —That is irrelevant. Senator ROBERT RAY —It is not irrelevant. I am saying that the honourable senator has accused the Government of running campaigns, not as information programs to disseminate information but for just political propaganda purposes. He brought up one example. I have also brought up the example of 1982 to show that his belief that the Liberal Party never indulged in such activities is gross rubbish. Senator Short —Can you answer my question on the NMLS staff? Senator ROBERT RAY —My understanding, in terms of the NMLS staff, is that those journalists are not public servants. They are hired on the same terms and conditions as a parliamentary or ministerial staffer would be. For reasons of logic, they come on to my staff as such, although I do not have day to day direction of them. That is done by the Director, Mr Colin Parks. Senator Short —Are they part of the ministerial staff establishment or are they additional to it? Senator ROBERT RAY —I guess it depends on where one draws the line on the ministerial staff establishment. I would imagine that they would be considered as an overall part of it, the upper limits of which were raised because of the expansion of the Ministry. However, I will check on that and get some details for the honourable senator. Senator PARER(Queensland)(5.41) —When I raised the matter of the Parliament House Construction Authority the Minister for Home Affairs left the chamber because, he said later, he had heard it all before. I wish to raise with him the question I raised in his absence because it was not responded to. I intend to pursue it a little further. At the Estimates Committee E meeting certain questions were asked of the Parliament House Construction Authority. I said, in part: . . . the construction manager's response to the unions' claim for severance pay in 1983-84 was that the claim should be pursued through the Arbitration Commission and the claim would be resisted. I think that honourable senators will recall that the Minister for Industrial Relations has made similar remarks. I then pointed out that that was at odds with the Auditor-General's report, which stated that the Authority accepted liability for a cost to contractors of about $6.5m-not an insignificant amount-because the Construction Manager may have improperly given unions reason to believe that a severance pay scheme might be favourably considered as part of the renegotiation of the site agreement. I then asked the Authority to explain the anomaly between its view and that of the Auditor-General. Mr Peatey responded: It is obviously an option of the Auditor-General; it is not an opinion the Authority shared. In a letter dated 6 November to Senator Aulich, the Chairman of Estimates Committee E, the Auditor-General referred to the question and answer and said: The question of whether the Authority accepted that liability is not one of opinion, but of fact. The Authority received legal advice at the time which indicated that the CM failed to discharge properly its duty to manage industrial matters and that the contractors would be entitled to reimbursement by the Authority of extra costs incurred. After considering the advice, the Authority informed the CM: ``formal agreement has now been obtained to accept valid claims from contractors which flow from events to the recent site stoppage on severance pay''. It is apparent from that that, deliberately or otherwise-I am not too sure-the Parliament House Construction Authority misled us in the answer because it knew that it had a legal opinion on the matter. The Auditor-General's report stated: Audit remains concerned that a decision not to pursue recovery action was made without seeking further legal advice specifically in respect of the Authority's legal position. There is an anomaly in that the Auditor-General made some statements and the Construction Authority, in response to a question from me, said that it was simply the Auditor-General's opinion. Yet subsequently we find that it had a legal opinion. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(5.44) —I am informed that the legal opinion is not quite as decisive as Senator Parer has been led to believe-that there was sufficient evidence to require the Parliament House Construction Authority to pay the claims of contractors but not sufficient evidence to charge the Construction Manager with misconduct and seek to recover costs from the Construction Manager. I think that is the position. What we are saying is that we do not think that the legal advice is quite as decisive as the honourable senator may have been led to believe in terms of the certainty of recovery of any money. Senator PARER(Queensland)(5.45) —I will make a further point before moving on. The Minister may like to answer a few questions together. The Minister used the term `led to believe', but I was referring to something contained in the Auditor-General's report. I am referring to the fact that something was wrong with the management of the Construction Authority. The Auditor-General went on to say: . . . a decision not to pursue recovery action apparently was made without seeking further legal advice . . . We could not get a satisfactory answer to that. I think the point being made was that the Construction Authority wiped it off by saying that that was the Auditor-General's opinion and the Authority did not share it. The Minister who attended the meeting of Estimates Committee E-the Minister for Home Affairs-is at the table. He would have realised at that meeting that a lot of conflicting information was given to us by the Construction Authority and confusion reigned. At one stage I asked the Construction Authority whether the Minister for Industrial Relations, in keeping with his remarks that any industrial agreements should be in terms of the Government's 1984 agreement, had been informed and I was told that he had not. When Senator Walters asked the same question she was told that he had been informed. When I questioned Mr Peatey about that he said that he had been informed, but after the event. I would like some clarification on that. When was the Minister informed? That is a fairly important factor. The Minister issued Press releases and made statements in the other place that under no circumstances would he agree to anything that was outside the site agreement. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(5.48) —I am informed that the Minister was told about these things two or three days after the Construction Manager told the Authority. I will repeat that: to the best of my knowledge, the Minister was informed of those events two to three days after the Construction Manager informed the Authority. Senator PARER(Queensland)(5.49) —The strike to which I refer was the plumbers' strike. It went on for some weeks and a $500 payout was made to get them back to work. The point which was made to me by the Parliament House Construction Authority during questioning and which I found very difficult to believe was that, although the strike was holding up work at the new Parliament House and everyone was very concerned about it, the Authority did not know anything about the matter. I find it absolutely impossible to believe, given that a strike had been going on for a month and the whole project was grinding to a halt, that there were not almost daily or hourly discussions between the Construction Manager and the Parliament House Construction Authority. Yet I am told-I find it incredible; in fact, I do not believe it-that the Parliament House Construction Authority did not know about it until the deal was done. I ask whether there was any discussion about it. I do not believe that that decision was made. If it was, there was something very seriously wrong with the management of the Parliament House Construction Authority. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(5.50) —I am informed that the Parliament House Construction Authority did not know, but it did know that the matter was going to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The matter went to the Arbitration Commission and the agreement between the employers and employees was ratified. The $500 was paid by employers to employees-this is at least in terms of the Arbitration Commission decision-for meeting times associated with the dispute to promote commitment to the project for at least 26 weeks. The Construction Manager, as superintendent of the contract, was required to examine the entitlements of constructors. The Construction Manager is not required under the contract to seek approval of his principal, that is, the Parliament House Construction Authority. So it appears that the sequence of events is: the Authority knew the matter was going to the Arbitration Commission but was not consulted or told about the possible terms of settlement. Senator PARER(Queensland)(5.51) —I would like to raise another point because it shows that something was terribly amiss in the whole period. I know it is water under the bridge, but I think these things are very important. The new Parliament House is a structure which, I admit, people will admire and enjoy for many years to come. But it seemed to me that there was a total and utter lack of control. There was an attitude there that it did not matter; that whatever had to be spent to complete the job would be spent-so there was an absence of budgets. But the Construction Manager himself is on record as saying: I think we realise the situation we were in. It was no good throwing the code of conduct around in a situation where there were so many breaches to it that you would virtually have to go and close the industry up. Okay, that could be a reason for making the settlement, and I do not object to that. It could be a reason for saving money. But the point is that it makes a mockery of repeated statements by the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) himself and, more recently, the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) that the Government would not give in to industrial blackmail in order to get the job finished on time. That leads me to another question I asked and the answer I got. I asked a question as to the number of working days lost through industrial disputation from September 1985 through to the present. I will give an abbreviated version of the answer I got because I read it out in some detail in the Minister's absence: . . . a formula was agreed between the Authority, the Departments of Finance and Administrative Services . . . Part of that formula provides an assessment of ``project days'' lost through disputes . . . In the period September 1985 to September 1987- two years- . . . the assessed project days lost was 133.5, or an average of 5.6 days per month. In other words, it was a week per month for two years-every month for two years. The response said that this included stoppages for a whole host of reasons including health and safety. I think it can be safely anticipated, in view of the past record, that in the closing stages of construction unreasonable demands, and hence disputes, will escalate. The question I ask is: What contingency plans does the Authority or the Government have to handle such a situation, in view of its having a nominated opening date? Or will the Authority just pay up at taxpayers' expense? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(5.53) —Most of Senator Parer's speech was debate. He will not expect me to respond to all of that. Senator Parer —Just the last bit. Senator ROBERT RAY —In response to the last point: to my knowledge there is no change in Government policy from the Cabinet decision that then resulted in a statement made by Mr West in the other place and put down here by me; that the Government's attitude is that the project, whilst it is highly desirable that it be finished, will not be finished with a gun being held at our head industrially. There are always problems with redundancy when a massive project such as this is closed. But all this will have to be done within the normal guidelines and ratified by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. If that is not the case, the Government will stand firm. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(5.54) —In response to my question, `When can we expect to see the annual report for 1986-87?', Mr Fowler told Senate Estimates Committee E-this is shown on page 206 of the Hansard-that: The report for the Authority for that year will be available in six weeks time. That was on 28 October. I wonder now whether this report will be tabled on 9 December, which is, I think, six weeks from that date, when the Senate will still be sitting. Does this date still hold, in view of the delay involved in auditing the accounts of the Parliament House Construction Authority? I raise that matter in the context of a letter that the Auditor-General wrote to the Chairman of Estimates Committee E relating to the evidence given on this matter at the Senate Estimates Committee hearing. The Auditor-General said: Responses to Senator Michael Baume's questions about the availability of the Authority's annual report were to the effect that the Authority had to await the Auditor-General's report on its financial statements, which had been completed to the satisfaction of the Authority and submitted to the Audit Office early in September this year. The responses- that is, the responses from the Authority- could imply that, in some significant degree, the Auditor-General was responsible for delay in the completion of the Authority's annual report. The factual position is that, in accordance with normal practice, unsigned draft financial statements and related documents were submitted by the Authority early in September at which time the Audit Office commenced examination of the draft statements. These are to be discussed at a meeting with the Authority during the week commencing 9 November. By the way, this letter was written on 10 November. It continued: As at the date of this letter the Audit Office is still awaiting a reply to a letter of 30 September 1987 to the Authority concerning a number of matters, relevant to the Authority's financial statements. I want to stress the next bit: Audit cannot proceed with its task until the Authority provides adequate replies on these matters, and cannot subsequently conclude the audit until the Authority provides signed final financial statements. That is an extract from what I understand to be an unsolicited letter from the Auditor-General to the Chairman of Estimates Committee E. I ask: What is the state of play with last year's annual report? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(5.57) —It appears to be the case that the annual report will probably not arrive on 9 December. It cannot go to the printer until there is a certification from the Auditor-General. It is very hard for me to arbitrate between the Auditor-General and the Parliament House Construction Authority on where substantial delays have occurred. But it cannot be printed until that certification is supplied by the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General has written to the Committee and put certain views to it. The Parliament House Construction Authority does not believe it has been dragging the chain in providing material to the Auditor-General. It is a case where I find it very hard to judge exactly where the delays have been. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(5.58) —I thank the Minister. I imagine that the consequence of that answer is that we will not see this annual report until we meet in February, which was the situation with the latest annual report-a situation which the Minister said was, and I think all the Senate regards as, very unsatisfactory. In the report of Estimates Committee E to the Parliament there is the following statement: The annual report of the Parliament House Construction Authority for the year 1986-87 was not available for the Committee before, or during, the estimates hearings. It is likely that the report will not be tabled until February 1988. The Committee was right. It continued: Senate Estimates Committees have reported in the past that annual reports should be available for use by the Committee during the estimates hearings and appropriate efforts should be made by all of those responsible for the production and publication of reports to ensure that this occurs. I would now like to move to the rest of the letter from the Auditor-General to Estimates Committee E which concerns me. This extract reads as follows: Senator Michael Baume referred to the observation in the audit report- that is the efficiency audit report of the Auditor-General into the Authority- that the Chairman has said that the Joint Committee and parliamentary departments had been slow to address the question of operations and maintenance costs. In response Mr Peatey said, among other things, that the Authority had some concern as to when the Chairman expressed that point of view. The Chairman made that comment in his letter of 27 March 1987 to the Auditor-General. The comment is reproduced at the last paragraph on page 3 of Appendix B to the Auditor-General's report. Senator Michael Baume asked who had suggested that the Architect's continued pursuit of excellence was becoming costly and that delayed decisions were having a detrimental effect on the project. In response Mr Peatey attributed that view to the McCain report. It would appear that Senator Baume's question related to paragraphs 4.5.21 and 4.5.22, page 28, of the efficiency audit report. The comments referred to there were made by Mr Peatey in a report to a meeting of the Authority in March 1986. I read those remarks into the record because the responses given to the Senate Estimates Committee bore correcting. I shall deal now with some other specific matters emerging from written responses by the Parliament House Construction Authority to Senate Estimates Committee E relating to matters that could not be answered at the time. I would like to note that there was considerable discussion on whether or not there had been effective cost control of the Parliament House Construction Authority before the appointment in mid-1986, as I recall it, of a cost control arrangement. The written response from the Authority now demonstrates that almost $240m worth of construction work continued under a situation which the Parliament House Construction Authority itself has designated as unsatisfactory in relation to cost control, in that it says that there was not an effective cost control system. I would also like to raise another matter-an answer to a question that I asked about an apparent disagreement about the Construction Manager's fee. In this response, the Construction Authority said that it was awaiting an opinion from Queen's Counsel (QC) who had been briefed by the Australian Government Solicitor on the Construction Authority's behalf. The minimum fee, about which there is no disagreement, is in the order of $21.1m. The maximum is represented by the Construction Manager to the Authority at current prices as $26.1m. Clearly, $5m is in dispute. In the Authority's view, there are reasonable grounds for some increase on the undisputed minimum of $21.1m, but the Authority wishes to reserve its position in this regard pending further legal advice. I simply ask the Minister whether that advice has been received, and what the situation is with this dispute. Senator Robert Ray —Wednesday next week. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —That is when the response from the QC is expected? Senator Robert Ray —Yes. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Thank you. The next matter I want to raise is the question of frequent reporting of the cost of the new Parliament House. I said that I have not seen these frequent reports and I was assured that there had been some. I find that I was either partly right or partly wrong, depending on whether I am an optimist or a pessimist. I notice that, over the crucial time, when there were huge rises, there was a gap of two years in the figures in the Press releases that I have received. I have a Press release dated 24 August 1983, revealing that the updated figure for the building is $421.2m. The 1984 statement that I have does not have an updated figure and the next one I have, in the documents tabled by the Authority, is 1985, when the figure had gone up from $421m to $894m. I wonder whether that was the period when there was, as the Auditor-General has pointed out, some concern and confusion almost, between the Minister and the Authority about what costs were and what sort of reporting was going on. I come now to a question that concerned the Minister himself in Senate Estimates, and that was the $32m fees associated with a cost item of $55m, making up a total contingency fee of $87m. I must say that the explanation that I have got does not clear that up to my satisfaction, and I would be interested to see whether it clears it up to the Minister's satisfaction. We are told that the consultants' fees of $32m, relate to the $149m total-that is, $87m contingency and $62m of additional requirements. This concerns me considerably because it means that the $32m relates to a very small amount of work being done. I refer the Minister to the fact that the $62m which makes up part of that $149m includes $9m of professional fees anyway, and I would be astounded if the consultants' fees would be fees on top of professional fees. That $62m in terms of work done is something like $53m and the other components seem, when that is taken off, to suggest that something like $94m of work was done and fees charged were about $32m, so something like a quarter of it involved professional fees. I may have done my sums wrongly at the time, but that seems to me to be a pretty small amount. What one has to do is take off from the $149m the $32m for consultants' fees and $9m of professional fees to see what the consultants' fee is in relation to actual work done. If that is the sort of rate, it seems to me to be an extraordinary rate for consultants' fees, and it requires an explanation. I would also be grateful if the Minister could outline to me what is the definition of the cost of the industrial disputation. What is included in the cost of industrial disputation of $41.5m that has been given as the impact of industrial disputation on this project? As far as I am concerned, $41.5m seems to be a ludicrously small amount in terms of the real cost to this project, and unless there is some curious definition which excludes the consequences of, for example, extending contracts, deferring contracts and all those other on-costs such as delays in completing things that involve a significant cost content, I cannot see how one could possibly have only $41.5m as the industrial disputation cost on this $1,000m project. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(6.09) —I think Senator Baume's final supposition about $32m being subtracted from $149m to get the end result is right. I have been wading through it here too. It may help him to know that when we are talking about the preliminary costs, we are not just talking about design. We are talking about getting cranes on site, security and a whole range of factors. It works out at about 30 per cent, which is the normal preparation cost for any other commercial site. To laymen like Senator Baume and myself that seems a very high figure. The 30 per cent seems to be a very high element of the cost. I am told that it is normal practice. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(6.10) —I must say that I am intrigued that the cost of getting those things on site should be related to a fee to be paid to the Construction Manager. How that is so really escapes me. I cannot see that that is a reality. I can see that the preliminary costs are related to the amount of $149m. If the Minister is saying that the Construction Manager's fee includes various preliminary costs related to bringing in cranes and so on, I can understand that. However, I certainly do not understand how, in the normal terms and meaning of the word `fee', that is a fee simply to the Construction Manager. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(6.11) —Once it was decided to extend the new Parliament House-a whole range of extra rooms was added to it when Parliament was expanded-the Construction Manager was entitled to a 4 per cent additional fee in relation to those particular areas. I think that explains why he received the extra amount of money. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(6.11) —I wonder whether the Minister could address himself to what I understand is a demarcation dispute on the new Parliament House site at the moment. The last paragraph of an answer given to Senator Short states: The reference in the Authority response to the Efficiency Audit Report to savings from a close working relationship with Joint House Department applies to the short term only. The Joint House Department Staff are working with the Authority's Construction Manager up to and during the handover phase to reduce the costs of the Construction Manager's staff and to provide operating experience to Joint House Department staff in the new building. The Authority considers that this arrangement has resulted in overall savings to the Commonwealth. I must say that I think that is an eminently sensible proposal. I only wish that it had worked as outlined. As I understand it, there have been some union standover tactics involved in this. Members of the Joint House Department staff who, in fact, have gone up to the Parliament House site to do this co-operative work have been forced to join an additional union, on top of the union they belong to here, because they have been told that if they do not join that union they will be denied employment. I thought that in fact there had been a statement by a commissioner of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to the effect that no one would be forced to join another union if he was already involved in a union. I am asking these questions because those events took place only last week. In fact, I believe it is vital that this sort of on-site co-operation should take place in as many areas as possible to reduce the running costs and the costs of transition when we move to the new Parliament House. As it is, moving into the new Parliament House will involve multi-millions of dollars. Anything that can be done, as this sensible procedure was attempted to be done, should, I believe, be embraced by everyone involved. I think that something has to be done about instructing unions that they cannot stand over members of other unions. We cannot run the risk of having demarcation disputes in this matter. I understand that the union involved on the site says that it is a convention that people who are involved in these activities on building sites should be members of this particular union. Whether that convention applies or not, as I said, I understand that there is a specific ruling against this in a recent decision handed down by the conciliation and arbitration commissioner that no unionist should be forced to join another union when, on moving to a new place of employment, he continues to do exactly the same job as he had been doing as a member of his own union. Progress reported. Debate resumed from 5 November, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(6.17) —The Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 contains a number of eminently worthwhile improvements and refinements to a package of legislation-in particular, the Christmas Island Act, the Crimes Act, the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act, the Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Act, the Proceeds of Crimes Act and the Transfer of Prisoners Act. I think it is only proper to say that the Government has acted expeditiously in relation to the Christmas Island Act, perhaps too expeditiously as it has transpired because a further amendment will need to be moved in the Committee stage. I indicate that we will not be opposing that amendment. Certainly, we support the restoration of trial by jury in relation to Christmas Island. We believe that there are very real problems when only 300 people on that island speak English. Therefore, it can certainly become necessary for trails to be held on the mainland of Australia. Thus, we support moves to enable the court to adjourn to take evidence on Christmas Island or to conduct trials on the mainland, presumably in Perth. The amendments to the Crimes Act embrace various provisions that basically tighten up a number of escape arrangements, that make the search warrant provision much more flexible, that put beyond doubt certain powers in relation to police officers breaking internal doors and receptacles in the execution of a warrant and that allow for warrants to be issued up to 72 hours before use. That last provision is especially necessary where information might be received that drugs are likely to be at a particular place at a particular time. It enables the operational arrangements to be put in place so that there is not a last minute dash to ensure that police are able to gain access to the premises. Therefore, those provisions are certainly reasonable. The Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act tidies up some of the definitional provisions because of the problems that arise in relation to foreign countries. A definition of `foreign State' is substituted to remove doubts about the scope of the previous definition and to ensure that the Act proscribes hostile activity engaged in in places outside Australia, irrespective of whether the place is within a particular political area. This aspect of the Bill fills a gap whereby it is presently not an offence for an Australian to become involved in mercenary activities, per se, in a foreign State. The Bill does that by extending the definition of `hostile activities' to cover acts done for the purpose of engaging in armed hostilities in the foreign State. It also very importantly protects people who provide humanitarian assistance to persons in other countries. Lest there by any doubt that they might be at risk of aiding and abetting foreign mercenaries or intervening in the political affairs of another State, their acts of good neighbourliness are protected. We therefore have no problems with that aspect of the Bill. So far as the Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Act is concerned, again several problems have arisen in relation to prosecutions brought against several persons because of the Status of the internationally-protected person. This Bill will extend the number and types of offences for which a person might be prosecuted, arising out of the destruction of or damage to the property of an internationally-protected person. The use of fire or explosives will attract a much higher penalty. In general, the question of whether a person is an internationally-protected person is made an object of assessment, rather than simply the subject of the intention or understanding of the accused person. Similarly, the amendment to increase the penalties for attacks on the property of internationally-protected persons is one we would support. The Proceeds of Crime Act is in a slightly different category. The provisions are designed to ensure that the statutory forfeiture provisions extend to all proceeds of crime over which criminals exercise effective control, not simply those where they are legally entitled to the proceeds. It does away with demarcation disputes about the difference between legal and equitable title to goods. It also precludes arguments that a forfeiture order cannot apply to property other than that derived from the offence for which the criminal has been convicted. Again, widening the search and seizure powers seems to be an eminently sensible proposition. One matter we will deal with in the committee stage relates to the date of operation of this aspect of the Bill. We simply take the view that it should come into effect at the time of this Bill's passage and not be dated back to the Proceeds of Crime Bill. We also support the amendments to the Transfer of Prisoners Act. In conclusion, there will be several amendments moved in the committee stage but, in principle, we support the Bill. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.23) —The Australian Democrats welcome the Crimes Legislation (Amendment) Bill. As the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) pointed out in his second reading speech, this is part of the Government's range of legislation which is designed to improve the capacity of the law in its fight against crime. Australia has long suffered from serious defects in its approach to crime, particularly with regard to organised crime. It is only in recent times that we have managed to put together a more effective approach than was the case in the past. The Democrats have taken issue from time to time with certain aspects of the Government's proposals, but in general we have applauded the Government's initiatives in this area. We take a similar view with this legislation which, as the Minister noted, is not quite as grand in scope as earlier legislation but nevertheless is important. I do not intend going through the various items in this legislation although I must admit I am very tempted to do so with regard to the amendments on the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct, considering the events taking place in Queensland at present. However, due to the shortage of time I will refrain. One of the items I would like to refer to is the amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act that Senator Alston referred to. This is an important area. It was understood when the legislation on the proceeds of crime passed this chamber that there would need to be modifications. These modifications have come forward very rapidly as the law has been tested in the courts. The Democrats have long held that this area ought to be part of the armory of government. This process has worked effectively and these amendments are sensible and provide additional powers so that people who profit by crime will have to pay back those proceeds. There is no way the community can be compensated in full for the activities of criminals but this goes a long way to redressing the balance with regard to criminals and the general community. For that reason we support the legislation the Government has introduced. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(6.26) —Being beside myself with excitement at the prospect of getting a Bill through the Senate this week, I do not want to do anything to prejudice that prospect. So I thank Senator Macklin and Senator Alston for their support for this measure and wish the Bill a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(6.27) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 1, clause 2, line 11, leave out ``Part II'', insert ``Parts II, Va, Vb and VIa''. (2) Page 2, clause 2, after subclause (3) insert the following subclauses: ``(3a) Sections 46c, 46d, 46e and 46j shall come into operation on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent. ``(3b) Sections 46f, 46g and 46h shall come into operation immediately after the commencement of subsection 5 (2) and section 8 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Act 1987. ``(3c) Sections 46k to 46s, inclusive, shall come into operation immediately after the commencement of section 21 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Act 1987.''. (3) Page 19, after clause 29, insert the following new Parts: ``PART Va-AMENDMENT OF THE INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 Principal Act ``29a. In this Part, `Principal Act' means the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 4a. ``29b. After section 16 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted in Part II: Provisions relating to the Fitzgerald inquiry `16a. (1) In this section: ``inquiry'' means the inquiry being made by Gerald Edward Fitzgerald Q.C. under the Order in Council that was made under The Commissions of Inquiry Act of 1950 of the State of Queensland and published in the Queensland Government Gazette, on 26 May 1987, at pages 758a and 758b, being that Order in Council as amended by: (a) the Order in Council made under that Act and published in the Queensland Government Gazette, on 24 June 1987, at pages 1841a and 1841b; and (b) any other instrument, whether made before or after the commencement of this section; ``proceeds of crime proceedings'' means proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 or a law of the State of Queensland relating to the restraint of dealing with, or the confiscation of, proceeds of crime, being: (a) if the proceedings relate to a tax-related offence-proceedings commenced before or after a conviction for that offence; and (b) if the proceedings relate to any other offence-proceedings commenced after a conviction for that offence; ``State Attorney-General'' means the Attorney- General of the State of Queensland; ``State Commissioner'' means Gerald Edward Fitzgerald Q.C., in his capacity as the person making the inquiry; ``State Police Commissioner'' means the Commissioner of the Police Force of the State of Queensland or a person for the time being performing the duties of that Commissioner. `(2) In this section, ``Director of Public Prosecutions'', ``officer'', ``Special Prosecutor'' and ``tax-related offence'' have the same respective meanings as in section 16. `(3) Nothing in section 16 shall be deemed to prohibit the Commissioner of Taxation, a Second Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner, or any person authorised by the Commissioner, a Second Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner, from communicating any information to the State Commissioner for the purposes of the inquiry. `(4) Subject to subsections (8) and (9), where information respecting the affairs of a person is communicated to the State Commissioner, the State Commissioner may: (a) in a manner that does not identify, and is not reasonably capable of being used to identify, the person to whom the information relates: (i) communicate the information to the Governor of the State of Queensland in a report by the State Commissioner; or (ii) divulge the information in the course of a proceeding conducted by the State Commissioner, other than a proceeding conducted in private; (b) divulge the information in the course of a proceeding conducted in private by the State Commissioner; (c) communicate the information to the Attorney-General if the State Commissioner is of the opinion that the information indicates that a person may have committed an offence against an Act punishable by imprisonment for life or for a period exceeding 6 months; (d) communicate the information to the State Attorney-General if the State Commissioner is of the opinion that the information indicates that a person may have committed an offence against a law of the State of Queensland punishable by imprisonment for life or for a period exceeding 6 months; (e) communicate the information to the Director of Public Prosecutions or a Special Prosecutor if the State Commissioner is of the opinion that the information relates, or may relate, to an investigation of a tax-related offence or to proceeds of crime proceedings, being proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987; and (f) communicate the information to the Director of Prosecutions of the State of Queensland if the State Commissioner is of the opinion that the information relates, or may relate, to proceeds of crime proceedings, being proceedings under a law of the State of Queensland relating to the restraint of dealing with, or the confiscation of, proceeds of crime. `(5) Where information respecting the affairs of a person is communicated to the State Commissioner under this section, the State Commissioner may divulge or communicate the information to a person or employee under the control of the State Commissioner for the purposes of, or in connection with, the inquiry but shall not, except under subsection (4), otherwise divulge or communicate the information. `(6) Where the State Commissioner ceases to be the State Commissioner, he shall not in any circumstances make a record of, or divulge or communicate, any information respecting the affairs of a person that was communicated to the State Commissioner under this section. `(7) A person to whom information has been communicated under subsection (5) or this subsection shall not: (a) while he or she is a person or employee under the control of the State Commissioner-divulge or communicate the information except to the State Commissioner, or another person or employee under the control of the State Commissioner, for the purposes of, or in connection with, the inquiry; or (b) after he or she ceases to be such a person or employee-in any circumstances make a record of, or divulge or communicate, the information. `(8) Where information respecting the affairs of a person is communicated to the State Commissioner under this section, nothing in this section prevents the communication of the information to: (a) if the person to whose affairs the information relates is not a company-that person; (b) if the person to whose affairs the information relates is a company: (i) any person who is, or has been, a director or officer of the company; or (ii) any person who is, or has been, directly involved in, or responsible for, the preparation of information given to the Commissioner of Taxation on behalf of the company; or (c) the person who gave the information to the Commissioner of Taxation. `(9) Where the communication of information to a person is permitted under subsection (8), nothing in this section prevents the communication of the information to a barrister or solicitor appearing before the State Commissioner for the purpose of representing the person. `(10) Where information is communicated to a person under subsection (8) or (9) or paragraph (4) (b), being information that was not given to the Commissioner of Taxation by the person and does not relate to the affairs of the person, the person shall not in any circumstances make a record of, or divulge or communicate, the information. `(11) Where information is communicated to the Attorney-General under this section: (a) the Attorney-General may communicate the information to the Commissioner of Police; (b) the Attorney-General shall not otherwise divulge or communicate the information except to a person or employee under the control of the Attorney-General for the purpose of, or in connection with, the performance by the Attorney-General of the function under paragraph (a); (c) a person who has ceased to be the Attorney-General shall not in any circumstances make a record of, or divulge or communicate, the information; and (d) a person to whom information has been communicated under paragraph (b) or this paragraph shall not: (i) while he or she is a person or employee under the control of the Attorney-General-divulge or communicate the information except to the Attorney-General, or another person or employee under the control of the Attorney-General, for the purposes of, or in connection with, the performance by the Attorney-General of the function under paragraph (a); or (ii) after he or she ceases to be such a person or employee-in any circumstances make a record of, or divulge or communicate, the information. `(12) Where information is communicated to the State Attorney-General under this section: (a) the State Attorney-General may communicate the information to the State Police Commissioner; (b) the State Attorney-General shall not otherwise divulge or communicate the information except to a person or employee under the control of the State Attorney-General for the purpose of, or in connection with, the performance by the State Attorney-General of the function under paragraph (a); (c) a person who has ceased to be the State Attorney-General shall not in any circumstances make a record of, or divulge or communicate, the information; and (d) a person to whom information has been communicated under paragraph (b) or this paragraph shall not: (i) while he or she is a person or employee under the control of the State Attorney-General-divulge or communicate the information except to the State Attorney-General, or another person or employee under the control of the State Attorney-General, for the purposes of, or in connection with, the performance by the State Attorney-General of the function under paragraph (a); or (ii) after he or she ceases to be such a person or employee-in any circumstances make a record or divulge or communicate the information. `(13) Where information is communicated to the Commissioner of Police or the State Police Commissioner under this section: (a) that Commissioner shall not divulge or communicate the information except to a person or employee under the control of that Commissioner for the purposes of, or in connection with, the performance by that person or employee of the duties of his or her office or employment; (b) a person who has ceased to be the Commissioner of Police or the State Police Commissioner, as the case may be, shall not in any circumstances make a record of, or divulge or communicate, the information; and (c) a person to whom information has been communicated by a Commissioner under paragraph (a) or this paragraph shall not: (i) while he or she is a person or employee under the control of that Commissioner-divulge or communicate the information except to that Commissioner, or another person or employee under the control of that Commissioner, for the purposes of, or in connection with, the performance by that Commissioner, of the duties of his or her office, or the performance by that person or employee of the duties of his or her office or employment, as the case may be; or (ii) after he or she ceases to be such a person or employee-in any circumstances make a record of, or divulge or communicate, the information. `(14) Where information is communicated to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Director of Prosecutions of the State of Queensland under this section: (a) that Director shall not divulge or communicate the information except to a person or employee under the control of that Director for the purposes of, or in connection with, the performance by that person or employee of the duties of his or her office or employment; (b) a person who is no longer the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Director of Prosecutions of the State of Queensland, as the case may be, shall not in any circumstances make a record of, or divulge or communicate, the information; and (c) a person to whom information has been communicated by a Director under paragraph (a) or this paragraph shall not: (i) while he or she is a person or employee under the control of that Director-divulge or communicate the information except to that Director, or to another person or employee under the control of that Director, for the purposes of, or in connection with, the performance by that Director of the duties of his or her office, or the performance by that person or employee of the duties of his or her office or employment, as the case may be; or (ii) after he or she ceases to be such a person or employee-in any circumstances make a record of, or divulge or communicate, the information. `(15) Where information is communicated to a Special Prosecutor under this section: (a) the Special Prosecutor shall not divulge or communicate the information except to a person or employee under his or her control for the purposes of, or in connection with, the performance by that person or employee of the duties of his or her office or employment; (b) a person who is no longer a Special Prosecutor shall not, in any circumstances, make a record of, or divulge or communicate, the information; and (c) a person to whom information has been communicated under paragraph (a) or this paragraph shall not: (i) while he or she is a person or employee under the control of the Special Prosecutor-divulge or communicate the information except to the Special Prosecutor, or to another person or employee under the control of the Special Prosecutor, for the purposes of, or in connection with, the performance by the Special Prosecutor of the duties of his or her office, or the performance by that other person or employee of the duties of his or her office or employment, as the case may be; or (ii) when he or she is no longer such a person or employee-in any circumstances, make a record of, or divulge or communicate, the information. `(16) In this section: (a) a reference to a person under the control of the State Commissioner includes a reference to: (i) a barrister or solicitor appointed by the State Attorney-General to assist the State Commissioner; (ii) a person assisting a barrister or solicitor so appointed; and (iii) a member of the police force of the State of Queensland assigned to the inquiry to carry out an investigation on behalf of, or under the control of, the State Commissioner; (b) a reference to a person under the control of the Attorney-General includes a reference to: (i) an officer of or a person employed in, the Attorney-General's Department; (ii) a person holding office, or employed, under an Act administered by the Attorney-General; and (iii) a person under the control of a person referred to in subparagraph (ii); and (c) a reference to a person under the control of the State Attorney-General includes a reference to: (i) an officer of, or a person employed in, the Department of Justice of the State of Queensland; (ii) a person holding office, or employed, under a law of that State administered by the State Attorney-General; and (iii) a person under the control of a person referred to in subparagraph (ii). `(17) A person to whom information has been communicated under this section shall not be required to divulge or communicate that information to any court. `(18) Where information is communicated to a person under paragraph (4) (e) or (f) or subsection (14) or (15), nothing in subsection (14) or (15) prevents: (a) the communication of the information to another person for the purposes of, or in connection with, the prosecution of a person for a tax-related offence or proceeds of crime proceedings against a person; or (b) if the information is admissible in the prosecution of a person for a tax-related offence, or in proceeds of crime proceedings against a person, the communication of the information to a court in proceedings before that court against the last-mentioned person for that offence or in those proceeds of crime proceedings, as the case may be. `(19) A person to whom information has been communicated under paragraph (18) (a) shall not make a record of, or divulge or communicate, the information except for the purposes of, or in connection with, the prosecution of a person for a tax-related offence or proceeds of crime proceedings against a person. `Penalty: $5,000 or imprisonment for 12 months, or both.'. ``PART Vb-AMENDMENT OF THE TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 Principal Act ``29c. In this Part, `Principal Act' means the Taxation Administration Act 19534b. Provision of taxation information to National Crime Authority ``29d. Section 3d of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by omitting subsection (2) and substituting the following subsection: `(2) Where: (a) information has, whether before or after the commencement of this section, been communicated to a Royal Commission under paragraph 16 (4) (k) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936; or (b) information has been communicated to the State Commissioner under section 16a of that Act; and the Royal Commission or the State Commissioner, as the case may be, is of the opinion that the information is or may be relevant to a tax-related investigation, the Royal Commission or State Commissioner may communicate the information to the Authority in spite of subsection 16 (4a) or section 16a of that Act, as the case may be.'; (b) by inserting in subsection (3) `or section 16a' after `subsection 16 (4a)'; (c) by inserting in subsection (22) the following definitions: ` ``inquiry'' means the inquiry being made by Gerald Edward Fitzgerald Q.C. under the Order in Council that was made under The Commissions of Inquiry Act of 1950 of the State of Queensland and published in the Queensland Government Gazette, on 26 May 1987, at pages 758a and 758b, being that Order in Council as amended by: (a) the Order in Council made under that Act and published in the Queensland Government Gazette, on 24 June 1987, at pages 1841a and 1841b; and (b) any other instrument, whether made before or after the commencement of this section; ``State Commissioner'' means Gerald Edward Fitzgerald Q.C., in his capacity as the person making the inquiry;'.''. (4) Page 25, after clause 46, insert the following new Parts: ``PART VIA-AMENDMENT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSIONS ACT 1902 Principal Act ``46a. In this Part, `Principal Act' means the Royal Commissions Act 19025a. ``46b. After section 7c of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: Certain evidence before a State Commission inadmissible in Commonwealth proceedings `7d. (1) In this section: ``Commissioner'' means Gerald Edward Fitzgerald Q.C., in his capacity as the person making the inquiry; ``Commonwealth proceedings'' means proceedings in a court of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory, whether instituted before or after the commencement of this section, being: (a) criminal proceedings under a law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory (other than the Northern Territory); or (b) civil proceedings instituted by, or on behalf of, the Commonwealth; ``inquiry'' means the inquiry being made by Gerald Edward Fitzgerald Q.C. under the Order in Council that was made under The Commissions of Inquiry Act of 1950 of the State of Queensland and published in the Queensland Government Gazette, on 26 May 1987, at pages 758a and 758b, being that Order in Council as amended by: (a) the Order in Council made under that Act and published in the Queensland Government Gazette, on 24 June 1987, at pages 1841a and 1841b; and (b) any other instrument, whether made before or after the commencement of this section; ``State law'' means subsection 14 (2) of The Commissions of Inquiry Act of 1950 of the State of Queensland. `(2) Where the State law would not render a statement or disclosure made by a witness in answer to a question put to the witness by or before the Commissioner inadmissible against the witness in Commonwealth proceedings, the statement or disclosure is, by force of this section, inadmissible against the witness in any such proceedings.'. ``PART VIb-AMENDMENT OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) AMENDMENT ACT 1987 Principal Act ``46c. In this Part, `Principal Act' means the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Act 19875b. Commencement ``46d. Section 2 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after subsection (1) the following subsection: `(1a) Section 5 (other than paragraph 5 (1) (b)) and sections 6 and 8 shall come into operation on the day on which the Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 1987 receives the Royal Assent.'. ``PART VIc-AMENDMENTS OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) ACT 1979 Principal Act ``46e. In this Part, `Principal Act' means the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 19795c. Interpretation ``46f. Section 5 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting `Part' from paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of `agency' in subsection (1) and substituting `Parts IIa and'. Judges ``46g. Section 6d of the Principal Act is amended by inserting in subsection (1) ``, unless the contrary intention appears'' after ``Act''. Lawfully obtained information ``46h. Section 6e of the Principal Act is amended by omitting subsection (2) and substituting the following subsection: `(2) A reference in this Act to lawfully obtained information that was originally obtained by an agency, or by an eligible authority of a State, is a reference to: (a) in any case-information obtained, whether before or after the commencement of this section, by intercepting a communication under a warrant issued to the agency or authority; or (b) in the case of the Australian Federal Police: (i) information communicated in accordance with section 65a; or (ii) information obtained, whether before or after the commencement of this section, by virtue of a warrant issued under Part IV.'. ``46j. After Part II of the Principal Act the following Part is inserted: `PART IIa-COMMUNICATING CERTAIN INFORMATION TO THE FITZGERALD INQUIRY Interpretation `8a. In this Part, unless the contrary intention appears: ``Commissioner'' means Gerald Edward Fitzgerald Q.C., in his capacity as the person making the inquiry; ``eligible information'' means information: (a) obtained by an eligible interception of a communication passing over a telecommunications system; and (b) relating to one or more of the following matters: (i) the fact that the communication passed over that system; (ii) the day on which, and the time at which, the communication passed over that system; (iii) the duration of the communication; (iv) the identity of a telecommunications service from which the communication was made; (v) the identity of a telecommunications service to which the communication was made or directed; but does not include information obtained by intercepting a conversation, or part of a conversation, being a conversation or part constituting all or part of the communication; ``eligible interception'' means an interception: (a) otherwise than in contravention of subsection 7 (1) and whether before or after the commencement of this Part; or (b) in contravention of subsection 7 (1) and before the commencement of this Part; of a communication passing over a telecommunications system; ``inquiry'' means the inquiry being made by Gerald Edward Fitzgerald Q.C. under the Order in Council that was made under The Commissions of Inquiry Act of 1950 of the State of Queensland and published in the Queensland Government Gazette, on 26 May 1987, at pages 758A and 758B, being that Order in Council as amended by: (a) the Order in Council made under that Act and published in the Queensland Government Gazette, on 24 June 1987, at pages 1841A and 1841B; and (b) any other instrument, whether made before or after the commencement of this Part. Communicating information to the Commissioner `8B. A person may, for a purpose connected with the inquiry, or for 2 or more such purposes, and for no other purpose, communicate eligible information to, or give eligible information in evidence before, the Commissioner. Further dealing by the Commissioner for purposes of the inquiry `8C. (1) The Commissioner may, for a purpose connected with the inquiry, or for 2 or more such purposes, and for no other purpose, communicate to a person, make use of, or make a record of, eligible information. `(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the Commissioner may include eligible information in any report about the inquiry and, if he does so, subsection 7 (4) does not apply in relation to the contents of the report or of any part of it. Commissioner may communicate certain information to law enforcement agencies `8d. The Commissioner may, personally, or by a person authorised by him, communicate eligible information that was communicated to, or given in evidence before, the Commissioner under section 8b: (a) if the information relates, or appears to relate, to the commission of a relevant offence in relation to an agency: (i) if the agency is the Australian Federal Police or the Police Force of a State-to a member of the Australian Federal Police or an officer of that Police Force, as the case may be; or (ii) in any other case-to the chief officer of the agency; (b) if the information relates, or appears to relate, to: (i) the subject matter of a proceeding under a law of the Commonwealth for the confiscation or forfeiture of property, or for the imposition of a pecuniary penalty, in connection with the commission of a prescribed offence; (ii) an act or omission by a member of the Australian Federal Police that may give rise to a proceeding against that member, or to which a proceeding against that member relates, being a police disciplinary proceeding; or (iii) misbehaviour or improper conduct of an officer of the Commonwealth; to the Commissioner of Police; and (c) if the information relates, or appears to relate, to: (i) the subject matter of a proceeding under a law of a State for the confiscation or forfeiture of property, or for the imposition of a pecuniary penalty, in connection with the commission of a prescribed offence; (ii) an act or omission by an officer of the Police Force of a State that may give rise to a proceeding against that officer, or to which a proceeding against that officer relates, being a police disciplinary proceeding; or (iii) misbehaviour or improper conduct of an officer of a State; to the Commissioner of the Police Force of that State. Making record for purpose of permitted communication `8e. A person whom section 8b or 8d permits to communicate particular information to another person may, for the purpose of so communicating the information in accordance with that section, make a record of the information, or cause such a record to be made. Further dealing for permitted purpose in relation to agency `8f. An officer of an agency may, for a permitted purpose, or permitted purposes, in relation to the agency, and for no other purpose, communicate to another person, make use of, or make a record of, eligible information that the Commissioner has, in accordance with section 8d, communicated to an officer of that agency. Further dealing by recipient under section 8c or 8f `8g. A person to whom information has, in accordance with subsection 8c (1), section 8f or this section, been communicated for a purpose, or for 2 or more purposes, may, for that purpose, or for one or more of those purposes, and for no other purpose, communicate to another person, make use of, or make a record of, that information. Giving certain information in evidence in an exempt proceeding `8h. (1) Where a person has communicated eligible information to, or given eligible information in evidence before, the Commissioner under section 8b, the person, or any other person, may give the information in evidence in an exempt proceeding, whether begun before or after the commencement of this Part. `(2) For the purposes of applying subsection (1) in relation to information, the question whether or not a communication was intercepted in contravention of subsection 7 (1) may be determined on the balance of probabilities. Effect of this Part `8j. This Part has effect notwithstanding subsection 7 (4).'. Further dealing by the Commissioner for purposes of the inquiry ``46k. Section 8c of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from subsection (2) `subsection 7 (4)' and substituting `section 63'. Effect of this Part ``46l. Section 8j of the Principal Act is amended by omitting `subsection 7 (4)' and substituting `section 63'. ``46m. After section 63 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: Dealing in connection with existing proceeding `63a. (1) A person may: (a) for a purpose connected with a proceeding begun before the commencement of this Part, or for 2 or more such purposes, and for no other purpose, communicate to another person, make use of, or make a record of; or (b) give in evidence in such a proceeding; information: (c) obtained by intercepting a communication before that commencement, whether or not in contravention of subsection 7 (1); or (d) obtained, before that commencement, by virtue of a warrant issued under section 11 or 11a or Part IV. `(2) For the purposes of this section, a proceeding by way of a prosecution of a person on indictment for an offence shall be deemed to have begun before the commencement of this Part if a proceeding with a view to the committal of the person for trial for the offence began before that commencement. `(3) For the purposes of this section, a proceeding by way of an appeal from, or otherwise arising out of, another proceeding shall be deemed to have begun before the commencement of this Part if the other proceeding began, or by virtue of any other application or applications of this section is deemed to have begun, before that commencement.'. ``46n. After section 65 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: Commission may communicate to Australian Federal Police `65a. An officer of the Commission may, for a purpose connected with the investigation by the Australian Federal Police of a serious offence, or for 2 or more such purposes, and for no other purpose, communicate to a member of the Australian Federal Police lawfully obtained information other than section 11a information.'. Making record for purpose of permitted communication ``46p. Section 72 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting `or 65a' after `65'. Further dealing by recipient under section 63a, 67 or 71 ``46q. Section 73 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting `63a or' before `67'. Intercepted material inadmissible except as provided ``46r. Section 77 of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by omitting from paragraph (1) (a) `unless section' and substituting `except in so far as section 8h, 63a,'; (b) by omitting from paragraph (1) (b) `whether or not section' and substituting `the extent (if any) to which section 8h, 63a,'; and (c) by inserting in subsection (2) `63a or' before `74'. Where evidence otherwise inadmissible ``46s. Section 78 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting `Part IIa or in' after `Nothing in'.''. (5) Page 1, title, after ``proceeds of crime'' insert ``, dealing with information obtained by intercepting telecommunications, the Fitzgerald inquiry,''. (1) Page 2, clause 5, line 34, leave out ``, at a sittings of the Court in the Territory,''. (2) Page 3, clause 5, after proposed subsection 11aa (2) insert the following subsections: `` ` (2a) The Supreme Court may make an order under subsection (2) at a sittings of the Court in the Territory or in a State. ` (2b) The Supreme Court may make an order under subsection (2) at a sittings of the Court in a State whether or not the accused is present but, if the accused is not present, the Court shall only make the order if: (a) the accused is represented; and (b) the Court is satisfied that the accused understands the effect of the order.''. I table two explanatory memoranda to the amendments. I also seek leave to have two explanatory statements incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statements read as follows- The Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct in Queensland has sought the urgent assistance of the Commonwealth in a number of areas. The Government believes that there is a genuine public interest, including from a Commonwealth perspective in the fight against organized crime, in the Commonwealth providing all the assistance it properly can to the Fitzgerald Commission. The inquiry involves the integrity of a State Police Force that is involved, in conjunction with police forces of the Commonwealth, the other States and the Northern Territory in a number of common police services including the ABCI. The NCA has also had to rely on the services of the Queensland Police Force. Accordingly the Commonwealth has a real interest in ensuring that the Inquiry is not impeded. The amendments which I propose to move on behalf of the Government, which were foreshadowed by the Minister for Justice on 24 November, will allow the Commonwealth to provide the assistance sought by the Fitzgerald Commission. Parts VA and VB amend taxation laws to enable the Fitzgerald Commission to have access to taxation information on the same basis, and subject to the same restrictions on further disclosure of the information that applies to taxation information disclosed to a Commonwealth Royal Commission, with the exception that the Commissioner may disclose the information to State law enforcement agencies as well as to Commonwealth agencies and the information may be used in evidence in certain proceedings to restrain dealings in, and confiscate, proceeds of crime under State and Commonwealth law. Part VIA amends the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to insert a new section 7D which prevents answers given by a witness to the Fitzgerald Commission from being used in evidence against the witness in Commonwealth criminal or civil proceedings. The Act already prevents the use of evidence given before a Commonwealth Royal Commission in subsequent civil or criminal proceedings. The Queensland Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950 also precludes the use of evidence given before a Commission in subsequent civil or criminal proceedings. The Commonwealth provision is intended to supplement the Queensland provisions in relation to Commonwealth proceedings to ensure that persons cannot refuse to answer questions before the Commission on the basis of inadequate protection against self-incrimination. Part VIB and VIC amend telecommunications interception legislation 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. The amendments will also enable the Australian Federal Police to continue to be able to obtain information obtained as a result of lawful interceptions, for a purpose connected with the investigation of serious offences. Under the Act as it now stands, this information is available to the AFP. As foreshadowed by the Minister for Justice on 5 November in his concluding remarks when introducing this Bill, further amendments being made to the Act will enable evidence to be given, in proceedings begun before the commencement of section 21 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Act 1987, of information obtained by interceptions carried out before the commencement of that section whether or not in contravention of the Act. These amendments will not affect a court's discretion whether or not to admit illegally obtained evidence. I present a supplementary Explanatory Memorandum and Commend the amendments to the Senate. As a consequence of the decision of His Honour Mr Justice Gallop on 16 November 1987 not to proceed with the trial of two persons charged with murder on Christmas Island but, when legislation permits, to remove the trial to the mainland, the Government considers it expedient to amend the Bill now before the Parliament to enable His Honour to make such an order at a sitting of the Court on the mainland. Proposed new section 11aa (2) would require the Court to sit on Christmas Island for the sole purpose of ordering the removal of the trial. There is no legal mechanism for the accused to be brought to the mainland for the purpose of ordering the removal of the trial. Legal representatives of both accused have made formal applications to the Court for the removal of the trial. In the circumstances as they have developed, the most appropriate course is to amend the Bill to enable the orders to be made without the need for the Judge and all persons associated with the trial to return to Christmas Island. I present a supplementary Explanatory Memorandum and commend the amendments to the Senate. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(6.27) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 1, amendment (1), after ``VB'', insert ``, VI (other than section 43)''. (2) Page 1, amendment (1), after ``VIA'', insert ``and Schedule 4''. (3) Page 15, amendment (4), proposed new clause 46m, proposed new section 63a, after subsection (1), insert the following subsection: ``(1a) Nothing in subsection (1) makes admissible in evidence in any proceedings information, obtained by virtue of a warrant that was defective, that would not have been admissible in those proceedings if that subsection had not been enacted.''. The first two amendments relate essentially to the same subject-matter. Our concern is to ensure that the date of operation of amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act is not retrospective, but will come into effect at the time of the passage of this legislation-not dated back to June this year. Our concern in relation to the third amendment is that as the telecommunications interception amendments now stand, the Government has embarked upon an exercise which would hereafter ensure that only phone taps that complied with the Telecommunications (Interception) Act were legal and that any defect would render evidence obtained, as a result, inadmissible. But the Government wants to backdate the matter to the extent of allowing information that has been obtained illegally prior to the enactment of this Bill to be relied upon. We do not accept that proposition. We have moved our amendment on the basis that we want to preserve the common law rights of those persons who might have had rights of acquittal. We therefore believe that this wording will achieve that objective. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(6.29) —I indicate that Senator Alston's Opposition amendments are acceptable to the Government. The CHAIRMAN —The question is that Senator Alston's amendments be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. The CHAIRMAN —The question now is that Senator Evans's amendments, as amended, be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Amendment (by Senator Alston) agreed to: Page 2, leave out subclause 2 (3). Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(8.01) —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- On 24 February last the Attorney-General advised the Parliament that where there is evidence of serious war crimes being committed during World War 2 and there being no punishment of the offenders, then the Government has a duty to ensure that justice is done. No matter how long since the events in question have passed. Accordingly, this Bill is designed to ensure that any serious criminal activities committed in the course of World War 2, the commission of which is established beyond a reasonable doubt, by persons who are now residents or citizens of Australia, will not go unpunished. The Bill is confined in its operation to the period of hostilities known as World War 2 and provides that certain criminal acts done during that period, whether in or out of Australia, which were during that period offences under a law in a part of Australia, are serious crimes for the purposes of the Bill. It goes on to provide that where a serious crime was committed in the course of the hostilities, in the course of an occupation of territory or, more generally, for the purposes of the war, then, subject to certain exceptions it is a war crime punishable under the Bill by prosecution in an Australian court. The scheme therefore involves the hypothetical transfer of the act alleged to constitute the offence from outside Australia to some part of Australia. Most of the serious offences described in the Bill are such as are to be found in all Australian jurisdictions, so that it will not be possible for an offence to exist in relation to one jurisdiction but not another. However, deportation and internment in death camps and slave labour camps are serious crimes by virtue of an express provision to that effect. A serious crime will also be a war crime if committed in the course of political, racial or religious persecution or with intent to destroy, wholly or partially, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. The types of crimes which will always be of concern, no matter how long ago they were committed, include participation in police or so-called `security units', whether or not German controlled, which deported, ill-treated or murdered persons on racial or political grounds; and participation as guards or administrators in German-established death camps or similar places at which large numbers of persons were murdered or ill-treated. The involvement of secondary parties in such activity either by attempting, aiding or abetting, or by being knowingly involved in the activity, is also addressed in the Bill. The exemption provided under sub-section 7 (2) will exclude the operation of the provision with respect to secondary parties whose involvement is incidental or remote. The provisions concerning deportation to and internment in death camps and slave labour camps reflect the Government's concern that the Bill should extend to persons in national or local puppet Governments under Nazi direction at an executive level who had direct responsibility for the deportation, ill-treatment or murder of persons on racial or political grounds. The intention is to address crimes committed during the war at the `municipal' level, involving Nazi-controlled or influenced national or local puppet Governments, or persons acting pursuant to, for example, an anti-semitic policy, or on behalf of a puppet regime. A war crime is to be an indictable offence if committed within the relevant period, irrespective of whether it was committed inside or outside Australia or whether it was committed by a person acting as an individual or as a member of an organisation. The words `member of an organisation' are intended to preclude a person distributing blame away from himself or herself by virtue of membership alone. In the interest of justices and impartiality, the Bill makes no special provision in relation to persons who will be liable under it (beyond requiring residency or citizenship) or in relation to the standards and procedures adopted in dealing with alleged offences. No distinction is drawn, for example, between members of the Allied or Axis forces, or between persons of different races or origin. Consistent with the Government's even-handed policy, the Bill applies to any person who commits a war crime as defined. Lest there be any confusion, the Bill specifically provides a defence where the act alleged to constitute the offence was permitted by the laws of war and was not under international law, a crime against humanity. Although the Bill deals with events occurring over 45 years ago, no special provision has been made with a view to changing the normal rules governing evidence and procedure (including the operation of procedures under the Evidence Act 1905 for the obtaining of evidence overseas in criminal cases). Trials will be conducted in the ordinary courts of the States and internal Territories and, as in all criminal cases, the presumption of innocence will have full force and effect. Any evidence sought to be adduced can be fully tested by defence counsel. The question of weight to be attached to any evidence will be a matter for the trial jury and the Government has complete confidence in the ability of our courts and the jury system to deal fairly and responsibly with such matters. No person will be deported to any country on the basis of a simple allegation that the person has committed a war crime. Australia must, of course, honour its obligations under extradition treaties but the intention is that Australian citizens and residents accused of war crimes be dealt with in this country and this course is open under the treaties. Customary International Law recognises the acts or omissions addressed in the Bill as war crimes. It has long provided for criminal responsibility to be imposed on persons committing the acts or omissions dealt with by the Bill, and for their punishment. The Bill therefore extends to Australian courts jurisdiction to try and punish crimes recognised at international law as war crimes. The Bill does not create offences retrospectively-the offences described in the Bill have existed for many years and many of them are cognizable by military courts under the War Crimes Act as it presently stands. As I have explained, the basic scheme contained in the Bill for the prosecution of persons alleged to have committed war crimes during World War 2 involves selecting the most serious criminal acts encompassed within international law relating to war crimes and making them triable in our criminal courts in accordance with the normal rules, procedures and standards applying to our criminal trials. The Government believes that this approach provides the most comprehensive and efficacious answer yet devised anywhere in the world to the difficulties of prosecuting alleged war criminals in a jurisdiction other than that of the place where the alleged crimes were committed. I commend the Bill to the Senate. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had made the amendment requested by the Senate to this Bill. Ordered that the message be considered forthwith. Bill (on motion by Senator Robert Ray) read a third time. Consideration resumed. GROUP E Department of Administrative Services Proposed expenditure, $1,355,369,000 Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(8.03) —Prior to the interruption of this debate for the passage of a fairly urgent Bill, Senator Michael Baume raised a few questions in terms of demarcation disputes at the new Parliament House site. I have been given the following information: There are no union membership problems with operation and maintenance staff. We think Senator Baume may be referring to the security staff. Twenty parliamentary security staff are now on site. Of those, 16 were members of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia, four were members of the Australian Public Service Association and four became members of the Miscellaneous Workers Union in order to be allowed on site. I am informed that they did this of their own volition. I understand that they also chose to remain members of the APSA. No one encourages demarcation disputes of any nature, and that is why in the broad and the long term we are trying to bring about as many union amalgamations as possible. We are also in a situation of uncertainty as to when the status of the site is to be transferred from a building site to a parliamentary site. These sorts of problems sometimes interrupt us. I hope that that answers at least the first series of questions. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(8.04) —While thanking the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) for his answer, I must express my regret that the sort of pressure that was brought to bear on these members of the Australian Public Service Association was sufficiently strong to force them to join a second union when there seems to have been no moral or legal requirement that they do so. I take the Minister's point that one would rather have a quiet life in these matters. I certainly do not want to ferment a major issue about this. All I want to say is that I think it is very bad indeed that this principle has been allowed to triumph. I think it is wrong that one union has been able effectively to force members of another union to become members of two unions when they are doing exactly the same job at the new Parliament House site as they were doing here in the security area. I must say that I am glad that cool heads have avoided what otherwise could have been a difficult industrial situation. It seems to me that something should be done, particularly in the context of what I understand to be a Conciliation and Arbitration Commissioner's determination that it is wrong to require a member of one union to join another simply because of a move in that person's place of work while he is doing exactly the same job. It seems to be an incredibly bad principle which, unfortunately, has been allowed to triumph. I just hope that the Parliament itself, the Parliament House Construction Authority or whoever is responsible for the employees concerned-I understand that they are employees of the Joint House Department-have had no part in this situation. Dealing with union power on that site, I now turn to the response to the following question asked by Senator Parer: What would be the total cost, direct and indirect, of those people? That is, the union delegates on the Parliament House site. The written answer to that, which we received recently, said: Part of the site agreement reached in May 1984- the site agreement which cost the employer, in other words, the Australian taxpayer, a fair amount of money, because there were benefits to the unions along with responsibilities to the unions- covered the provision of full time union delegates for the site at a ratio of 1 delegate to cover approximately 250 workers, to a maximum of 8 full time paid delegates. The number of paid full time delegates has varied in accordance with numbers of workers and contractors on site. Currently there are the equivalent of 7.5 paid full time delegates. This is the bit that interests me: The direct cost is $850 per week per delegate, to a maximum of $353,600 per annum. That means that current expenditure is about $330,000 per annum. That is, the employers are paying the wages of union delegates who do not, as I understand it, do normal work; they do union work. The reply continues: While there are no indirect costs, there are indirect savings. These result from the structure which channels potential disputes from shop stewards to delegates, thereby enabling the resolution of issues before they can escalate. We will deal with whether or not they have escalated in a minute. The point I would like to make is in the context of a recent Willesee program in which a union official who operates on that site was given a series of free kicks at me and in which my responses were edited out. For interest's sake I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that $850 a week works out at about $44,200 a year, slightly less than a member of this place earns as his salary. Maybe this is an appropriate judgment on the relative merits of parliamentarians as against union delegates whose wages are paid for by the employer-in other words, the Australian public-or maybe it suggests a lot of other things, such as that parliamentarians' salaries are inadequate compared to the cost of such a delegate. If that delegate works the award hours he is being paid at roughly twice the hourly rate of most members of this chamber-and he is being paid that by the people of Australia. If I have a touch of resentment about it I guess it shows a human frailty but I find it objectionable that union delegates or union representatives on that site have the hide to complain about the wages of parliamentarians. There are eight of them with a direct cost of $850 a week or, as I said, an annual rate of $44,200 each, I think it works out at. I have to have reservations about the way the system has worked. The site agreement in 1984 was aimed at creating a set of rules within which the building was supposed to be built and the unions were supposed to behave. In Senate Estimates Committee E, I asked whether it was possible to give an indication of the extent to which the list of disputes given to Senator Margaret Reid involved disputes that were contrary to the spirit of the November 1983 arrangement which then became the 1984 terms of employment. The answer was that the site agreement was formally settled in May 1984 and the majority of disputes recorded on site involved industry-wide stoppages and thus were outside the agreement. Of the disputes that were confined to the new Parliament House site only, many related to the Builders Labourers Federation (BLF) efforts to maintain its ascendancy and were outside the spirit of the agreement. A list was provided of the disputes confined to the new Parliament House site assessed as being outside the spirit of the 1984 agreement. I will quickly rip through the list as it is fairly long. As was explained, back in September 1985 the stoppages basically involved the BLF. In fact, in each month listed until May 1986 all the disputes involved the BLF. For example, one was a stoppage in support of Australian Capital Territory nurses. In view of the current dispute in a nursing home in Canberra it is probably just as well that the BLF is not still on site. In May 1986 there was an Electrical Trades Union (ETU) ban concerning temporary power, which was claimed to be a safety issue. In June 1986 there were miscellaneous minor disputes. In July 1986 there were ETU bans on non-ticketed apprentices. There was a plumbers and gasfitters union strike on subcontracting. There was an ETU and Operative Painters and Decorators Union stoppage on contractual agreements. The answer noted that this period coincided with BLF deregistration with many unions vying to fill the perceived gap in the industry. Then there were ETU and Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association stoppages, a sprinkler fitters dispute, an all union stoppage, an ETU stoppage, another ETU stoppage and so on. Senator Parer had also asked whether the Authority could provide a list of any stoppages resulting from health and safety issues. In this period we have had only six stoppages which have related to health and safety issues. In other words, all these other disputes we have been looking at were clearly breaching the agreement. Apart from the question of whether these health and safety issues were genuine-I am in no position to be able to judge that-what concerns me immensely is that there has been a clear cost to the construction of this building emerging out of industrial disputation which was an uncomplicated and unquestionable breach of arrangements made. There appears to be no capacity to impose any kind of sanction and apparently no penalties were involved in breaching this kind of agreement. The Minister may be able to assist me in this. In other words, the unions get the benefit of the deal but do not have to put up with its inconvenience if it involves restraint on their industrial action. The list I have read from seems to indicate that apart from the BLF there have been unions that have been prepared to have industrial disputation in the face of that commitment. I do not know whether that is above the normal sort of thing one expects at building sites where this kind of deal has been reached. However, I think the public ought to be aware, since it is paying the bill, of this problem. I would like to raise one other question. We dealt earlier with another disagreement between the Auditor-General and the Parliament House Construction Authority on its annual report. We heard that we would not be getting that report until at least February. Could we be told whether this is a major or a minor dispute? What is the substance of the dispute and how far is it from resolution? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(8.16) —I think Senator Michael Baume raised three matters. On the last one, the dispute has not been resolved yet. I think it should be noted for the record that the agreement to appoint those full time union officials was a site agreement ratified by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. If the honourable senator asks me whether I think that in general in an ideal world that is a practice I would like to encourage the answer is no. Senator Baume compared the hours he puts in and his disposable income with those of the union officials. He will be very pleased to know that I will try to use my influence through the union movement to get him appointed to one of those full time jobs at the site. Senator Michael Baume —Thank you. Senator ROBERT RAY —I knew he would be pleased that I was looking after his interests. I am not going to comment on parliamentary salaries here; I never do publicly. On the middle matter Senator Baume raised about why there were so many disputes when there was a site agreement that said there would be no disputes, there are always exceptions, such as safety issues, et cetera. On the whole, the industrial record on the site is no worse than on any other major site. That does not say that it is ideal. It is an area that this Government initially tackled to get some of the industrial practices out of the system by taking on the Builders Labourers Federation in the way that we did. But the building industry and the building industry unions are still going through a state of flux, of amalgamation and other disputes, some of which have been resolved very strongly this week. We may see a settling down period now that both sides in the building industry are not trying to outdo each other to prove how militant they are so they can win a union election. Things may settle down. I am not in any way suggesting that the Building Workers Industrial Union will be a tame cat union or one that does not look after the interests of its members but it will not have to compete so strongly with what it sees as another force within that union sphere. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Attorney-General's Department Proposed expenditure, $419,525,000 Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(8.19) —Madam Temporary Chairman, we indicated before that even though the proposed expenditure for the Attorney-General's Department had been passed-I will not say through the delinquency of the Opposition, but somehow it did slip through-we would come back to it temporarily. There are a few questions. I am not sure how well this will work because I am not sure even whether we have some assistance here. That is one of the things that may not have been followed through. We intend then to move to Group F. I do not know how we do that procedurally. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Zakharov) —Is leave granted for the votes of the Attorney-General's Department to be reconsidered? Leave granted. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.20) —The inquiry into the Tasmanian Lemonthyme and Southern Forests has handed down the first of its reports. Can the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) tell me when we are likely to see that report? It must be tabled in the Federal Parliament within 15 sitting days of its reaching the Government. I am not sure how many days have elapsed, but we know that it has been in the Government's hands for some time. Can the Minister tell me when it will be tabled? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(8.21) —The responsibility for tabling what Senator Walters has asked for does not lie with the Attorney-General's Department; it lies with another department. Normally, that would be infinitely bad news for Senator Walters, because we have probably already covered that department. She has picked up that fact straight away. She is much too quick for me. The Department which covers environmental matters will be considered soon and she will be able to ask the officials and the responsible Minister in that area. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.21) —Can the Minister tell me whether an advertising agent has been engaged by the Government to promote the proposed constitutional changes next year? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(8.22) —The Constitutional Commission has a public relations firm working for it at the moment. I do not have any information about a specific advertising campaign. As Senator Walters would know, if a direct constitutional amendment is put, there are fairly strict limits on how the matter can be advertised one way or the other. The firm that is doing the main work is Hill and Knowlton (Aust.) Pty Ltd. It was appointed as a public relations consultant to the Commission from 3 April 1987, initially until June 1987. The appointment now extends to June 1988. This firm has been engaged to assist the Commission with the promotion of the Commission's activities until the final report is presented to the Government in 1988. The Commission has budgeted $266,000 for public relations consultants costs, including disbursements, in the 1987-88 financial year. The remuneration is for services rendered rather than on a retainer basis. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.23) —Does that public relations activity promote the proposed constitutional changes put forward by the Commission? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(8.23) —I am informed that it promotes the work of the Commission rather than the changes the Commission is suggesting. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.23) —There is a very big difference. Does it include promoting the constitutional changes that are proposed by the Commission? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(8.24) —The specific answer is no, that is not what it is charged to do, nor is it asked to do that. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.24) —So it does not talk about the proposed changes; it just talks about the role of the Commission, how the Commission is set up, why it is set up, et cetera. I cannot see why a public relations exercise would continue until June 1988 if it is not actually promoting the findings of the Constitutional Commission. The Minister might like to elaborate on that point for me. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(8.25) —I can see the point that Senator Walters is getting at. Its job is to promote the reports of the Commission, the workings of the Commission. When a report comes out, it promotes the report. It does not argue one way or the other whether the conclusions are valid or invalid. It is purely aimed at that end and is being retained until June 1988 because that is when the final report of the Commission is due. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.25) —I understand that, because if it were just promoting the report of the Commission, it would hardly give the cons; it would give only the pros. So it promotes the constitutional changes that are suggested. Can the Minister tell me whether Hill and Knowlton is a subsidiary of J. Walter Thompson, an American advertising agency? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(8.26) —I do not have any information on that point. I will take it on notice and get someone from the Department to respond directly to Senator Walters on that matter. I do not have a great knowledge of public relations firms, in any event. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.26) —If it is a subsidiary of an American advertising agency, I would ask further questions. I would ask the Minister why we had engaged that firm in preference to an Australian agency. Naturally, that would be the question that I would ask. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(8.26) —I understand that it was chosen from five or six firms that were asked to submit applications. I do not know whether the premise on which Senator Walters's question is based is true or false. She then asked me to comment on it. That puts me in an invidious position. In general, one would much prefer contracts to go to Australian firms. I would never have that as an absolute policy, incidentally, but certainly a preferable result would be that that should occur. One cannot close the market entirely to any competition from overseas. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.27) —How will the Government decide what proposals of the Constitutional Commission will be put to a referendum? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(8.27) —No doubt in due course the Government will set up an interdepartmental committee, which will gain a range of views. The Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, will draw up a submission in the normal fashion, which will go to Cabinet. It will probably go first to the administrative committee of Cabinet, then to the legislative committee of Cabinet, then it will go to Cabinet. It will then be adopted in principle. The necessary legislation will be drawn up. It will go to the legislative committee of Cabinet and then to Cabinet. It will then go to the Australian Labor Party Caucus committee. It will then go to Caucus. It will then be introduced in the House of Representatives, where it will be passed, and it will then enter the realm of the unknown-a place called the Senate. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(8.28) —I wish to continue the line that Senator Walters has been following. Can the Minister or his advisers tell me anything of the personalities of the directors or proprietors of the consultancy firm? Who are the people who are actually running it? Senator Short —Bob Cotton. Senator NEWMAN —No, the working people. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(8.29) —The officer has given me some information, but as to the personalities-- Senator Newman —If I said personalities, I am sorry; I meant the persons. Senator REYNOLDS —The Commission has been working with the firm. To find out more detail, we would have to take the question on notice and reply to Senator Newman directly. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania (8.29) —Senator Walters asked some questions in this area that I was planning to ask. Was this consultancy arranged through the Department of Administrative Services? Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(8.30) —No. It is a perfectly normal procedure for consultancies to be arranged direct, as long as the guidelines that have been set down are followed. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(8.30) —Is it not so-and this was my understanding-that the Department of Finance guidelines require them to be arranged through the Department of Administrative Services? Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(8.30) —Apparently that is not so for consultancies. It may be so in other contract areas. The honourable senator is correct. But for consultancies, that is not necessarily so. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(8.31) —I stand corrected then. Is it the required practice, then, when advertising is being arranged, that the body concerned go through the Department of Administrative Services which I understand has a central advertising body? Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government (8.31) —I am advised that this is not a standard advertising procedure. It is a public relations procedure because the selected agency is advising the Constitutional Commission. But it is not a standard advertising procedure. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(8.32) —I thank the Minister. However, I refer her to answers which we were given during hearings of the Estimates Committee that an additional estimate of $70,000 was sought and approved and was spent for the most part in publicising preparations for the launches of advisory committee reports and in the advertising of the hearings and work associated with those hearings of the five advisory committees of the Constitutional Commission. If that is not advertising as most of us would define it, I fail to understand what advertising is. Therefore, I ask again: was this consultant, or advertising agency, or advertising work, arranged through the Department of Administrative Services? If it was not, was this not in breach of the guidelines of the Department of Finance? Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(8.33) —Under the circumstances, I think it would be preferable for us to take these questions on notice. I am here this evening in a representative capacity and I am finding it a little difficult to differentiate between some of the points that are being made. If Senator Newman finds it acceptable, I will get the officer concerned to provide direct answers to her this evening, if necessary, in order to clarify the points about when advertising is public relations and when it is not public relations. Given the semantics involved, it might be preferable if this were put in writing. I will undertake to do that. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(8.34) —I am nearly finished this line of questioning. I thank the Minister. It is rather sad that she is in a representative capacity because earlier today, having asked these self-same questions of Minister Ray when the estimates of the Department of Administrative Services were before the Committee, I was told that my questions would be more properly asked of the Attorney-General's Department. So I feel a bit between the devil and the deep blue sea. I hope that the Attorney-General's Department, which carries responsibility for the Constitutional Commission, will be able to be the final source of wisdom for the Committee. Just taking this line of questioning to its conclusion, I draw attention to the booklet published by the Constitutional Commission called Australia's Constitution: Time to Update. This booklet was not published by the Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS). I am advised that it cost $52,406 for the printing of 100,000 copies. I understand that it is to be distributed to laymen, to citizens around the countryside. It is full of cute little cartoons designed to convince us that constitutional change is not only desirable but an absolute necessity. The front page of the booklet contains a quotation from Professor Hughes which sets our minds at rest as to the desirability of constitutional change. Readers are convinced before they open the booklet that that is what we should be aiming for. But that is by the by-no doubt that is my personal prejudice. Did anybody in the Attorney-General's Department authorise the Constitutional Commission to go outside the Government guidelines to have such a booklet printed by somebody other than the Australian Government Publishing Service? Did the Constitutional Commission take it upon itself to do this? Who makes these decisions? Are not public moneys being used to publish this booklet? Why was this money spent in a manner which is not presumably acceptable to the Government-namely, through the AGPS? Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(8.36) —Senator Newman talks about being between the devil and the deep blue sea. I hope that she does not see me as the devil. I am advised that that question also will have to be taken on notice. Given that we are working in a very tight timeframe, I have asked the officer present whether these answers can be provided for the honourable senator as quickly as possible this evening. I think this would be probably the most satisfactory arrangement from her point of view. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(8.37) —I thank the Minister. I want to point out that I am not being purely pedantic in this matter. Bodies which have to go through the Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS) are those administered under the Public Service Act or those which enter into agreements with the AGPS. Given that the Constitutional Commission is made up of a group of persons, eminent or otherwise, who are not government employees as such, I would imagine that it could consider itself as an independent body. But the Commission comes under the authority, the direction, the administrative support or whatever-under the vote, anyway-of the Attorney-General's Department. I feel that possibly this is a grey area, just as is the question of using consultants for advertising and publicity. Can these sorts of bodies just do what they like? Just where are they accountable? I, for one, do not like the way in which the Constitutional Commission is spending its money. I would like to see it more accountable to this Committee. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(8.38) —I would like to take this opportunity to support the work of the Constitutional Commission. I think many Australians would support the view that the bicentenary year is an appropriate time for Australians to consider their Constitution and to look at our future constitutional needs. I think the work that the Constitutional Commission has done to date has been very appropriate, given that we are approaching the bicentenary year. What I find particularly impressive about the work of the Commission to date is the way in which it has communicated so very effectively its brief to the people of Australia. I appreciate that Senator Newman is concerned about accountability, and that is a separate issue. The Constitutional Commission has gone out of its way to be accessible, to communicate what it is doing and to seek the views of the Australian people. I think that this is a very democratic approach. One can go to almost any Government office and have access to a number of the very publications produced by bodies of the kind which Senator Newman is querying in terms of accountability. The officers present have indicated that they will have to take on notice the questions that Senator Newman has raised about the Attorney-General's Department being fully accountable. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(8.40) —I ask the Minister whether the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has moved entirely and now fully occupies the 11 floors which remained vacant, I believe, for the better part of 18 months in a building in William Street, Sydney, to which the Commission was supposed to have moved. What was the reason for the delay and what action should be taken to prevent this kind of extra- ordinary waste in terms of dead rent? I believe that something like $4m was paid for empty space. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(8.41) —I am advised that that question will have to be referred to the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, who is the Minister responsible. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(8.41) —I have a few brief questions relating to the Government's decision to close the Launceston office of the Australian Federal Police. Can the Minister tell us where the five staff are to be relocated, when the relocation is due for completion, and the actual date of closure of the office. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(8.42) —Senator Tate made his views on the decision well known in the chamber yesterday, I think. He said that it was a question of priority resource allocation in terms of the Australian Federal Police and that he totally supported the AFP in giving priority to the most important issue of crime prevention on a national basis. I am advised by the officer present that the specific questions raised by the honourable senator will have to be referred to the Australian Federal Police because we do not have those details in relation to the estimates. Senator Watson —Can you get those details for me? Senator REYNOLDS —We will undertake to get them tonight. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(8.43) —I want to spend a couple of minutes not so much asking questions but bringing to the Committee's attention a very important matter which came up in the consideration of the estimates for the Attorney-General's Department regarding the National Companies and Securities Commission (NCSC). I bring it to the Committee's attention particularly in view of the fall in the stock market and the other issues in terms of stockbroking firms and other financial institutions that that has occasioned. It was revealed in the consideration of the estimates of the NCSC, as Estimates Committee E reported to this chamber, that because of a high staff turnover the Commission was unable to undertake certain areas of surveillance within its statutory responsibilities. It was brought to the attention of Estimates Committee E that in the 1986 calendar year there was a staff turnover rate of 32 per cent. To date, there has been a separation rate in the 1987 calendar year, on a full year basis, of 36 per cent. The resignation rate among professional staff in the first 10 months of 1987 was running at an annual rate of 39 per cent. The Executive Director of the NCSC, Mr Schoer, said when he appeared before the Estimates Committee that the turnover was causing quite serious problems in terms of the efficiency of the Commission and that senior personnel were required to spend more time on recruiting and training, causing deficiencies in the implementation of the Commission's legislative responsibilities. He also said: Because of the loss of staff, frequently some of the branches that do the processing would be operating with a third or half of their staff resources which means we simply have to make decisions not to undertake certain areas of surveillance. That serious problem has been brought to our attention as we move into the uncertain months ahead in terms of our economic and related circumstances. Given the critical importance of confidence in the stability of our financial institutions, I ask the Minister to convey to the Government the concern on this side of the chamber that all necessary steps are taken in terms of the resources available to the NCSC to enable it to fulfil its statutory role, because that is a role of very considerable importance to us all in the future. It would be an enormous indictment on the Government if things went wrong in our financial securities industry because of an unwillingness on the part of the Government adequately to fund and source the NCSC. GROUP F Department of Social Security Proposed expenditure-$623,707,000-agreed to. Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories Proposed expenditure, $958,593,000 Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(8.48) —I notice that the Minister for Local Government has no advisers present at the moment. I think that, in general, the officers of the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories do a good job. However, they do suffer from bureaucrats' disease. When they join the Department they are probably quite firmly convinced of the value of their work for the environment, but I am afraid that the longer they stay the more they become entrenched in their own bureaucracies and the less they take on their role of protectors of the nation's environment. I urge them to resume their youthful zeal in the protection of the nation's environment. I ask the Minister to say when she expects her advisers to appear. Senator Collins —Filibuster. Senator SANDERS —I am not the sort of person who speaks when he has nothing to say. I see that the advisers are now filing into the chamber. Senator McLean —In all fairness, he is not that sort of a man. Senator SANDERS —I am not that sort of a man. I have seen people in this very chamber-some of those who are laughing the hardest in fact-use up their entire allocation of time merely because it is allocated to them. However, I am far more frugal, in the temporal sense, than some of my senatorial colleagues. Senator Reynolds —Fire away. Senator SANDERS —I thank the Minister. I would like to ask some specific questions about the World Heritage listings for the wet tropics. The Minister indicates that she does know something about this matter. I ask: Is the Department considering World Heritage values of all wet tropical forests-not rainforests but all wet tropical forests-for inclusion in the boundaries of the World Heritage nomination regardless of land tenure or land use? Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.51) —The first report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests in Tasmania has been handed down. There is a requirement that it be tabled in Federal Parliament within 15 sitting days of reaching the Government. Can the Minister tell me when it reached the Government and when it will be tabled? Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(8.52) —I am sorry; we do not seem to be able to advise Senator Walters of that at this point in time. As I said a little earlier to Senator Newman, I will ask the officers to try to get the answer to the honourable senator this evening. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.52) —Madam Temporary Chairman, I have been asking this question now of three different departments, and each time I have asked it I have been referred to yet another department. If the officers of the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories had been listening at all they would know this question would be asked. If the secretaries to the Ministers had been doing their jobs they would at least have informed the Department that this question would be coming up. I am very surprised that on an evening when the Environment is up for questions in the Committee of the Whole-when a very controversial issue has been raging for months on the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests in Tasmania and when a report has been brought down very recently which has to be tabled within 15 sitting days-the Department does not know anything about it. It seems to me quite incredible that the Department should come before us saying that it does not know anything about this very controversial issue. I presume that we will have the information before this Department is dealt with. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(8.54) —I am trying to be understanding of Senator Walters's frustrations, since she has, as she says, asked this particular question before. However, I am advised that, because this Department has come on earlier than was anticipated, not all the officers are available. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.54) —Madam Temporary Chairman, how can the Department say that when the Government has told us that it intends to finish tonight? It now happens to be an hour and a half before finishing time. This Department happens to be one of the departments to be heard in the last hour and a half. The Government told us that it wanted us to finish tonight. But the Department tells us that it has come on early. It really is quite ridiculous. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(8.55) —I am advised that the report was received last week and it will be tabled within the timeframe. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.55) —That really is not good enough. Can any departmental officer please tell me on what date the report was received and when it will be tabled? It is a terribly simple question that I am asking. It is a very controversial report. It is of vital interest to the people of Tasmania. The Department is well aware of the controversy that has surrounded this hearing. It is quite well aware of the controversy surrounding the report. It has to be tabled within 15 sitting days and yet the departmental officers here tonight cannot tell me the date it was received by the Government and when it will be tabled. Senator Collins —Don't blame the officers. Senator WALTERS —Well, whom do I blame? Senator Collins —Blame the Minister. Senator WALTERS —I am sorry, but I do not see that I should blame the Minister. It is not her portfolio. She has not received the report. I blame the officers of the Department who cannot adequately advise the Minister. Senator Collins —They cannot answer back. Senator WALTERS —Yes, they can. They can give me the time and dates. They can answer that. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(8.56) —All I can say is that the officers are trying to find out. As the honourable senator noted and observed, I am acting as the Minister this evening, so I am not in a position to have the information. Senator Stone —You are acting all right; you are posing as a Minister. Senator REYNOLDS —I am acting as a Minister. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(8.57) —I have a question, which I have already asked, about the wet tropical forests. Will the Minister be able to answer it tonight? Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(8.57) —I am advised that the Department is looking at all significant areas, and detailed advice will be available in due course. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(8.58) —I would like to ask an allied question. What is the Department doing to prepare for the establishment of a Commonwealth statutory management authority which will prepare management plans to take account of problems arising from land use? We certainly do not want another situation like we have in south-west Tasmania, which has dragged on for five years with no management plan. Is the Department making plans now to prepare a management plan? Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(8.58) —I am advised that the Department considers that that is part of the normal process. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(8.58) —I would like to refer the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) to the regional development employment strategy that was put out by either Senator Richardson or by Senator Reynolds herself. I would like to ask the Minister a series of questions on this. The strategy goes for, I suppose, 15 pages; the pages are not numbered. Senator Parer —It does not say anything. Senator BOSWELL —It says very little. That is the purpose of my standing here tonight-to try to extract some information from the Minister. As this strategy details the number of jobs in the specific area, I would like to know whether any costing has been done on this regional development employment strategy. We had a shocking admission yesterday, or it might have been the day before, from Senator Walsh. He said that he had spoken to Senator Richardson and that neither of them had a clue on how much this World Heritage listing was going to cost. I would have thought that if the Minister had gone to the trouble of putting out a regional development employment strategy some costing must be involved. In the strategy, it says that 250 potential jobs will be created to maintain and to establish a timber plantation. For 250 jobs to be maintained, it would require 2,000 hectares of land to be sown every year, and probably require an initial purchase of 12,000 hectares. I think the ruling rate is $3,000 a hectare at the moment, so that is $36m that the Government would have to outlay to sustain 250 jobs per year. Can the Minister give the Committee an assurance that the Government is prepared to spend $36m in acquiring land? I have another question. I know that Senator Reynolds is having a great deal of difficulty answering these embarrassing questions. She really has no answers, but she should be able to answer this one because it concerns her own ministry. The $36m worth of land that will have to be purchased by the Commonwealth Government to provide the 250 jobs mentioned in the regional development employment strategy will become Commonwealth Government land, as it buys the freehold title. I would think that once that became Commonwealth Government land, the local shire councils would not be able to rate that land. Has the Minister made any provision to compensate the local councils for the loss of rates? Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(9.02) —Senator Walters will be pleased to know that the question she raised earlier about the report can be answered. The Department has advised that the report was received this Monday and it will be tabled within the period required under the legislation. I am advised that Senator Boswell's question was answered in the Estimates committee hearings, but I will repeat the answer. The Government has given an undertaking to maximise job benefits and minimise the adverse impacts of listing. The Government will take the steps necessary to meet this commitment. The actual compensation figure will be dependent on the outcome of the public consultation process, discussions with affected parties and the results of independent socio-economic studies. The main form of compensation will be job creation. Papers released on 6 October estimated that up to 640 jobs could be created in the north Queensland region. It is expected that further job opportunities will be identified from socio-economic studies and from discussions with local groups. This Government will put its money where its mouth is, in stark contrast to the Queensland Government-not that I am sure that there is one at the moment-which has allowed the timber industry-- Senator Stone —Ha, ha! Senator REYNOLDS —Senator Stone may well laugh, but I am not sure how he will survive himself once Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen has left the scene in Brisbane. He may find that his future preselection is much more difficult when he does not have Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen to support him, not to mention the support of Lady Bjelke-Petersen. I repeat that the Government has indicated that it will certainly put its money where its mouth is, in stark contrast to the Queensland Government, which has allowed the timber industry in the area to run down, without providing any assistance or proper long term planning for alternative plantation of timber resources. Before Senator Boswell and other senators who are so eager to make some contribution this evening rise to their feet, I would like to take this opportunity to say something more, as they have chosen to ask questions about the World Heritage listing area. Part of that responsibility has fallen within my portfolio, so I am well briefed in terms of consultations with local councils. As I have tried to convey to Senator Boswell in this place on a couple of occasions, he has been reluctant to ask questions. Why has he been so reluctant to ask questions about the situation in regard to council co-operation in World Heritage listing areas? He has been very negative about this Government's approach to World Heritage listing. He has made all sorts of dramatic statements and claims in this place, but the reality is, as I have told him before, that the Queensland Government would not co-operate, would not take part in consultations, would not discuss the very issues that Senator Boswell, and perhaps Senator Stone, will probably want to grandstand about this evening. Who has been actively participating and who has been prepared to co-operate with my Department and Senator Richardson's Department? It has been the local councils. All the local councils have been participating in co-operation and consultation with my Department. They attended a meeting with Senator Richardson in Cairns about six weeks ago. They have submitted proposals to me and to Senator Richardson and we have had a great deal of very effective communication with local councils. Yet, here in this place, we have Senator Boswell jumping up this evening claiming that he is suddenly concerned about local councils. I challenge Senator Boswell to say whether he has been to speak to all 14 councils in the area affected by World Heritage listing. I am sure that he has not. Has he had the opportunity to visit all the areas from Townsville to Cooktown to have discussions with the local people? I doubt whether he has. I believe that any line of questioning that Senator Boswell attempted in regard to World Heritage listing and consultation would be a mere charade. No one could have gone to greater effort and through greater trauma to consult with the local community than Senator Richardson. One of the reasons that Senator Richardson had great difficulty-- Senator Vanstone —Come on. Have you got anything interesting to say? Senator REYNOLDS —Senator Boswell was interested in World Heritage listing. One of the reasons that Senator Richardson had so much difficulty in the consultation in one area in particular was that Senator Boswell's ex-Premier went to Cairns and declared war. He went in an irresponsible way and declared war on this Government, and in particular on poor Senator Richardson. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Burns) —I call Senator Panizza. Senator Boswell —I rise on a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. The Minister made an attack on me. I think that I should have the call to be able to defend myself. The Minister challenged me on a number of issues and I should therefore have the call to take up that challenge. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —There is no point of order. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(9.09) —I can assure you, Mr Temporary Chairman, that I will not take too much time from Senator Boswell. He can continue his questioning, because I have to attend an important meeting with Senator Durack. While the Minister is ascertaining the cost of World Heritage listing of the particular site we have been talking about, I would like to ask whether there has been a full study of the cost of income forgone in those areas whether it be in relation to timber, agriculture, minerals or any other sort of production those areas might contribute. Has a study been done in regard to that listing or any other listing that the Government may have in mind to give us the true cost of what Australia has forgone in order to bring these listings into being? Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(9.10) —I am advised that there are a number of economic studies under way. As I said earlier in response to Senator Boswell, the Minister directly responsible, the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson), has commissioned a number of consultants' reports. A number of economic studies are under way. The Senate, Senator Panizza in particular, and Senator Boswell will be advised in due course. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(9.11) —I refer again to my first question which the Minister did not answer. I ask it again. I am not interested in how wide the Government's mouth is, or how wide it is going to open it. I would like a cost in dollars and cents. I would like to know how much this regional development employment strategy has been costed at. I believe that if the strategy says that 640 jobs will be created then there must be a costing on those jobs. There must be a costing on how much those jobs will cost to be created. I ask the Minister also to answer a very clear question: Will the Government compensate the shire councils for the amount of money that they will lose when the Government purchases 12,000 hectares of land which will then become Commonwealth Government land not accruing rates for the shire councils? That should be a fairly simple question for the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) to answer. While the Minister is talking about consultations, I ask why Tony Meijo, the Chairman of one of the shire councils in the north, I think it is the- Senator Reynolds —Douglas. Senator BOSWELL —The Douglas Shire Council. Senator Reynolds —You don't even know the councils. Senator BOSWELL —I do know the councils. I know that Mr Meijo stood for the Australian Labor Party at one stage as a Federal candidate. He has been a member of the Labor Party for 29 years. He walked out on Senator Richardson who would not discuss with and would not give any answers to the people in the World Heritage areas. Therefore, I say that Senator Richardson has not consulted, although he has been up there. Senator Richardson has asked me how many times I have been into the World Heritage area. I have been into it five times. Every time I go there I am further distressed to see what will be the outcome when 3,000 people lose their jobs. I would also like to point out to the Minister that when she develops regional development employment strategies she should tell the truth. I believe that she mentioned in that strategy that the timber industry is declining. In actual fact the Queensland Government has reduced, of its own volition, the timber take from 190,000 cubic metres to 160,000 cubic metres which will sustain the industry at its present level, ad infinitum. What Senator Reynolds is saying here is a complete mistruth when she has some obligation to tell the truth, which she is finding very difficult to do. The Minister mentioned the consultants. I asked a question in the Estimates Committee hearings and was told that the Government had appointed eight consultants at a cost of $300,000. But the Government has taken notice of only one of them. The only report that the Government has used was written by the Chairman of the Rainforest Conservation Society of Queensland. I really do not believe that she would be unbiased. She happens to be a biochemist. She is not a forester. Senator Sanders —What are you? What are your qualifications? Senator BOSWELL —I am not a clown like the honourable senator-idiot. I would like to point also to the waste of $300,000 that the Government has spent on these purported reports. I see that the Minister is retiring from the Committee in defeat. She has been relieved of her position and has left the field in disgrace. I find this situation impossible. I am asking the Minister a question and she is walking out because she is not competent to answer. Senator Gareth Evans —What were the questions? Senator BOSWELL —I will go through all the questions again. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Burns) —Order! I ask Senator Boswell to continue with his questions. The Minister for Transport and Communications will answer your questions. Senator BOSWELL —I find it very difficult to believe that he can answer my questions when he has just walked into the chamber. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Order! I ask Senator Boswell to continue with his speech. Senator BOSWELL —I asked the Minister for Local Government how much the regional employment strategy would cost. She replied that the Government would open its mouth. I also asked whether the Government would compensate the shire councils for the rates they would lose when it takes over 12,000 hectares of freehold land that will not accrue shire council rates. If the Minister can answer those two questions I will continue. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.17) —I am advised that we are still in the consultative process and that no decision has yet been made about these matters. The Government is willing to be thoroughly receptive to all the sorts of matters that Senator Boswell and others have been referring to. They will all be taken into account during the process of consideration before a final decision is made. It is not that any fait accompli is already recorded on any of these matters in regard to boundary locations or anything else. As to the regional development strategy, it is impossible to give a precise figure at this stage as to what costs are involved in that. It is simply a conceptual development plan that has to evolve. It is part of the whole process of getting a sensitive final solution to this difficult public policy question about which there are a number of competing interests. We will take very seriously what Senator Boswell has had to say and respond accordingly. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(9.18) —I would like to ask whether any portion of the rainforest conservation program funding has been allocated to Tasmania. If the Tasmanian Government has failed to apply for such funds, will the Commonwealth consider the allocation of funds to the industry or other applicants from Tasmania? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.18) —I am unable to give an answer to that question. Senator Sanders —Can I get one in writing? Senator GARETH EVANS —We will certainly be prepared to take that on notice. We will not be able to give Senator Sanders an answer by the time we get up tonight but I will take the question on notice and give the honourable senator an answer. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(9.19) —I have another general question. How have the funds for hardwood reafforestation programs allocated in the Budget been distributed? Does the Minister have any information on that? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.19) —I am sorry, we do not have officers here with that degree of detail in their grasp. Again I will seek an answer and make sure Senator Sanders gets it in writing. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(9.19) —I just have one last question. If we could have the same arrangement, I will just introduce the question into the system. What funds has the Government allocated for restructuring the timber industry in the Eden region of the New South Wales south coast? Have funds been set aside for, firstly, the conversion of mills to softwood resource or to the use of smaller logs or, secondly, assistance in introducing new technologies including scrimber? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.20) —The answer is exactly the same. I will take the matter on notice. I would be delighted to assist Senator Sanders, particularly if that was his last question. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(9.20) —May I just ask a brief question? The response in writing to a question asked by Senator Short in Estimates hearings about funding of community groups and so on, states: A full grants list for the 1986-87 financial year will be available shortly, and can be forwarded to Senator Short on request. I ask that this list be made available to all senators who are interested. Can this be regarded as a formal request for such a list? I would really like the full list that used to be published regularly, without having to wait for the annual report. When will the annual report be released with the full list of grants? Senator Gareth Evans —Are you talking about the Australia Council? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Yes, I am. I note that the Australia Council appears to have money to put out interesting posters of a publicity nature, such as a selection of vital statistics on the Australian arts industry, which is very interesting. But I have also found it very interesting to read the regular inserts in Artforce that used to say who was getting grants. I regret that that list is no longer being made available. I do not now know how much money the Australia Council is saving by not putting out that list but if it ever has any spare cash one of the important things it should do is advise people of what grants are being made. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.22) —The Australia Council report will be tabled before the end of this session. It is expected to be tabled in the week beginning 7 December. The information the honourable senator seeks is in that. If he wants a copy of those lists of grants in advance, he can get it. As he does not, that is fine. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.23) —At a somewhat earlier hour of the evening, when the Government side of the chamber was in the charge of the Minister for Local Government, Senator Reynolds, who I think has now been sacked by the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans)-- Senator Boswell —If she hasn't, she should be. Senator STONE —I think it is only a matter of time before she comes to that pass. I was really referring to this particular occasion. Very properly, Senator Evans has come into the chamber to dispose of the Minister for Local Government, who basically was sabotaging his attempt to bring this debate, in an orderly manner, to a reasonable conclusion by a reasonable time. I made the comment I did about the Minister for Local Government because in her inimitable manner she managed not only to lose her lines, or to forget them-if she had any lines to lose-but also to prolong this debate by something like five times what it might otherwise have been had it not been for her provocative remarks. The only reason I rise to my feet on this subject is that in the course of the Minister's particularly ill-chosen remarks, she suggested I should do so. Of course I am never one to refuse a challenge of that kind, as Senator Evans is well aware. I thought I should note that, having issued the challenge, the Minister has now departed from the chamber at the request of Senator Evans. Naturally she has gone out with her tail between her skirts-I hope that is not an inappropriate anatomical simile. Senator Gareth Evans —You are an expert on skirts. Senator STONE —I thank Senator Evans. I would like to address one question of substance. It relates to the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority. That body-and I had been resident in this city for some years until the last three years-has grown even more notorious today than it was even before I ceased to be resident in this city. This has happened, not necessarily under the control of its management but under the people who really run it; namely, the Hospital Employees Federation of Australia and, in particular, under the control of one notable bully boy who is in charge of that body, Mr Hedley Rowe. I go out of my way to note with great approval what the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Robert Ray, had to say in this chamber a few days ago about that gentleman in response to a question. I want to point out to the Senate and, in doing so, address a question to the Minister, that the vote for the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority this year is $140.9m compared with $119.6m of expenditure last year. That is a very significant increase at a time when, so far as I am aware, nobody can get any health care from the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority. The one thing the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority is not good at is providing health care. Notwithstanding that, there is a very major increase in this year's vote for that Authority. The Minister now has some advisers beside him. That is perfectly proper. The Minister is quite deserving of advisers as this matter does not relate to his portfolio. I ask the Minister to address his mind to the question of how it comes about that a body which is notorious, even throughout a very bad national hospital care system under the effects of Medicare and so on, is seeking from this Parliament a major increase in its vote. As I said, this Authority is not being run by hospital administrators but by the Hospital Employees Federation, a particularly malevolent trade union. In conclusion, I would also like to ask the Minister whether the Government has any plans to restore the provision of health care in the Australian Capital Territory by, if necessary, doing something about the power exercised over the operations of this Authority by a person who in no way is elected or appointed, even by his own trade union members I should say, but who nevertheless exercises extraordinary power in this Authority. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.28) —The explanation sought by Senator Stone for the increases appears on page 743 of the explanatory notes: Increase in salary and related expenditure, $16.4m; allowance for other price increases, $4.8m; funding for population growth, $3.6m; transfer of nurse education to CCAE, $269,000; program of aids for disabled people, $230,000; less increases in Medicare funding, $926,000; sale of Allambee Nursing Home, $829,000; and increase in revenue, $1.7m. That adds up to the $20m. I think that is a sufficient explanation, if I can separate it out from any emotion in my response. That is the precise arithmetical explanation of the increase, which Senator Stone sought. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.29) —As the Minister quite properly said, that is an arithmetical explanation; that is to say, it is no explanation at all. I repeat to the Minister the question: How does it come about that in an Authority that is providing no health care we have an increase in the appropriation-including an increase in salaries which was the biggest element in the total purported explanation he gave? Will the Minister address that question again? Will he answer in any way the second question I asked; namely, what is the Government proposing to do about the situation in the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority whereby there is a state of absolute anarchy? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.30) —I am afraid that I must confine myself to arithmetic. I will have to leave the metaphysics and other forms of explanation to others. The largest single component is the increase associated with changes to the nursing pay structure. That represents $16.3m of that $20m and I do not think the nurses should bear the brunt of Senator Stone's indignation about this matter. There is also another assumption that underlies argument that there has been a very significant increase in the utilisation of the hospital system in terms of occupied bed days. In fact, there has been only a one per cent decrease in the last year. For all practical purposes the occupancy has been pretty much the same. So there has been the same call on the health care resources of the Australian Capital Territory for all practical purposes. The other items I have mentioned, in particular the nursing pay structure increase, are the explanation for the increase which is sought. I will be happy to ensure that the relevant Ministers are made aware of Senator Stone's feelings on the subject. They can make such a response as they think appropriate at a time when they are better able to do so than I. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(9.31) —I have some questions in relation to the imposition of a charge for pre-school education in the Australian Capital Territory. Some questions were asked on this matter in the Estimates committee hearings, but neither the answers nor, for that matter, the range of questioning were adequate. One question was asked, I understand by Senator Reid, which did not get a satisfactory response. The question is: Given that there is now a charge for government education, albeit non-compulsory education-but there is a compulsory fee-what satisfaction can Australian Capital Territory residents have in the statement that there will not in the future be a charge for other non-compulsory elements of Australian Capital Territory education? If the Government is prepared to make a compulsory charge for pre-school education, why should it not introduce such a charge for some other element of education which is not compulsory? That is my first question. My second question relates to the implementation of this fee. As I understand it, the parents of potential users of pre-school education have been advised of the manner in which they are to pay their fees and the manner in which they are to pay a deposit. That deposit is to be paid by a date early in December, I think 4 December, before we come back to this chamber after our break-not a very considerable amount of time for people to make financial arrangements to pay an $18 deposit. I ask why the Government has put the Public Service in the position of having to engage in this administrative rush. Surely this matter was thought out before the Government insisted on its being implemented in the Budget. This will, I predict, create some difficulties for public servants. There is enormous resentment in the Australian Capital Territory about the implementation of this charge and the sudden announcement of the administrative arrangements for its collection, and the short time that has been given for collection of the deposit may also create some trouble. It is unfair and inappropriate for the public servants to be blamed for that because it is, on the bottom line, a Government decision. My third question relates to whether the Government can advise of what will happen next year, deposits having been paid or otherwise, when parents, male or female, arrive with their children, put them through the door of the pre-school and leave without paying. What will the Government do if this happens over a number of days? Which public servants will be used as the strong-arm money collectors for pre-school education? Are the pre-school teachers going to be the ones who have to say, `You are not leaving your child here'? If a family leaves a child or children without the fee having been paid, are the pre-school teachers to put the children outside the physical boundaries of the pre-schools and leave them at risk? In other words, as this is obviously not an appropriately thought out policy decision, what will the Government do next year when Australian Capital Territory residents refuse to pay? Which levels of the Public Service and which sectors of the Public Service will be responsible for implementing the Government's decisions with respect to what happens when someone refuses to pay? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.35) —The reason for the imposition of the pre-school fee was, as I understand it, very simply to bring the Australian Capital Territory into line with the situation prevailing in the States generally pursuant to something in the nature of a direction from the Commonwealth Grants Commission that that be so as part of the general equalisation arrangements that are a pre-condition for the effective operation of State and State-analogous grants under the Grants Commission formulae. No proposal for the imposition of any other such fee is presently before the Government. The pre-school fee is self-contained and I have given the explanation for it. I am told that the reason for the imposition of a deposit was to enable the Australian Capital Territory to better manage its staffing arrangements for this year. The million dollars or so that flows from it was necessary for that purpose. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(9.36) —I wonder whether the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) can tell us how much it will cost the Government to administer this fee and to carry out all the functions associated with it. I would also like to know what fees are paid for pre-school children in the other States. Does the Government take into account the fact that the only facilities provided by government in the Australian Capital Territory are the premises themselves and the teachers and that all other facilities in the pre-school system are already, and have always been, provided by the parents? They raise money in various ways and in some cases levies are imposed. A significant contribution is already being made. I also ask what is happening with the Montessori pre-school at Yarralumla. The fact is that the Montessori program runs for children from the ages of three to six years. The Schools Authority so far, presumably on the demands of the Government, has declined to allow the pre-school to have three-year-olds in its program. The parents are totally prepared to pay the cost of the three-year-olds participating in the program. There is no suggestion that taxpayers pay the costs of the pre-school children in the three-year-old section of the Montessori program. Prior to the introduction in the Budget of the tax for pre-schoolers, the Government refused to allow the parents to pay for the three-year-olds to participate in the program. There is now a government fee for pre-school children attending a government pre-school, but when I last heard of the matter the Government was still refusing to allow parents of three-year-olds to pay. The inconsistency in this, to use the Minister's favourite expression, is breathtaking. I would like to know whether the Government has changed its mind and has agreed to allow the Montessori program to continue. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.38) —As to the first question concerning the cost of collecting the deposit or the fee in question, the answer is that that is next to nothing because it is being collected through the banks. Senator Reid —And no cost whatever to the Authority? Don't be absurd. Senator GARETH EVANS —Absurd though it may be, that is my advice. Senator Reid —No officers in the Authority have anything to do with this fee? Now, come on! Senator GARETH EVANS —The cost of the typing of invoices, I am told, is the extent of the cost involved. We will be happy to quantify that for the honourable senator if she likes. That counts in my lexicon as pretty close to next to nothing, if not precisely so-but we are getting into metaphysics and I do not think Senator Stone would appreciate my pursuing that. As to the second question, which was about comparative data on pre-schools elsewhere-a very complex question because there is a whole variety of fee structures, depending on whether the pre-schools in question are State run, privately run, a mixture or something of that kind-the Department will take that on notice and supply Senator Reid with an answer if that would help. As to the honourable senator's last question about the situation of the Montessori pre-school in Yarralumla, I am advised that the $6 per week pupil charge for pre-school education announced in the September Budget is fundamentally different from the request by the Yarralumla Montessori Pre-School Parents Association that parents be allowed to contribute financially to the cost of providing staff to enable the enrolment of three-year-old children. The new charge will be applied to all students to maintain the equity of pre-school provision across the system. There is a bit more that I could add about the Montessori system generally but I think that answers the particular point Senator Reid made. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(9.40) —It may answer the question but it is totally unconvincing from a philosophic point in explaining why the Government charges four-year-olds in the government pre-schools system but will not allow parents to contribute the cost of three-year-olds being in the system so there is no cost to the taxpayer. This is not the only place where outside funds are available. In the Telopea pre-school the French Government provides teachers and I fail to see why the Government is deliberately discriminating against the Montessori program. It just cannot have it all ways-having the French Government providing teachers in the Telopea pre-school and requiring parents to fund four-year-olds in pre-schools but not allowing about 20 three-year-olds to be a part of the program with the parents contributing. How does the Government justify that sort of discrimination? How does it explain it? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.41) —I will just read Senator Reid everything I have here. Senator Reid —I think I have already heard that. I want a better explanation from the Government. Senator GARETH EVANS —I think I would like to ask Dr Willmot to get to his feet to give you an answer. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(9.41) —I know what Dr Willmot says. I appreciate his embarrassment and his difficulty. He understands what an education system should be. I am asking the Government why it will not let us have an education system with some variety in it, with some diversity in it and with some scope for parents to have something a bit different if they wish to participate. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.42) —Basically-- Senator Puplick —Just tell us you are a good socialist government and sit down. Senator GARETH EVANS —We are a good socialist government. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(9.42) —I first take up a point made by Senator Reid as to the cost of the administration of this pre-school fee. As I understood the answer that was offered, it is that there is not much administrative cost, simply the cost of public servants writing out invoices. I ask whether it is true that the agency through which payments are made is not making any charge at all. Is it collecting this money as a sort of goodwill arrangement? If it is, what other agencies will be prepared to collect money for the Government on a goodwill basis? There must be some arrangement for that. That is the first question. The second question comes back to my three questions which the Minister purported to answer. I have heard the Minister and other Ministers saying that they do not want the debates on the appropriations to go on ad infinitum, that answers could be given and that everybody could sit down and we could all go home. That is true, of course, if answers were given. But let me go through the three questions I asked and indicate why I feel I have not been given answers and why I am entitled to get up and have another go. The first question I asked was whether, as a consequence of the Government having decided to charge for state education, albeit non-compulsory education, a compulsory fee, the principle was thus set that the Government was happy to charge for other non-compulsory sectors of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) education. All the Minister said was, `Oh, there is no proposal before us to do that'. I want an in-principle answer to the policy decision the Government has made. There may be no proposal before the Government at the moment-I understand that-but there could be one next week or next month. Can we take it from the decision to charge a compulsory fee for this element of non-compulsory education that in the ACT at least, if one is undertaking any education that is not compulsory, one may expect that the Government will impose some charge? Is that the principle that is behind this? It is not a question of whether there is now a proposal or otherwise. Secondly, I asked about the rush with the administrative arrangements and why people who have to pay the deposit to receive the benefit of pre-school education have been given so little time. What was the administrative mess-up that had been forced upon the Public Service? The answer the Minister offered was, `We are asking people to pay a deposit so that we can figure out what our staffing arrangements will need to be'. In response to that I ask: How were staffing arrangements worked out in previous years when there were no fees and no deposits to charge? This is simply not an adequate answer as to why there is a deposit in the first place and it is certainly not an adequate answer to why, if it has been decided in principle to have a deposit, it has to be imposed in such a rush. It has been inflicted on the poor tax paying, and now pre-school fee paying members of the community, within a matter of weeks because the Government has not had its act together. I would like that aspect of my second question answered. The third question I asked, which was the one I most wanted to ask, was completely ignored by the Minister. It is: What is going to happen when any ACT resident puts a child into a pre-school centre, slips the child through the gate or front door and refuses to pay? Which staff will be responsible for implementing the Government's decision with respect to what should happen when parents put their children in and refuse to pay? I am not talking about a parent who, as a matter of principle, writes to the Government and says, `I am not paying. You can all go and jump off'; I am talking about a parent who leaves a child at the centre. Who at the centre is going to be responsible for handling that? Will the child be simply put out the front gate? Will the parents be rung up at work and demanded to come? The Minister completely ignored that aspect of my question. My third question was: What happens when people refuse to pay? Who will be responsible for implementing the Government's decision then? That is the question I would really like an answer to this evening. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.46) —First of all, as to the rather breathless expression of disbelief that any bank could possibly be collecting this fee for nothing, let me say that that is indeed exactly the case. The bank in question, Civic Advance Bank, is doing it as a goodwill exercise, if you like, designed to get people in the door just as some of the building societies collect rates for similar reasons. I appreciate that it is one of those numerous phenomena in the real commercial world that are unknown and unappreciated, or underappreciated, by some honourable senators opposite despite their claims to understanding the finer dimensions of the free enterprise system. We are seeing those dynamics at work in this instance and I think we all ought to be duly grateful for the way in which it is operating in this instance. It took a little longer to get the system into operation, as I understand it, because of the time that was necessarily taken up in getting expressions of interest from institutions that might have been interested in doing the collection in question. As to the further anxiety with my answer about the Government having no plans to impose fees in other situations, that remains the case. I cannot anticipate any decisions that might be made at some time in the future, but there are no plans, proposals, interests or intentions on the part of the Government at the moment for going down that particular track. This was a particular response, as I have tried to describe it, to the Grants Commission requirements and was constructed as an exercise on that basis. Questions were asked about what happened before, why this deposit system is so important and what it is designed to do. It is designed essentially to be a firm statement of intention to assist the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority with its planning of its staffing rate. Of course, it is also to make some additional money on the side, as is undoubtedly necessary and desirable. That sort of planning was done in the past simply on the basis of census data, statistics and so on-necessarily less complete and certain than the kind of data that flows from a system of the kind that is now being introduced. As to the final question about responsibility at the centres in situations where someone refuses to pay, we simply say that the Authority has well trained staff who will deal with such situations as they arise with common sense, discretion, tact and charm. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(9.49) —Just how does someone faced with the responsibility of caring for a child left at a centre, knowing that that child has been left in contravention of the Government direction that a pre-school be paid, acting with common sense, discretion, good grace and charm-- Senator Gareth Evans —And tact. Senator VANSTONE —And tact. What does someone with all those gifts do? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.49) —I have had a number of responsibilities during my ministerial career, but none has equipped me to answer that sort of question. I have great confidence that the trained staff of the Authority, which has a professional, dedicated commitment to caring for young people, will respond appropriately in the circumstances of each case. I am sure that if members of the staff are confronted with a parent who comes at them like Senator Vanstone, they might be forgiven for making some response. I do not want to speculate on that hypothesis, any more than I want to respond to the hypotheses that Senator Vanstone has offered for my consumption tonight. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(9.50) —On another aspect of education, has the Department been asked whether it has a view on the development of a Presbyterian school in the Tuggeranong area? Has any opinion been asked for? Has any opinion been given? If so, what is it about the proposal that it would want such a school in the vicinity of a church in the Tuggeranong area? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.51) —It is being considered by an appropriate committee in the Department of Employment, Education and Training and the opinion has not yet been finally given. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(9.51) —I know that there is a committee in the Department of Employment, Education and Training. I was asking whether the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories or the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority has been asked whether they have any view upon it and, if so, what that view is. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.52) —The Department is represented on that committee, as is the Authority. They are determining whether funding will be provided, and it is still to be decided. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(9.53) —I ask about a cycling centre. A decision was taken by the Federal Government earlier this year to place the Australian Institute of Sport cycling centre in Adelaide. Has the South Australian Government yet made a decision on the building of a cycling velodrome in Adelaide? If no, why was a decision taken in February by the Australian Institute of Sport to place the cycling centre in Adelaide? If the answer is yes, when is the velodrome to be commenced; when is it to be finished; and at what cost? Will the Commonwealth contribute to the cost? If so, how much will the Commonwealth contribute and on what basis? Will it be a covered velodrome? If it is to be a covered velodrome in stage 2 of the project, when will stage 2 be commenced and finished, and at what cost? Will the Commonwealth contribute to stage 2? If so, how much will the Commonwealth contribute to stage 2 and on what basis? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.54) —We are not aware of any decision having been made on this matter to this point. It is essentially a matter for the South Australian Government as to timing and so on. Questions as to cost, cost sharing and so on, remain, as I understand it, to be resolved. If any further detail can be given in answer to that question, on the basis, perhaps, of greater knowledge in the Department than the officers who are present possess, I will be happy to ensure that it is supplied. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Burns) —I call Senator Michael Baume. Senator Michael Baume —I defer to Senator Newman. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Aren't you a gentleman. I call Senator Newman. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(9.54) —I thank Senator Baume for his courtesy. I find the Minister's answer quite unacceptable. I have been following this matter up hill and down dale through Estimates committee hearings since I first became a member of the Senate. I seem to get a different answer every year. At the time of every Estimates or Additional Estimates we get a different story from the Commonwealth. We have been told that a decision has been taken to build a velodrome in Adelaide; that stage 1 will be uncovered and stage 2 will be covered: that the Commonwealth may or may not contribute to stage 2; that when the decision was taken to place the centre in Adelaide, a commitment had been given by the South Australian Government that a velodrome would be built. Equivocal answers-that is the only way I can describe them-were given recently during Estimates committee hearings to Senator Puplick. The Minister's answer finally caps the lot. Who is telling the truth? Who is not telling the truth? I am sick and tired of being told first this and then that. Somebody is misleading the Parliament. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.55) —As I am neither a South Australian nor a cyclist, I find it difficult to get quite as steamed up as Senator Newman about this. Senator Michael Baume —More as an eccentric wheel. Senator GARETH EVANS —I acknowledge the interjection. I am beyond all capacity to deal with it at this time. I am unable to give any further or better answer. I have no idea why Senator Newman is so steamed up about this matter, why she has pursued it over so many years and, apparently, with such unsatisfactory results. I am told that the South Australian Government has given a clear commitment and a clear indication of its intention to do this, but I do not know why there have been holdups and why the matter has not been resolved to Senator Newman's satisfaction. I will endeavour to find out and ensure that she gets a proper written answer. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(9.56) —As the Minister is obviously not aware of the importance of this matter, I will very briefly tell him, and all other honourable senators as well, about it. Taxpayers' dollars, many millions of dollars, have already gone into the building of a most excellent velodrome of world class standard in Tasmania. It is the only covered velodrome in Australia. For very peculiar and suspect reasons, a decision was taken to locate the centre in Adelaide, where there is currently no velodrome, either covered or uncovered. I am concerned that taxpayers' dollars will be spent once more to build a velodrome which is not needed but which it appears will be placed in Adelaide for reasons which have nothing to do with economy or careful expenditure of the nation's resources. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(9.57) —The Minister will be overjoyed to know that this is positively my last question in the Appropriation debate. Honourable senators-Oh, no! Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Do not tempt me. This question concerns the Minister's territorial role. What is he doing about graffiti? I raise this problem because the Government has allocated $50,000 to deal with graffiti on the walls of the new Parliament House. That was mentioned in the estimates for the Parliament. We were told that the retaining walls around the new Parliament House and the tunnels under the roadways to the new Parliament House are under the control of the Department which deals with Territories. They appear to provide a great expanse of tempting walls for the enthusiastic spray cans of the capital. Is the Department making any similar allocation to that being made by the new Parliament House? Are any measures being taken to prevent damage to the structures by the use of different surface sprays and finishes which, I understand, have added some considerable cost to some of the walls of the new Parliament House? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.59) —The Australian Capital Territory Administration, I am told, removes graffiti within its normal maintenance budget, confronting problems as they arise and dealing with them accordingly. Some experimentation is going on with better protective surfaces and other technological wizardry of that kind which I do not propose to retail now, even if I could. It is a tricky matter in any public administration with large building areas. The Administration is doing the best that it can, without additional cost to the taxpayer. Senator Michael Baume —Without additional cost? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is as I understand it. It is within the ordinary maintenance budget. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales)(10.00) —I would like to make a few remarks concerning the arts section of the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories and to raise a question which I raised initially in the adjournment debate concerning the Sydney International Piano Competition of Australia. On that occasion I drew the Senate's attention to the fact that in the years that the competition has existed, that is, since 1977-I acknowledge a vested interest in the competition which is of great importance to young Australian musicians-there has been a philosophical problem with the Australia Council, and in particular the Music Board, which considered that competitions were bad for artistic endeavour and, accordingly, no assistance was ever given by the Music Board to assist the competition per se. On that occasion the Minister for the Environment and the Arts, Senator Richardson, pointed out that the Australia Council had been restructured and that the Music Board as such no longer exists on its own. I would seek from the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) some sort of reassurance that the philosophical bar that existed in the artistic field to rewarding young Australians who are prepared to take part in competitions to prove their skill and ability and to give themselves an advantage in the international sphere, will be lifted because, far from being a disadvantage, competition is indeed an advantage. When I look at the appropriation that is made for the Australia Council of nearly $52m, I am concerned that not only are the friends of the Australia Council, if you like, rewarded with sympathetic hearings and allocations of funds, but also institutions such as the Sydney International Piano Competition of Australia, which enhances the standard of performed music and offers to young Australians the opportunity to compete and young Australian audiences-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Burns) —Order! Would honourable senators on the Government side please lower the level of noise. Senator BISHOP —Thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman. I am directing my remarks to the Minister for Transport and Communications who is on duty, is he not? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Yes, he is. Senator BISHOP —Thank you. I could have been forgiven for doubting he was on duty. Can the Minister give some reassurance that the philosophical-I think the Minister is interested in philosophy-that used to be applied by the Music Board to competitions in artistic endeavour shall no longer be applied following the restructuring of the Australia Council? I specifically ask the Minister to give me an indication of whether or not that is so. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.03) —The most I can offer to do in this respect is to ask Senator Richardson to raise the points in issue with the Australia Council which exercises independent authority and has decision making power in this matter. I will ask him to act accordingly. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.03) —I have just two or three more matters to raise. Is there still in existence an ordinance to establish a schools authority council? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.04) —The answer is yes. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.04) —It was announced in the Budget that the Government would abolish the Schools Authority Council. Is the Government intending to rescind the ordinance, is it intending to reappoint people to the Council or is it planning to re-establish some other means by which the community can communicate with the Government on education matters by way of some sort of representative council. If not, is it going to leave this ordinance in existence? What is to be its future? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.05) —The Government has a new ordinance in the process of preparation. That will be brought forward shortly and that will answer the questions just asked by Senator Reid. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.05) —The next matter I wish to raise does not concern education. It is directed to the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories and concerns the sewerage rates ordinance. I refer to a letter which has been sent to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) in relation to commercial corporate properties. The ordinance seems to be interpreted in such a way that unit owners who may not have a flushing unit within their area are charged a sewerage rate as if they did have such a unit if it in fact is in the corporate area. But at the same time, the corporate body is also charged for the same number of flushing units in the corporate body area. Does the Government have any plan to surrender this double dipping which it is presently indulging in? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.06) —I will take that question on notice. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.06) —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) has had this matter before him for some 10 days or so. Is this matter not being looked at or taken seriously? When might this question be answered? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.06) —I am sure that the matter is being taken very seriously. Ten days is hardly a reasonable time within which to expect an answer from a Minister, even on a matter of momentous importance as this matter manifestly is. I will ensure that he acts very quickly to give Senator Reid an answer. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.07) —My last question-and I ask it while Mr Turner is still available to advise the Minister-relates to policing which I recognise to be within the responsibility of the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate). Recently I have spoken a number of times on the subject of police numbers. I have pointed out that there are fewer police per thousand now than there were when this Government came to office. That is a matter that needs to be addressed. In particular I wish to say something about the legislation under which police operate in the Australian Capital Territory. I noted the announcement the other day that an amendment would be made to the legislation to allow the police to have greater powers with respect to under-age drinking. But I point out that the problem of vandalism and violence in the Territory is not just something which involves young people and under-age drinking. It goes further than that. I have had many representations and complaints from individuals, shopkeepers and representatives of Neighbourhood Watch. They have pointed out the need not only for a greater policing capacity but also for the ordinance to be changed to enable police to require people to move on and to be able to act in relation to what I think are loosely called street offences over which these days they have virtually no power whatever. The changes that have been made in recent years have been seen very widely in the community as having contributed to the number of street offences and violence which occur at present. Are there any plans to change the ordinance to enable police to deal with some of the things which are happening on the streets of Canberra and to citizens of Canberra? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.08) —The view that is taken by the Department, I am told-and I do not know whether it is shared by the Minister or not-is that the present legislation is adequate. Nonetheless, I will draw Senator Reid's remarks to the Minister's attention to see whether he wants to make any further response, or give the matter further consideration. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.08) —Mr Temporary Chairman, I am absolutely astonished that the Department would give advice to the Minister that the present situation in Canberra is satisfactory or adequate. There were 13 brawls in Canberra last Friday night, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Everybody knows that it is just not safe to attempt to walk from the Woden Valley shopping centre through the parking lots to suburbs such as Lyons. The situation is very significantly different from what it has been in the past. Police officers will tell you the same thing. I want to know on what basis the Department comes to the conclusion that everything in Canberra is just fine and that there is no need whatever to do anything to improve the safety of the people of the Australian Capital Territory as they go about what ought to be legitimate acts of walking about Canberra, visiting clubs and going to shopping centres. They should not be molested or abused. They should not fear for their safety as they do at present. This sort of thing has increased greatly in recent times. It is certainly the view of many people that the ordinance is not adequate. If the ordinance is deemed to be adequate, one must draw the conclusion that the problem lies in the lack of police numbers. I draw the attention of the Committee to Senator Tate's answers to my questions in which he says that the numbers of police are adequate. He just cannot have it both ways. If the number of police is adequate, the legislation under which they are trying to operate is inadequate. I suspect that it is a bit of both. We need to bring the percentage of police to the population back to what it used to be. I suggest that the changes that took powers from police have caused the situation to occur whereby people are no longer safe to move about as they have in the past. I could go on with the examples of violence and the time it takes for police to answer calls. Nobody suggests that the police are not doing their job efficiently or to the best of their ability; but the situation in Canberra at present is far from satisfactory. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.11) —I think that Senator Reid needs to draw a distinction between the situation itself and the basic powers available to the police under the legislation. It ought not to be assumed that there is any complacency about the situation to which she adverts. As I have already indicated, the Minister will certainly look at the powers question to see whether there needs to be some legislative review. I think that Senator Reid will appreciate that these situations can occur notwithstanding the most broad-ranging powers notionally available on the books with which to deal with them. That is the basis for my giving the response I did on the part of the Department. As I have indicated, it is a question which I will look at again and I will advise the Minister to have another look at it. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(10.12) —I have one very brief question about the allocation of grants by the Performing Arts Board of the Australia Council. This question is in connection with grants for opera training funds. I speak specifically about the fact that the application by the Western Australian Opera Company for these funds has failed, whereas $75,000 has been given to the Lyric Opera of Queensland for the next three years. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that in 1987 the Western Australian Opera Company benefited from special project funding which supported its community program. It received $45,000 for that and $16,000 for its touring program. Those relatively small amounts, together with State funding, enabled the Western Australian Opera Company to set up an integrated program of training for eight young singers, two repetiteurs and two stage managers. From its own resources it contributed $103,000 over and above the Australia Council funding to make that integrated training program possible. The grants from the Australia Council, together with State moneys, for the 1987 program facilitated its endeavours to obtain sufficient sponsorship to make three tours. It toured the south-west of Western Australia, the near north and the north-west of the State. In all, the company gave 243 performances, which included 153 school performances to over 30,000 children. There were comprehensive programs for the company's singers, repetiteurs and coaches. This fully integrated program of training must now be cancelled for 1988 because of the lack of some minimal funding by way of special project grants from the Australia Council over and above the $20,000 granted to the schools program. While the Western Australian Opera Company is the most remotely based opera company in Australia, it has some knowledge of the operations of the Queensland Lyric Opera and it has informed me that it would be very surprised to hear that the Queensland one has a training program which is comparable with the Western Australian one or that it could make full use of the training grants in such a positive way. It is the view of the Western Australian Opera Company that the company was not dealt with fairly as far as the appropriation of this grant was concerned, due to lack of appropriate representation from Western Australia. It has also drawn my attention to the fact that it is quite apparent that no one has investigated the work that it has done during the year in the area of training. I ask the Minister whether, in the appropriation of these grants, the Arts Board is asked to take into consideration past programs and how they are proceeding. Also, what hold does the Government have on the allocation of these grants? It certainly appears from the information that has been given to me that there is some unfairness. I would like the Minister to comment on that. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.15) —I draw Senator Jenkins's attention to the fact that, as I am sure most honourable senators are aware, the Australia Council is an independent authority and makes its own decisions based on its own criteria, analysis and comparisons. The most that we as a Government can do, because of the arm's length relationship we have with it as an independent authority and because of the desire and principle to separate us from the details of the granting activities of the Council, is bring these issues to the Council's attention and ask it to have regard to them. As I said in relation to a previous question of this kind, all I can do is ask Senator Richardson to draw the honourable senator's remarks to the Australia Council's attention. I am sure that he will do just that. Progress reported. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.18) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Dairy Produce Act 1986 prescribes criminal penalties for the export of dairy produce in breach of International Dairy Arrangement (IDA) price minima. The purpose of this Bill is to substitute economic penalties for such breaches. The Principal Act, inter alia, establishes the Australian Dairy Corporation (ADC) and provides it with export control powers. It recognises the Australian commitment to the IDA established under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and provides the basis for fulfilling the Government's commitment to the minimum prices which are set under the Arrangement. The main objective of the Arrangement is to expand and liberalise world trade in dairy products under as stable market conditions as possible, on the basis of mutual benefit to exporting and importing countries. Australia as a signatory of the Arrangement is committed to ensuring that its obligations are fulfilled. However, there are concerns that the measures embodied in the Dairy Produce Act for ensuring compliance with the international price minima are inappropriate in practice and should be more comparable with the measures adopted by other major exporter members of the IDA. The IDA requires countries participating in the Arrangement to `take the steps necessary to ensure' that export prices of dairy products are not less than the IDA prescribed minima. However, mechanisms for ensuring observance are left to individual participants to develop; they are not prescribed in the IDA. The European Community uses its export refund system to meet its obligations for observance of IDA minimum prices. We have had repeated assurances from the EC Commission that the refunds are set at levels that would make it impossible for EC traders to export dairy products at less than IDA minimum prices and still make a profit on each sale. Nevertheless the Commission does concede that its refund system does not impose an effective price discipline and that it is technically possible for its traders to enter into `loss' contracts or manipulate products and currencies in order to trade below IDA minima. In New Zealand, another major IDA participant and exporter, the sole exporter of dairy products is the New Zealand Dairy Board. The legislation governing the operations of the Board provides for it to comply with the general trade policy of the Government. This in turn `requires' that the Board's performance be consistent with the provisions of the IDA. By comparison Australia's current method of observance seems inappropriate and somewhat out of touch with commercial realities. Under the Dairy Produce Act a trader exporting in breach of IDA minimum prices is liable not only to a fine but also a term of imprisonment of up to two years, in addition to suspension or cancellation of his or her export licence. However, criminal prosecution is a difficult course and is not a practical way of pursuing breaches of IDA minimum prices where they may come to notice. There have been no prosecutions under the legislation. In the current competitive international environment an economic approach to observing the IDA is considered more appropriate than an observance mechanism based on criminal penalties which are difficult to enforce. The provisions of the Bill which I will now elaborate are designed to bring about this change. Under the new arrangements it will continue to be a condition of licence that exporters comply with IDA minimum prices. The ADC will in the event of a detected breach of a IDA price minimum, require the exporter to pay the difference between the actual sale price and the appropriate IDA price minimum to the Corporation. Payments by exporters are to be credited to the Market Support Fund of the Corporation which is used to support the prices of manufactured dairy products. In the event that an exporter is detected to be in breach of a minimum price and fails to pay the Corporation the difference between the minimum and the actual sale price, the Corporation may suspend or cancel the exporter's licence. Where a breach is an unavoidable breach or where the exporter did not knowingly export dairy produce below the appropriate IDA price minimum, clause 3 of the Bill (sub-section 51a (5)) provides the Corporation with the power to determine if a breach of IDA minimum price resulted from `exceptional circumstances'. If a determination is made by the ADC that such circumstances exist, then the exporter will not be required to pay the difference between the IDA minimum and the actual sale price. I will be stressing to the ADC that this provision is not to be used to try and justify sales below the IDA minimum price that do not accord with the circumstances I have already outlined covering unavoidable or unknown breaches. The Bill also incorporates appropriate review and appeal provisions. Section 118 of the Dairy Produce Act dealing with reconsideration and review of decisions of the ADC will be amended to include decisions made under section 51a dealing with the payment of the difference between the selling price and IDA minimum prices and determinations of `exceptional circumstances', and those under sub-section 59 (4) dealing with suspension and cancellation of export licences. These changes will enable exporters to appeal against decisions made under these sections with such decisions to be reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Another important change that the Bill provides is the automatic adjustment of GATT IDA minimum prices in the Regulations made under the Act relating to exports. At present when the International Dairy Products Council (the governing body of the IDA) agrees to changes in the minimum prices for dairy products there is an inevitable lag between the new minimum prices being adopted and the incorporation of these new prices in the relevant Regulations. Clause 3 of the Bill (sub-section 51a (9)) provides for the automatic incorporation of changes in IDA minimum prices in the Regulations. This will ensure that the Regulations reflect changes in minimum prices as and when they occur and will eliminate current lags in their implementation. The Corporation will continue to provide all licenced exporters with details of IDA minimum price changes as they occur, to ensure that exporters are fully aware of their minimum price obligations. The ADC's role in the proposed observance measures I have just outlined will not be greatly changed from its existing role; the approach is a logical extension of the Corporation's existing responsibilities to ensure IDA compliance though its export control powers. The Corporation will be required to maintain close scrutiny of export price movements and to ensure that exporters are meeting their obligations under the Act. Moreover, the Corporation will be required to make determinations under subsection 51a (5) should the need arise. Since the ADC can export dairy products, the Corporation and its subsidiaries are required to comply with IDA minimum prices, just as are other exporters. Subsections 51a (6) and (7) deal with situations where Australia's trade in dairy products could be severely disadvantaged by the actions of others on the world market. In such circumstances the Bill provides for the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy to authorise the Corporation to trade at prices below the IDA minima. I envisage such an exemption being granted with the concurrence of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade after a review of all aspects of the situation. The Australian Government as a signatory to the IDA accepts fully the responsibilities that membership of the Arrangement entails. The changed observance mechanism embodied in the Bill in no way reduces the Government's commitment and intent to ensure observance of IDA price minima by Australian dairy product exporters. Rather, the amendment has the objective of aligning the nature of Australia's observance mechanism more closely with that of other major participants. It is completely consistent with the rights and responsibilities of signatories of the IDA to determine and adopt appropriate national measures to ensure that export prices are not less than IDA prescribed minima. The Bill removes the unnecessarily restrictive penalty structures which are not suited to a commercial environment and substitutes measures that still ensure the preservation of integrity of the industry and Government. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Puplick) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bills may proceed without formalities, may be considered together and be now read a first time. Bills read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.19) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speeches in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- ASIAN DEVELOPMENT FUND BILL 1987 The purpose of this Bill is to authorise a contribution by Australia of $A410m towards the fourth replenishment of the Asian Development Fund. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION BILL 1987 The purpose of this Bill is to authorise a contribution of $A335m towards the eighth replenishment of the International Development Association, or IDA as it is commonly called. Grouped with this Bill are two further Bills, dealing respectively with Australia's contribution to the fourth replenishment of the Asian Development Fund and the second replenishment of the International Fund for Agricultural Development. I propose to discuss the substantive issues in respect of each of the three Bills in this speech, as there are a number of matters which overlap the Bills. I will then proceed to move the second reading of the Asian Development Fund Bill 1987 and the second reading of the International Fund for Agricultural Development Bill 1987, and make a short statement specific to each of those Bills. In late 1986, in the context of considering Australian contributions to the current replenishments of the Asian Development Fund and the International Fund for Agricultural Development, a number of questions arose as to the effectiveness and efficiency of those international financial institutions to which Australia belonged, namely the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the International Fund for Agricultural Development. A review of these IFIs as a basis for determining further Australian contributions to IDA, ADF and IFAD replenishments was carried out internally by AIDAB. AIDAB concluded that the IFIs are, in general, effective institutions and that Australia's participation in their activities complements our own bilateral aid program. I feel that, with regard to IFAD, a rigorous assessment needs to take account of views such as expressed by Professor Helen Hughes. In an article in the Canberra Times of 24 October, she points out that: IFAD depends upon the World Bank and other agencies to do much of its project preparatory work; IFAD's projects are highly risky as a result of poor preparation and support by host countries; IFAD's examination system is not yet systematic; IFAD is weak on infrastructure and institutional support. She concludes, as I do, that: `It would be wise to cut aid to ineffectual organisations and retain sufficient interest in the more effective ones to be able to have something of a say in their running.' I turn now to the eighth replenishment of IDA. IDA, was established in 1960 as the concessional lending affiliate of the World Bank. It assists its poorest member countries by providing long term, interest-free credits for sound development projects, utilising mainly grant funds provided by donor countries. The poorest countries have great need for development assistance on concessional terms, which include lengthy repayment and initial grace periods. Honourable senators will recognise that IDA, in turn, depends on developed donor countries like ourselves to provide most of the resources to carry on its work: donor funds are critical to the development needs of these countries. The eighth replenishment of IDA, (IDA-8), is designed to cover concessional lending operations over the three fiscal years (FY) 1988-90. Negotiations on the size and modalities of the replenishment began in January 1986. The substantial needs of IDA recipients were viewed against the background of the budgetary resources available in donor countries to finance multilateral aid. Donors, including Australia, argued that every effort should be made to achieve an IDA-8 of at least $US12 billion, a level of replenishment which would maintain the real level of operations under previous replenishments. After extensive deliberations, on 15 December 1986 donors agreed on a basic $US11.5 billion IDA-8 replenishment with traditional burden sharing arrangements. In addition, five countries agreed to provide voluntary special contributions totalling $US731.7m. Switzerland, a non-member, made an united grant of $US165m. During negotiations Australia argued that our economic circumstances precluded us from increasing our relative share of IDA. Australia pledged a maximum contribution of $A335m to IDA-8. This figure maintains our IDA-7 share of 1.98 per cent of the basic replenishment. The financial impact of the IDA-8 contribution is shown in the explanatory memorandum to this legislation. As in previous replenishments, Australia has the option of paying its contribution either in cash or by lodging non-negotiable, non-interest bearing promissory notes encashable on demand as and when funds are actually required by IDA for loan disbursements. In accordance with past practice, and in line with the practices of most other members of IDA, payment will be made in promissory notes, which will be encashed over a period of eight years, beginning in this financial year, as per the schedule in the explanatory memorandum. IDA contributions represent a major share of Australia's aid to Africa. Donors have agreed that 45-50 per cent of IDA-8 resources will be allocated to countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. China and India are the other main beneficiaries; these two countries will receive about 30 per cent of IDA-8 resources. Honourable senators will know that Australia has a solid record of support for IDA since its inception. There has been general agreement, on all sides of the House, that IDA is a highly effective channel for disbursement of development assistance to the most impoverished countries of the world. The recent major re-organisation of the World Bank initiated by the President of the Bank, Barber Conable, will I believe result in an even more efficient and responsive organisation. Indicative of the changes taking place at the World Bank is the significant increase in bank resources to be devoted to environmental assessment and the integration of environmental policy and developmental strategies. The bank has also increased its emphasis on women-in-development activities. This Bill provides an opportunity to demonstrate support for IDA and our willingness to recognise, through our support for this institution, the Development Assistance needs of the poorest developing countries. I turn now to the proposed Australian contribution to the fourth replenishment of the Asian Development fund. As indicated, the Bill will be presented immediately following the IDA-8 legislation. Honourable senators will know that since the Asian Development Bank was established in 1966 Australia has been and remains a strong supporter. The Asian Development fund, or ADF, is the `soft' or concessional loan arm of the ADB. ADF resources complement our limited loan arm of the ADB. ADF resources complement our limited bilateral aid program to the poorest countries of South Asia, and supplement our bilateral aid to PNG and the South Pacific. The fourth replenishment of the ADF is intended to cover concessional lending operations over calendar years 1987-90. Negotiations on the modalities of the replenishment commenced in June 1985, with Australia, Japan, Italy and the Nordic countries arguing for a $US4 billion replenishment level. This figure represented the level required to maintain the ADF's real level of operations during the 1987-90 period. The ADF-V negotiations were concluded in April 1986 with donors agreeing to a replenishment level of $US3.6 billion. Australia pledged $A410m, which represents a 7.98 per cent share of the replenishment. The basis for this level of contributions is that it would have been the equivalent of a 7.19 per cent share (i.e. our share of the previous replenishment) if the fourth replenishment had reached the $US4 billion level which we had initially advocated. As with IDA-8, payment to the fourth replenishment of ADF will be made in the form of non-negotiable, non-interest bearing promissory notes. These will be encashed over a period of 12 years beginning in this financial year, as per the schedule in the explanatory memorandum to this legislation. Despite our strong and continuing support for the ADB there have been concerns over some recent trends at the bank. Our main concerns have centred to some extent on personnel practices such as the handling of staff grievances, but more importantly on certain project proposals which appeared to be of doubtful value. It has appeared at times that the bank has been prepared to sacrifice quality control in order to maintain its level of lending. The bank has to be careful that it does not become guilty of `monumentalism' at the expense of rigorous quality control and economic justification. Australia has been quick to voice its concerns in an open and frank manner, at the executive board and at other fora. Indeed, at the 1987 annual meeting in Osaka, Australia's Governor Ad Interim, the Hon. Chris Hurford, outlined our concerns with the bank, and joined with a number of other members in calling for a comprehensive external review of the management and organisation of the bank. I note that the bank has acknowledged its concern and declared its responsiveness to the criticisms of Australia and others. A panel of five eminent persons has been set up as an external panel to study the role of the Bank in the 1990s and provide a basis for the bank to formulate its operational directions, strategies and policies for that decade. We shall monitor the work of the panel closely, and make known to the panel our views on the future of the bank. The Asian Development Bank and its Asian Development Fund have an important role to play in continuing to foster economic and social development in the region of immediate interest to Australia. Our contribution to the fourth replenishment will confirm our willingness to continue helping the poorest developing countries in our region with highly concessional assistance. We will continue to provide constructive criticism and comment where we feel this is necessary to ensure the continued effective operation of the ADB. The last of the institutions which comes before our attention today is the International Fund for Agricultural Development, or IFAD. The primary objective of the fund is to help increase agricultural production in developing countries. Australia's membership of IFAD has been predicated on political and humanitarian considerations. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) donors supply 60 per cent of IFAD's resources, and Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) the remaining 40 per cent. IFAD has had considerable problems in attracting regular replenishments from donors, more particularly from OPEC donors whose contributions set the base for the fund and therefore the total to be subscribed. The second replenishment (IFAD-2) negotiations took nearly three years to complete. Agreement was finally reached in January 1986 on a replenishment of $US460m, considerably below the original target of $US1 billion. The low replenishment level partly reflected the OPEC group's limited capacity to contribute in the wake of substantially reduced oil prices. Australia pledged $A8.48m to IFAD-2. This contribution represents our assessed burden share of 2.15 per cent of OECD donor contributions. Although Australia's share has increased from our 1.68 per cent share of IFAD-1, our contribution in both real and nominal terms has actually declined because of the low level of the overall replenishment. In the present circumstances the Australian share of OECD donor contributions maintains our support of IFAD programs through to fiscal year 1991-92 when the last encashment of the Australian contributions is scheduled. As the explanatory memorandum to the legislation shows, payment of the IFAD-2 contribution will be by way of promissory notes, to be encashed over a period of three years beginning in 1989-90. The Government has taken into account the low level of the IFAD-2 replenishment, and the protracted nature of the negotiations required to conclude the replenishment. There clearly are difficulties in terms of the commitment of some donor countries, particularly in the OPEC group, to provide a viable level of funding to IFAD. The Government also has concerns over the developmental effectiveness of IFAD and there are questions regarding IFAD's overlap with other developmental agencies. As honourable senators are aware, the current climate of expenditure restraint has led to Australia's overseas aid program being reduced in real terms over the past three years. This cutback has required a rationalisation of the number of international organisations that Australia supports. It is in this context that the Government has decided to make no further contributions to IFAD after honouring our current commitment to IFAD-2. Australia accordingly will not participate in the replenishment negotiations for IFAD-3, due to start in 1988. In summary, I have taken the opportunity whilst speaking to the International Development Association Bill 1987, to canvass also the issues involved in contributing to the fourth replenishment of the Asian Development Fund, and the second replenishment of IFAD. I believe that it is both in Australia's national interest and in the interest of the international community as a whole that we should contribute to these organisations on the basis which I have outlined. Specifically, in respect of the IDA Bill, it is proposed that Australia contribute an amount of $A335m to the eighth replenishment. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BILL 1987 The purpose of this Bill is to authorise a contribution by Australia of $A8,472,570 towards the second replenishment of the International Fund for Agricultural Development. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Puplick) adjourned. Consideration resumed. GROUP F Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories Proposed expenditure, $958,593,000 Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.20) —We are returning to the Department of Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. At this deathly hour I rise to make my first contribution on the Appropriation Bills and to draw attention to a couple of matters, including the final report of Estimates Committee F. Perhaps that would be a convenient place to start. For the first time, to the best of my recollection, a reservation has been included in the report of an Estimates committee. These reservations, I understand, are fairly unusual additions to be made to Estimates committee reports, and this particular reservation, which is signed by me, Senator Reid and Senator Vanstone, is an important one because it draws attention to a very important principle in terms of public administration and the conduct of public service in Australia. The reservation is fairly short and I propose to read it: During its hearings, the Committee raised with two Statutory Commissions their participation in the political activities associated with the General Election on 11 July 1987. In relation to the Australian Sports Commission, the Committee was informed that the Commission had taken outside legal advice after intimating that it might take legal action against the then Shadow Minister for Sport who had announced, as part of the Opposition's election policy, that the Commission would be abolished and had, in the process, made criticisms of the Commission. As the Commission had full access to the advice of the Australian Government Solicitor, but chose not to use this service, on the alleged grounds that the matter was ``urgent'', it can only be concluded that this represents an attempt by the Commission to involve itself in the election campaign in a political and partisan fashion. In relation to the Australian Film Commission the Committee took evidence from its Chief Executive. He admitted, that together with the Chairman of the Commission, he had sought to play an active, public role in the election campaign opposing and criticising the policies of the Federal Opposition which called for the abolition of the Commission. Both the Australian Sports Commission and the Australian Film Commission were designated for abolition by the Opposition during the federal election campaign. Senior officers of both Commissions involved themselves in the partisan controversies of the election campaign, actively and publicly supporting one Party's policies against another's. These senior officers are officers of the Australian Public Service and they participated in the election campaign, not as private citizens (which is entirely their right) but as senior public servants. We regard this behaviour as quite improper and totally at variance with the apolitical and non-partisan standards of behaviour which are properly to be expected and required of senior public servants acting in their official capacity. I believe that this is an important reservation. It establishes an important principle in terms of these statutory commissions, which are, after all, proliferating under this Government. I make only two comments about that reservation. I have already detailed in this Parliament the attempt made by the Chairman of the Australian Sports Commission, Mr Harris, to threaten to apply pressure to me through my political Party because of the criticisms that I made of the criticisms made by the Commission of the views expressed by the Opposition during the election campaign. I repeat that I regard this as improper behaviour. May I say that I have no malice against individual officers of the Australian Sports Commission, the majority of whom discharge their responsibilities and functions in an admirable fashion. But that does not in any sense excuse their active participation, or their perceived active participation, in partisan politics. One of the excuses given by the Chief Executive of the Australian Film Commission was that he felt that he had to participate because he had been told by `a previous shadow Minister'-and they were the terms that he used-that he would be requested to vacate his office if the Opposition parties were elected. I have checked with both of the previous shadow Ministers, former Senator Stan Collard and Mr Alexander Downer, the honourable member for Mayo, who is my predecessor as shadow Minister in this portfolio. Both of them assure me that neither they nor anybody on their behalf made any comments to the Chief Executive which would imply that his removal would have been sought if the Opposition had been elected at the last election. That is an important matter, and I wish to place it on the record. I wish to place another matter on the record. It relates to the continuing impost on the heritage commissions around Australia, and the national trusts in particular, by the Government's fringe benefits tax. The fringe benefits tax is being levied on the national trusts in respect of the curators whom they put into their buildings to look after security. Very often, these curators are retired persons and the rent, if any, that they are charged is quite nominal. Nevertheless, the trusts around Australia have been faced with a number of burdens as a result of the imposition of the fringe benefits tax on some notionally calculated value of the accommodation being provided by the trusts to these curators or caretakers. In a Press release numbered 115, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) indicated that he was prepared to look at this anomaly and take some steps to clear it up for the national trusts. But he has consistently refused to take any action in that regard and the trusts around the country are now being faced with substantial bills from the Deputy Commissioners of Taxation. The relief which was promised by the Government has not been forthcoming and these bodies, which after all are largely supported by public donation and subscription, are finding the imposition of the fringe benefits tax particularly burdensome. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) wrote to the Australian Council of National Trusts, welcoming the Treasurer's decision as `relief' for the national trusts from the effect of the fringe benefits tax. The word given by the Minister on that occasion has not been honoured by the Government. This matter has been consistently raised in Estimates committees and there is still no satisfactory response from the Government as to whether the original assurance given by the Treasurer that relief would be provided to the national trusts will be honoured by the Government. Finally, I want to make one comment very briefly about funding for the arts. That is to indicate that Senator Jenkins is not alone in the complaint that she makes about support for opera around the country. I am a very great supporter of the Australian Opera, and I would not in any sense wish to derogate from the kind of money that it receives. But it is also a fact that the Victorian State Opera (VSO) and the State Opera of South Australia present excellent performances. The recent performance of The Flying Dutchman by the Victorian State Opera, in fact the world premiere of the 1841 original version of that opera, and the production by the South Australian State Opera of Sweeney Todd, were both very good not only in terms of their artistic standards but also because they brought opera to a large number of people who would not have had access to it in Sydney. Nevertheless, neither the VSO nor the South Australian State Opera has been funded by the Australia Council on this occasion. There is a very substantial argument to be addressed about the equity of access for people who wish to be able to hear operatic performances. The Council should be discharging its responsibility in a national sense, with a greater degree of sensitivity than it is showing at the moment. Finally, I wish to proceed to a number of matters arising from the very unsatisfactory answers provided by Senator Richardson to a number of comments and a number of questions which have been asked by me regarding the Government's approach to World Heritage listing. I have asked Senator Richardson a series of questions and it has become apparent that he lacks the technical capacity to deal with the answers in a proper fashion. I will refer to only two of those questions, one regarding the very important question of the provision of buffer zones in relation to World Heritage listing, and the other an extraordinary answer given to me about assertions that he makes about the actual biology and floristic development of the rainforests. As far as the question of buffer zones is concerned, there is a clear conflict between the advice being given by the Department and the advice that is coming from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). A reading of the guidelines for the implementation of World Heritage listings, which is to be found in section 14 of the document regarding guidelines, which section was adopted by UNESCO at its meeting last January-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Burns) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the negative. Senator PUPLICK —The other day, I drew the attention of the House to assurances given by persons on behalf of the rainforests unit that there would not be buffer zones included in the World Heritage Listing. Mr von Droste, the senior officer of UNESCO, has flatly contradicted the statement that these buffer zones would be required, and Senator Richardson has been unable to deal with this matter in a satisfactory fashion. The last point I make is in relation to the answer that Senator Richardson gave me the other day about non-indigenous plants invading the rainforests. As he had put an advertisement in the newspapers, over his own name, making claims about the invasion of logged areas in rainforests by non-indigenous plants, I asked Senator Richardson what plants he had in mind. It was clear from the answer that he gave about how outraged he was that somebody had sent him a stinging leaf, with some sort of suggestion as to exactly what he should do with it, that he was unable to provide any scientific or technical answer to my question. Therefore, on 23 November, he sought leave to incorporate into Hansard a list of some 12 plants that he allegedly had in mind. The table is headed: Non-indigenous plants which have been observed to invade rainforest following disturbance by logging. The 12 are given both in their Latin name and their familiar name. An analysis of that information shows that it is highly suspect. For instance, four of the plants-I will forbear from using the Latin names-namely, devil's apple, wild tobacco, Anzac weed and lantana are the only non-indigenous species commonly found in rainforests which have recently been logged. All of those species are short lived, shade intolerant shrubs which die out as the forest canopy closes. That is to say, none of them will persist for more than about 10 years after logging. None of the giant brambles found in the region are introduced. They are all indigenous, yet that species appears on Senator Richardson's list. On the list is also the African tulip, which appears to be confined to a few rainforest regrowth areas around old settlements. It could not be considered a problem in logged areas. Two further plants, the camphor laurel and guava, are woody weeds found in pastures. They are rarely, if ever, observed in logged areas and do not appear to have the ability to invade successfully logged rainforest. Another one, guinea grass, may temporarily invade logging road edges and road ramps. It is rarely found along snig tracks or in small gaps. The species is a shade intolerant type of grass, which rapidly dies out as the canopy begins to close over the larger gaps. Two further plants-the giant sensitive weed and the climbing nightshade-and various, unnamed, presumably climbing, pasture legumes are nearly always found on rainforest edges where rainforest borders on farmland. The species are rarely seen in logged areas and, even where they are, they do not seem to be able to survive for more than a few years after logging. Finally, one of the invasive vines which appears on the list is sometimes observed in rainforests along streams. Although this species is a pest in national parks, and in particular along the Mulgrave River, its distribution is currently quite restricted, and since Queensland logging proscriptions do not permit the removal of trees along streams it is not envisaged that logging would increase the rate of its spread. Senator Richardson's answer, which he proceeds to give after the table, is equally at error. For instance, he says `invasion by non-indigenous plants is only one of the many structural and holistic changes which result from logging'. I presume, in fact, he means floristic changes. Nevertheless, an analysis of the answers given by Senator Richardson either to the legal questions about buffer zones or to the scientific and technical questions about plants and introduced plants-what is an indigenous plant and what is not an indigenous plant-quite simply indicates that Senator Richardson is unable to provide the sort of information which he ought to be able to provide before he contemplates so significant a step as he is proposing so far as World Heritage listing of this area is concerned. The Minister has an obligation to be better informed about his own portfolio, and it is an obligation that he is clearly not discharging. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.35) —Senator Puplick has raised a number of matters to which I am sure he does not want me to respond at great length, given the lateness of the hour. In fact we are now in our forty-second hour of debate on these Estimates which exceeds the previous record by some twenty hours. I think he will acknowledge under those circumstances that the issues have been reasonably well canvassed. There are five matters raised and I will respond to them briefly as follows. The first matter is about the Australian Sports Commission and so on. All I can say about that is that the issue raised by the reserving senators was canvassed extensively in the Estimates Committee and I have certainly noted the points he has made again tonight. In respect of the fringe benefits tax issue, I will ensure that the matter is raised again with the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for the Environment and the Arts, Senator Richardson. In relation to the Victorian State Opera and related matters, the most I can say is, as with answers to previous questions, I will see whether Senator Richardson can be persuaded-I am sure he will be-to raise the matter with the Australia Council in the terms in which Senator Puplick has put it to us. As to the question about buffer zones, the short answer is this: the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation guidelines say that the buffer zones should be provided, where necessary. Senator Richardson has said that areas within the boundaries will serve as buffer zones, where necessary. In the particular circumstances of this case, there is no intention of bringing into contention as buffer zones areas outside the forest as such. The final question is about the introduction of non-indigenous species. The basic element in the answer here is that such species are introduced by vehicles and by fauna. It is a technical question. However, as Senator Puplick acknowledges, it is one better dealt with by a question and answer on notice rather than by extended debate in this place by people who, in this instance, unlike the case with Senator Richardson, are manifestly ill-equipped to deal with the technical matters involved. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(10.37) —I would like to continue on a question I asked earlier this evening. I asked whether there was a study done of the income forgone from minerals, timber or farm or agricultural produce out of any World Heritage areas that the Government might have in mind. I was given the answer that various reports were coming. But I ask again: have any specific inquiries and studies been done into what will be forgone from those areas in minerals, forestry or agriculture? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.38) —I am told that studies are addressing those issues and that the results from them will be obtained in the December-January period. I will make sure that Senator Panizza is advised accordingly. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without requests; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Evans) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 21 October, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Senate adjourned at 10.42 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Monday, 7 December Paper The following paper was tabled: Health Insurance Act-Statement of particulars of a Ministerial determination pursuant to section 106AA, dated 16 November 1987.