Tuesday, 12 April 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr President, I regret that today I have to give notice of a motion, but it is the last day on which I can deal with the matter. I therefore give notice that, 10 sitting days after today, I shall move: That Regulation 3 of the Occupational Superannuation Standards Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 322 and made under the Occupational Superannuation Standards Act 1987, be disallowed. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —I also regret that it is necessary for me to give notice of these motions now. I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: 1. That the Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rule 1987 No. 296 and made under the Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Act 1981, be disallowed. 2. That the Canberra Institute of the Arts Ordinance 1988 as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 1 of 1988 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. 3. That the Quarantine (Animals) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 303 and made under the Quarantine Act 1908, be disallowed. 4. That the Telecommunications (General) By-laws Amendment, as contained in Amendment No. 50, dated 9 December 1987, and made under the Telecommunications Act 1975, be disallowed. 5. That the Migration Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 313 and made under the Migration Act 1958, be disallowed. 6. That the Migration Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 314 and made under the Migration Act 1958, be disallowed. 7. That the Occupational Superannuation Standards Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 322 and made under the Occupational Superannuation Standards Act 1947, be disallowed. 8. That the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 330 and made under the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984, be disallowed. 9. That the Schools Authority (Amendment) Ordinance 1987, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 70 of 1987 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. 10. That the Australian Capital Territory Institute of Technical and Further Education Ordinance 1987, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 71 of 1987 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. 11. That the Liquor (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 2) 1987, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 72 of 1987 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. 12. That the Amendment of the States Grants Petroleum Products Schemes, as contained in Amendment 88/01, dated 15 January 1988 and made under section 4 of the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act 1965, be disallowed. 13. That the Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 2) 1987, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 74 of 1987 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. 14. That the Canberra Sewerage and Water Supply Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Australian Capital Territory Regulations 1987 No. 19 made under the Building and Services Ordinance 1924, made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. 15. That the Heard and McDonald Islands Environment Protection and Management Ordinance 1987, as contained in Heard Island and McDonald Islands Ordinance No. 1 of 1987 made under the Heard Island and McDonald Islands Act 1953, be disallowed. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short statement, including a list of the instruments concerned and an indication of the nature of the Committee's concerns. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Over the past few weeks the Committee has been corresponding with a number of Ministers and statutory authorities regarding technical legal aspects of delegated legislation which might infringe the Committee's scrutiny principles. The Committee is still examining the issues and awaiting replies to some letters. However, today is the last day on which I can give protective notices of motion to safeguard the Committee's freedom of action while it reviews this legislation. The Committee is concerned about a broad range of issues which are described below. List of Delegated Legislation To Which Senator Collins' Notices of Motion Refer 1. Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rule 1987 No. 296 and made under the Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Act 1981. It appears that exemption from a certain levy is a matter for the exercise of an administrative discretion by the Secretary of the Department. The Committee is examining the question whether it would be appropriate that merits review rights be provided to underpin the fairness of the decisions and offer a remedy for questionable decisions. 2. Canberra Institute of the Arts Ordinance 1988 as contained in A.C.T. Ordinance No. 1 of 1988 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. The Committee is examining (i) the extent to which certain important decisions should be executed only by written instrument; (ii) whether the Ordinance provides for parliamentary scrutiny of fees determinations; and (iii) a point of drafting. 3. Quarantine (Animals) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 303 and made under the Quarantine Act 1908. Regulations establishing a quarantine scheme for meat and blood products have been repealed and replaced by Quarantine Proclamations made under the Act. While Regulations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and control, Proclamations are not. The Proclamations in question confer powers on officials to take important but unreviewable administrative decisions, and provide for the sub-delegation of quasi-legislative powers without express statutory authority and without any process for parliamentary review of that quasi-legislation. The Committee, concerned about the need for parliamentary oversight of all delegated law-making, is corresponding with the Minister for Resources, Senator the Hon. Peter Cook, about all of these matters. 4. Telecommunications (General) By-laws Amendment as contained in Amendment No. 50, dated 9 December 1987, and made under the Telecommunications Act 1975. The Amendment confers on the Commission an ``absolute'' discretion to determine certain matters connected with the sharing of private branch exchanges. The Committee is examining both the need for such a broad discretion and also more generally the reviewability of administrative decisions taken by the Commission as well as its delegates. 5. Migration Regulations (Amendment) as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 313 and made under the Migration Act 1958. The Committee is examining the question of visa fees to ensure that the criteria used in their assessment reflects the requirements of the law. 6. Migration Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 314 and made under the Migration Act 1958. The Regulations have removed the maximum fee that may be charged by a migration agent for services rendered. The Committee is examining the justifications for the removal of the concept of a protective ceiling. 7. Occupational Superannuation Standards Regulations as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 322 and made under the Occupational Superannuation Standards Act 1947. The Committee is examining the justifications for not providing review rights in connection with the exercise of certain administrative discretions under the Regulations. 8. Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Regulations (Amendment) as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 330 and made under the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984. These Regulations confer certain powers on Redeployment Committees. A Committee may by order, prohibit or restrict publication of evidence given before it. These Committees are generally required to operate in public. Since there appears to be no sanction for a breach of an order, the Regulations and Ordinances Committee is examining the justifications for the imposition of this kind of secrecy. 9. Schools Authority (Amendment) Ordinance 1987 as contained in A.C.T. Ordinance No. 70 of 1987 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. The Committee is examining: (i) the implications of a provision which confers immunity from suit on the person who is the Schools Authority (a corporation sole); (ii) the need to provide that certain ministerial and other powers be exercised only by written instrument in conformity with the general principles of certainty and record in the exercise of large administrative powers; and (iii) the need for consistency in the drafting of provisions designed to protect the rights of employees of Statutory Authorities undergoing restructuring. 10. A.C.T. Institute of Technical and Further Education Ordinance 1987 as contained in A.C.T. Ordinance No. 71 of 1987 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. The Committee is examining: (i) the scope of a wide ministerial power to expand the size of the Institute by taking over other institutions or parts of them; (ii) the need for certain powers to be exercisable only by written instrument; (iii) the need for secrecy in the formation of certain business relationships by the Institute; (iv) what powers might exist, analogous to powers contained in many similar pieces of legislation, to remove a Director of the Institute who proves to be inadequate, and (v) why no statutory limit has been placed on the level of fines that may be imposed for offences created by regulations, administrative arrangements and directions made or given under the Ordinance. 11. Liquor (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 2) 1987 as contained in A.C.T. Ordinance No. 72 of 1987 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. The Committee is examining the effects of certain reversals of the onus of proof and the procedures used in cautioning young offenders. 12. Amendment of the States Grants Petroleum Products Schemes as contained in Amendment 88/01, dated 15 January 1988 and made under section 4 of the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act 1965. The Committee is examining the implications of the Amendment not providing for a retrospective payment of subsidy to consumers in a certain remote locality who were inadvertently omitted from the scope of a previous Amendment and thereby received a lesser rate of subsidy than they would otherwise have been entitled to. 13. Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 2) 1987 as contained in A.C.T. Ordinance No. 74 of 1987 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. The Committee is examining: (i) the need for certain inspectors to use proper photographic identity cards; and a (ii) problem of legal uncertainty in the Ordinance whether an offence (non-payment of contributions) for which the penalty has been reduced from $10,000 to $500, has been properly recreated as a ``continuing offence'' which will attract the lower but cumulatively deterrent penalty. 14. Canberra Sewerage and Water Supply Regulations (Amendment) as contained in A.C.T. Regulations 1987 No. 19 made under the Building and Services Ordinance 1924, made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. The Committee is examining (i) what remedies exist to correct an unfair refusal to issue a permit allowing certain building work to continue and (ii) what avenues of appeal should be available if certain technical devices for water control on private building sites are not approved, to the commercial detriment of the designer, the manufacturer or the builder. 15. Heard and McDonald Islands Environment Protection and Management Ordinance 1987 as contained in Heard Island and McDonald Islands Ordinance No. 1 of 1987 made under the the Heard Island and McDonald Islands Act 1953. The Committee is examining (i) the adequacy of the procedures for public representations to be made concerning plans of management; (ii) the justifications for certain strict liability offences which attract high penalties; (iii) whether the Ordinance should specify an upper limit for fees that may be prescribed by regulations; (iv) the need for inspectors to make use of proper photographic identity cards; (v) the need to express a statutory period within which officials must notify persons of their appeal rights when certain decisions are taken; and (vi) some drafting inconsistencies. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia) —I also apologise for having to give notice of two motions. This is the last day on which I can give them. I give notice that, 10 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Australian Capital Territory Institute of Technical and Further Education Ordinance 1987, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 71 of 1987 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia) —I give notice that, 10 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Canberra Institute of the Arts Ordinance 1988, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 1 of 1988 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. The PRESIDENT —Order! It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 31 March 1988 of the Rt Hon. Sir William McMahon, GCMG, CH. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I move: That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death, on 31 March 1988, of the Rt Hon. Sir William McMahon, GCMG, CH, former member of the House of Representatives for the Division of Lowe from 10 December 1949 to 4 January 1982, a former Minister of the Crown and a former Prime Minister, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. I am sure that all honourable senators were saddened to hear of the death of Sir William McMahon. Sir William, Australia's twentieth Prime Minister, was born on 23 February 1908 in Sydney. His mother's death four years later prompted his father to hand his upbringing over to his wife's family. Educated at Sydney Grammar School, he was later accepted into the Faculty of Law at the University of Sydney. After graduating, he went to work for a firm of Sydney solicitors. In 1940 he enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force and he was appointed a lieutenant in the 1st Infantry Battalion but was denied the opportunity to serve overseas due to a hearing impediment. After Sir William was discharged in 1945, with the rank of major, he returned to the University of Sydney and graduated as a Bachelor of Economics. Bill McMahon won the new seat of Lowe for the Liberal Party in the 1949 general election-a seat he held through successive elections until his retirement from Parliament in January 1982. He was the last of the so-called `forty-niners' to sit in this Parliament. As part of the first post-war conservative government, Bill McMahon did not have long to wait for a place in the Ministry. He was appointed Minister for the Navy and Minister for Air from 1 July 1951 to July 1954. Up until the time he assumed the prime ministership in March 1971 he held in succession the portfolios of Social Services, Primary Industry, Labour and National Service, Treasury and External Affairs. He held the position of Vice-President of the Executive Council from June 1964 to January 1966 when he became Deputy Leader of the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party. Sir William was Prime Minister of Australia from March 1971 to December 1972. Sir William McMahon had a distinguished parliamentary career. He was a Minister of the Crown for 21 years. He served on various committees of the House of Representatives and represented this country at a number of international conferences. He was appointed a member of the Privy Council in June 1966, a Companion of Honour in January 1972 and a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George in June 1977. Sir William was a man who, even after his retirement from the Parliament, maintained an enthusiastic and constructive interest in political and economic issues. It is customary for members of a deceased member's party to give some anecdotal material about him. I cannot do that to any great extent, but I must say that Sir William maintained an interest in political and economic issues after his retirement from this Parliament. He used to phone me from time to time with words of advice or otherwise. He once was kind enough to tell me that if I retired from politics he was sure that he could get me a job in the private sector with a salary of $250,000 a year. I declined that invitation because I felt sure that in his customary way he was still working for the Liberal Party. We all feel a great sense of sadness at the loss of a colleague who distinguished himself as a parliamentarian, as a Minister, and as a dedicated member of his own Party. On behalf of the Government in the Senate I extend to his widow and family sincere sympathy at the passing of a fine Australian. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —On behalf of the Opposition I wish to support the motion which has been moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and to make some additional comments. Senator Button has outlined the career of the late Sir William McMahon. He held many positions in government, culminating in nearly two years as Prime Minister of Australia. He was of particular significance to those who sit on this side of the chamber because for five years he was the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and for two years its Leader. He had a long and distinguished career. I note that, as with many of his generation, he broke into that career to enter military service for his country. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate pointed out, his deafness prevented him from serving overseas but he was part of that generation which, almost as a matter of course, set aside their normal pursuits to look to the defence of their country. I pay great respect to him for that. Sir William McMahon had an extraordinary reputation as a worker. He applied himself with great diligence to his politics. Despite that he also enjoyed his non-political life. I read of him recently that he had been brought up as an orphan by Sir Samuel Walder, a Lord Mayor of Sydney and one of the vice-presidents of the old United Australia Party. I have read various accounts which suggest that he was very much a man about town. I recall spending some time with him when he was Prime Minister in 1970 or 1971. He entertained me and my wife with anecdotes about his youth. I must say that I felt a considerable degree of envy. He told me that he inherited a good deal of money which he managed very quickly to do away with by enjoying himself with racehorses and so on. He certainly seemed to have a most entertaining start to his manhood. I think that throughout his life he retained the capacity for enjoyment. He was certainly a person who greatly enjoyed his family. It was quite obvious that he, a man who married quite late in life, had very great relish for his family life and he was particularly proud of his family, both his wife Sonia and his children. It is perhaps remarkable that, coming so late to it, he was Father of the Year in New South Wales at some stage. I mention that, Mr President, because I think it was a very notable part of Sir William McMahon's life that he took to family life in the same enthusiastic way as he took to politics, and displayed the same zest and enjoyment in that area. In that context, on behalf of the Opposition, I extend the deepest sympathy to Lady McMahon and to his children, who have certainly lost a very devoted husband and father. The reality is that we talk of him in the Senate today because of his public contribution, which, as I say, culminated in his term as Prime Minister for less than two years. For some, Sir William is best remembered as the Prime Minister who lost government after a long period of Liberal rule. I think that is unfortunate because I do not think that anybody who was active in politics at that time would deny that there was, in some senses, an inevitability after that long period that the Liberals and the then Country Party had to lose government. I believe that Sir William McMahon fought valiantly to retain government and went remarkably close to doing so. Very few remember that he lost by only nine seats. The Whitlam Government had a majority of only nine seats after that extraordinarily long period of Liberal and Country Party rule. As one who was an officebearer in the Liberal Party at that time and saw a good deal of the then Prime Minister and his campaign efforts, I can only say that he fought tenaciously and well to retain government. Of course, it was a matter of enormous disappointment to him that he failed. I want to say, having seen him on the campaign trail in 1972, that he was under enormous pressure. The political pressures at that time were very obvious. His personal effort was great, and I acknowledge the tremendous support that was given to him by Lady McMahon, then Mrs McMahon. She was with him at all times. In those periods that I spent with them on the campaign trail I was impressed by her personal contribution. The point that I want to emphasise, in adding to the bare bones of his career which are before us now, is the fact that Sir William McMahon, as Treasurer in particular, was ahead of his time. I think that most people come into Parliament and do a workmanlike job; they do their best. It is often written of Parliament that few of us make much difference one way or the other and that other equally deserving people who would come in and strive would achieve much the same outcome and result. In looking at the work and career of Sir William McMahon, it seems to me that the thing which really stands out is that the discussions which now take place on an almost bipartisan basis about where the Australian economy should head are discussions which were presaged by the work of Sir William McMahon. It is one thing to remember that he was in conflict with Sir John McEwen. Everybody knows that there was a clash between McMahon and McEwen-that was part of the sort of personality politics that we relish in this country-but the reality is that that clash involved a reconsideration of the future of Australia. I think that the arguments which were put forward by Sir William McMahon at that time are the arguments which are the genesis of the points of view which are put forward by such Ministers of the present Government as Senator Button, who has already spoken and who, when he talks about the need for a different culture and a different approach to Australian industry, talks in terms which were seeded-in a political sense, not in an academic, economic sense-by Sir William McMahon. To my mind it stands to his eternal credit that he was prepared to join issue within the government of the day on that question at a time when very few people in the political scene saw the risks to Australia in continuing to go down the relatively enclosed economic course that we had adopted at that time. It is that element of the late Sir William McMahon's career that stands as his best memorial, the memorial to the best elements of his contribution to Australian politics. Sir William McMahon was, I think, proud of the fact that he was the first person with formal economic training to be Treasurer. I think that he used that formal training to very good effect. It can probably be said that there was a high degree of compatibility between the views which he espoused and the views of the Treasury, but I think he was a formidable exponent of those views. He started an argument which is still proceeding, often in a divisive way, within the ranks of the previous Liberal-National Party Government and which has been very influential within the present Government with respect to its behaviour on economic management and economic policy. We have already expressed our sympathy to his widow and to his children but I would say in conclusion that there are few people who can say when their husband or father dies that he has left a significant memorial of that sort in the Australian landscape. I hope that the very real contribution which Sir William McMahon made to Australia will be a consolation to his family in this time of great personal sorrow. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —On behalf of my colleagues I would like to associate the Australian Democrats with the condolence motion for Sir William McMahon. He had a very long and distinguished career in this Parliament-33 years. I think very few people in the future are likely either to aspire to or to accomplish such a period of service. The length of service of many people in the Federal Parliament up to now is extraordinary. I think it is a function of the changing times that Sir William McMahon represented in many ways the changeover period from one type of parliament to another. Sir William's 33 years in Parliament included, as Senator Button and Senator Chaney have already said, a very distinguished 20 years as a Minister, which again is an extraordinary length of service to one's country. Regardless of the party in power, a Minister's position is one of being almost at constant beck and call and constant attention, particularly when parliaments are in session. It speaks of the capacity of the person that he was able to stay at a task and work hard at a task and accomplish that task for 20 years. Sir William was lucky at least to have a period of good health at the end of his parliamentary service, although in more recent years, of course, he was ill with cancer, from which he finally died. But he did have a reasonable period to enjoy his retirement and that is something one would wish for a person who has dedicated himself so much to public service. In looking through the various contributions that Sir William McMahon made, I suppose we are struck by those items with which we have some affinity. Certainly I was very much struck by the item that I came across: in 1971 Sir William McMahon's Liberal-Country Party Government saw the need for guidelines with regard to the visits of United States nuclear powered warships to Australian ports. It is interesting that it was a conservative government that first saw this need. In fact, the Government at that time initiated investigations into safety procedures and indemnities and to enable the investigations to take place it suspended the visits of warships. This was a significant and important step that Sir William's Government took. As it turned out, that suspension remained throughout the period of the Whitlam Labor Government and in the early days of the succeeding Fraser Administration. This is certainly not the place to look at or discuss the effectiveness and the value of guidelines for safety procedures with regard to nuclear powered warships, but I think it bears repeating that this was a very good example of Sir William's foresight on an issue which, in the political life of this country, was going to become more and more important after his time as Prime Minister. Anyone who served his country as a Minister for 20 years and as Prime Minister deserves the gratitude of his country, regardless of the political complexion of the government that he was leading. He is a person who, to a very large extent, moulds the destiny of the country and the lifestyle and aspirations of its citizens. In many ways that type of position is one which consumes a person. One has only to be reminded that occasionally in the Press we see photographs taken of Prime Ministers when they took up office and then progressively over the years, and we can see the toll that that type of job takes on them. Although Sir William was Prime Minister for only a short period, nevertheless he had a very long period of service in a Ministry, and I think the entire country needs to be grateful and thankful for that. I hope that the family and friends of Sir William McMahon will be able to take consolation from the enormous contribution that he made to the standard of living and lifestyle of the people of the country that he obviously loved so much. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —I wish briefly, both on my own behalf and on behalf of my coalition senatorial colleagues from New South Wales, to be associated with the words which have been spoken about Sir William McMahon by the party leaders. I knew Sir William McMahon through two different aspects of activity: first, as a person who worked on the staff of a Minister during the period of Sir William's prime ministership; and, secondly, as somebody who served on the State executive of the Liberal Party in New South Wales at the time that he was Prime Minister and therefore a member of that executive. His contribution to the Liberal Party in an organisational sense in New South Wales was also a matter of considerable pride as far as he was concerned, and he was certainly an active participant in developing the Liberal Party and seeing it through a time of rapid change. The period of Sir William's prime ministership was marked by rapid change, particularly the change which was taking place in foreign affairs, especially the realignment which was going on within the Liberal Party's thinking on Australia's role in international affairs and in particular Australia's position in South East Asia and the South Pacific. Sir William McMahon was certainly one of the people who encouraged and promoted that change of attitude. I should perhaps mention two other things, because it is often believed that the period of Sir William's prime ministership was not one of very great innovation. It was during Sir William's term of office as Prime Minister that the first significant childcare Act was introduced and passed through the Parliament. Similarly, it was the McMahon Government which established the first Federal department which had responsibility for the environment. It was, if my memory serves me correctly, then known as the Department of Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. Indeed it was during that period that money was first made available for the purchase of land by Aboriginal Australians in the Northern Territory. Those two Acts alone-the childcare Act and the establishment of a department with responsibilities for the environment, Aborigines and the arts-marked a departure from the way in which matters had been handled under previous Liberal administrations. On behalf of my senatorial colleagues, Senator Peter Baume, Senator Michael Baume and Senator Bishop of the Liberal Party of Australia and Senator David Brownhill of the National Party of Australia, I am sure that members, particularly from New South Wales, would want to be associated with these words of tribute. On behalf of myself and my Liberal and National Party colleagues from New South Wales, I join in extending our sympathy to Lady McMahon and to the members of her family. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I wish to be associated with this condolence motion. I will speak very briefly. Sir William was unknown to me personally when I first came into the Senate in December 1976, but for the very brief period that I knew him in this building he was very friendly to me and we had a number of very interesting conversations about the way the economy of the nation was shaping and various other aspects of coalition policy at that time. In fact, we developed quite a friendship. That was not uncommon; he had a friendship with all his Liberal Party colleagues. I held him and his wife, whom I met on a couple of occasions, in very high personal regard. Notwithstanding the great burden of the office of Prime Minister of Australia-it has been demonstrated repeatedly to be a burden which people do not quite appreciate unless they are closely associated with that office-the most important matter of which he boasted to me was of his period of office as a Liberal Minister for Primary Industry. He was very proud to think that he had held the office of primary industry in a coalition government. He was very friendly and I admired him during that period. Right around this nation, wherever I went, I found that he was greatly admired in particular for his period of office as Treasurer. Time after time people asked me how he was after he had been defeated in the office of Prime Minister. During his period of retirement people frequently asked me about him with such deep concern that it was clear to me that he was held in very high regard right around this nation. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I associate myself with the remarks of others on the condolence motion in relation to the late Sir William McMahon. I, of course, served for many years as a Treasury officer, including during the time when Sir William was Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) suggested that occasions of this kind sometimes lead to the development of anecdotes about the life and times of the person whose death we are noting. I suppose there are many such anecdotes that I could, in other circumstances, bring to such an occasion, but I shall not weary the Senate by doing so. I take note particularly of the remarks that Senator Chaney made in relation to the vigorous debate which occurred during the 1960s in which Sir William very publicly and prominently, with his usual vigour, figured. Most notably I do so because it was a debate between Sir William McMahon and the Leader of the then Country Party which, in its new guise as the National Party of Australia, I now have the honour to represent. Without wishing to rake over old coals in that area, I think it could be argued that the debate in which very publicly, very vigorously and openly at that time, Sir William and indeed his fellow coalition partners figured was, in many respects, his finest hour as a Minister of the Crown and as a parliamentarian. As Senator Chaney said, what those two figures were debating was the future of this country. I have to say, and I hope it will be accepted without the least sense of denigration of the name of Sir John McEwen, that at that time Sir William had the better of the argument. I should put it this way: he may not have had the better of the argument at the time, but undoubtedly in the light of history he will be judged to have had the better of the argument. The only other thing I want to say is in line with what Senator Puplick said about innovatory actions taken by Sir William or under Sir William's administration. I think it worth noting also in that context that it was under his administration in 1972 that we saw in this country for the first time the introduction of legislation governing foreign takeovers. The Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Act was a product of the McMahon Government. Perhaps questions could be asked about the phase of foreign investment policy which that piece of legislation ushered in, and I would share many of the reservations that would arise in such a debate. Nevertheless, at the time there was certainly a strong national sentiment, which has not by any means evaporated, that there needed to be some attitude of the kind represented by that legislation brought to that particular area of policy. Undoubtedly Sir William will be remembered for it also. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I was privileged to know Sir William McMahon before I entered this place, perhaps in an adversarial role in the fact that I was in the trade union movement when he was Minister for Labour and National Service. I must say that even at that particular stage I respected him as a man who would be frank at times and who was able to understand the arguments that were often put to him by our side. He was a great respecter of the system of parliamentary democracy and, indeed, a respecter of the role that the House of Commons has played in the development of what is often termed the Westminster system. Nevertheless, that respect did not mean that he would kowtow to whatever came from the old country. In fact, during the late 1960s when sterling was devalued there was a great debate and very strong pressure was placed on him while he was Treasurer to devalue the Australian dollar. I do not intend to go into the arguments for and against that proposition, but it is interesting to note that at that stage the Government did not devalue. Furthermore, he recognised that we were part of the South East Asian-Pacific area. During that transitional period it was important for Australia to have somebody like Sir William McMahon in a key position. It is not that there were not others who could have filled that position; there were quite a number of them. However, he was one of those who recognised that we are part of the South East Asian and Pacific area and that we have a vast role to play in that area. I did not realise until I later became quite friendly with Sir William McMahon after I had entered this place and after he had retired how warm a man he was. I join with my colleagues in the Senate in conveying deep sympathy to Sonia and her family. Senator SHORT(Victoria) —I wish to express my sadness at the passing of Sir William McMahon. Like Senator Stone, I served as an officer in the Treasury for many years during the period that Sir William was Treasurer. I also had the interesting experience and honour of being Sir William's first private secretary when he became Treasurer. I had been private secretary to Harold Holt. When Harold Holt became Prime Minister, I stayed on with the incoming Treasurer, Sir William McMahon. Sir William had-as no-one who knew him, nor Sir William himself, would deny-a very quirky personality. He was not the easiest person to work with or for. However, in the period that I had the opportunity to be his private secretary I found him to be a much more considerate man than I think many people who did not have the opportunity to know him at first-hand would have thought. I believe that history will treat Sir William McMahon's political career more kindly than have his contemporaries to date. His career was quite extraordinary. It was outlined earlier today and I shall not repeat it, other than to point out that, of probably all politicians in Australia, and certainly all our Prime Ministers, Sir William McMahon was without parallel in terms of the range of ministerial portfolios he held. He was a Minister for more than 20 years. During that period he was the Minister for the Navy, Minister for Air, Minister for Social Services, Minister for Primary Industry, Minister for Labour and National Service, Treasurer, Minister for External Affairs-the name of which ministry he changed, entirely properly, to Minister for Foreign Affairs-culminating in his 21 months as Prime Minister. I believe that is a very distinguished career by any standards. When the history of this nation is written, particularly the period during which Sir William McMahon was a leading figure-probably the era in our history since Federation during which this nation had most to congratulate itself upon for its achievements and performance, that is, the 23 years from 1949 to 1972-Sir William, as one of the forty-niners, will be recorded, as he undoubtedly was, as a very significant figure. Sir William had many other fine qualities. I believe that all honourable senators would admire someone who had been a batchelor until the age of 57 and then married someone approximately 23 years his junior and led an enormously happy and constructive family life. Sir William drew great strength from his wife Sonia, from his children and from the family environment he built at that late age in his life-an environment that he had never experienced in his early years. I believe that is an interesting and important sign of the sort of person that Sir William McMahon was. With my colleagues on both sides of the chamber I extend my sympathy to Sonia and to Bill's three children. I reiterate that, in later years when the history of this nation is written, I look forward to seeing Sir William portrayed, as I have no doubt he was, as a significant and important figure in Australian history. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I wish to associate myself with this motion of condolence and, in common with Senator Harradine, I would point out that my first association with Sir William McMahon occurred before I came to this Parliament, when I was a a journalist. Sir William was well known for admonishing journalists for not recognising the way and the truth. He was prepared to advise them on how to remedy those errors, and in encouraging them to do so he would on many occasions provide them with interesting information about his opponents. As Finance Editor of the Bulletin magazine, I found his assistance in some cases most useful, and on many occasions I was admonished. It was after I came into the political arena that I saw the extent of the loyalty and support that Sir William provided and the way in which he could be so very effective. I stood for a seat that had been held in the past by Jeff Bate, with whom Sir William was particularly friendly. Sir William had determined that the seat of Macarthur should be won back from the Australian Labor Party and he did all he could to assist me in that endeavour. He and Lady McMahon made themselves available to assist me in my campaigns on the two occasions that I retained that seat as well as in the winning of it, and I was always grateful for that assistance. I was also grateful that he continued his habit of telephoning me, which he had developed when I was a journalist, and giving me political advice. Mr Jim Bradfield, who was the member for Barton, received perhaps even more advice than I, and were he still in Parliament I am certain that he would comment on that advice. It is extraordinary, and perhaps says something about the enormous turnover in this place, that it is not so long ago that Sir William was Prime Minister but that only two senators in this chamber were here when he was in that office. I refer to Senators Durack and Gietzelt. Many of us think that we are here in perpetuity. Sir William certainly demonstrated that one could be here successfully for many years. The reality is that most of us have no prospect whatever of having the record of service or the achievements of Sir William McMahon in this Parliament. I join with my colleagues in expressing my condolences to Sonia and the three children. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales) —I would like to associate myself with remarks made by others on this motion. I first met Sir William McMahon when I was a teenager working in the seat of Lowe-a seat which I had come to accept as a safe Liberal seat. Yet when Sir William won the seat it was not that, but he converted it and held it for an extraordinary length of time. It was not until he left the seat that it changed hands and we had to work to get it back. I came to know Lady McMahon after she and Sir William married. I came to know her in many ways, including our attendances as mothers at many eisteddfods when our children were competing in those challenges. Subsequently we have become good friends. In placing my remarks on record, I would like to mention the great courage and shared purpose that Lady McMahon had with Sir William in his commitment to public service. It was a shared commitment, and in Lady McMahon's great love and affection for Sir William right through their marriage and, towards the end of his life, when illness was a problem for them, she showed that she was truly a woman of great emotional strength-something which she has passed on to her children in this time of loss. Sir William cared for the Australian nation; he cared for the Australian people. He is reviewed in rather glowing tones during his period as Treasurer of this nation. The reviews of his period as Prime Minister are not so glowing. Yet, in fairness, it must be recognised that Sir William had his chance to lead only during the latter part of a long Liberal rule which perhaps was coming to an almost inevitable end. Had he had the chance to lead earlier, perhaps history would have judged him more kindly in contemporary terms. I join with Senator Short in saying that although contemporary history does not consider his period as Prime Minister to be as glowing as his period as Treasurer, I think history in the long run will see the period of his stewardship in a more enlightened way and he will receive the accolades that were denied him during his lifetime. It is always sad when we as a nation lose someone who has served our nation with commitment. Whatever side of politics we come from, it is truly acknowledged that Sir William had that commitment and a belief that good government and being part of that good government was essential for this nation to prosper. We have lost somebody who has given an enormous proportion of his life in public service and I, as one who is just beginning, am grateful for that commitment. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —As a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased, I move: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 3.02 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 156) Senator Jenkins asked the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 15 December 1987: (1) How many legislative draftspersons were working on A.C.T. legislation: (a) full time; (b) part-time; as at 30 June 1986, 30 June 1987 and 1 December 1987, respectively. (2) With regard to A.C.T. legislation, what records are maintained, and in what form, of legislative drafting tasks not yet commenced and of tasks commenced but not yet completed. (3) Is the overall progress being made with the drafting of A.C.T. legislation adequate; if not, what measures does the Minister intend to take to remedy the situation. Senator Richardson —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) 30 June 1986-6 officers 30 June 1987-7 officers 1 December 1987-6 officers (b) 30 June 1986-Nil 30 June 1987-Nil 1 December-Nil NOTES: (i) Prior to the transfer of the drafting function from the Attorney-General's Department to the A.C.T. Administration in August 1987, from time to time an officer in another legislative drafting branch of the Attorney-General's Department was called upon to assist with A.C.T. legislative drafting tasks. This occurred infrequently and never represented a significant part of A.C.T. legislative drafting resources. (ii) In recent months a legal practitioner with legislative drafting experience has been engaged, in consultation with the A.C.T. Legislative Counsel, in drafting two particular Ordinances. (2) Officers of the A.C.T. Administration have compiled, and maintain, the A.C.T. Legislation Program. This record indicates the relative priorities of A.C.T. legislative projects. It describes the stage that a project has reached, including policy development and legislative drafting. It is updated regularly to reflect the current position. Moreover, the Legislative Counsel's Office maintains internal records that indicate the progress being made with regard to the legislative drafting tasks currently with that Office. (3) Following the transfer of the function from the Attorney-General's Department to the A.C.T. Administration a review of the resources allocated to the A.C.T. Legislative Counsel was undertaken. As a result an additional five positions and appropriate funding have been allocated to the function. Recruitment action is nearing completion and it is expected that all the additional staff will have commenced duty by the end of February 1988. (Question No. 174) Senator McLean asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 16 February 1988: (1) Is the Minister aware of the editorial in the Sydney Daily Telegraph of Wednesday 16 December 1987 which was headed ``Modern Voting System Needed for Democracy''. (2) What measures, if any, can the Electoral Commission take to stop people voting more than once at the same Federal election. (3) Has a feasibility study been conducted into the possibility of establishing a computerised voting system; if so, what were the results of the study and what is the Government's reaction to the results; if not will the Government consider conducting a feasibility study and if so, when. Senator Robert Ray —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes (2) An elector or someone impersonating an elector may vote more than once at the same Federal election by (i) casting two or more ordinary votes at one or more polling places; or (ii) casting one or more ordinary votes and one or more declaration votes; or (iii) casting two or more declaration votes. Insofar as declaration votes are identifiable until their envelopes are opened and the ballot-papers admitted to the count, it is possible to delay their admission until markback of the certified lists is complete and any apparent instances of dual voting identified and, if appropriate, investigated. Such a course was advocated by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, and the electronic scanning system being developed by the Australian Electoral Commission and initially used at the 1987 election has been in part a response to this proposal. The effect of following such a procedure could be to delay the scrutiny and, possibly, ascertaining the outcome of the election in that Division. As ordinary votes are not identifiable as soon as they have been placed in the ballot-box the only procedure to keep out those ballot-papers which might be involved in dual voting is to prevent an elector voting more than once. A variety of devices are used in other countries including: marking an internal passport or other specified identifying document with the fact that the elector has voted at that election; issuing a special identifying document, with or without a photograph, by post or in person to each elector and requiring it be surrendered or marked on voting; putting an indelible mark on the elector, for example by inking a specified finger, upon voting; requiring that an elector record an ordinary vote only at his or her designated polling place to which relatively small numbers of electors are assigned and, consequently, requiring that a declaration vote be used by the elector at any other polling place. Each of these measures would produce considerable inconvenience to large numbers of electors. Polling arrangements in Australia have usually favoured quick and easy voting to assist and encourage electors required to attend a polling place under compulsory voting. There is no evidence of dual voting on a scale sufficient to warrant imposing such costs on electors generally. Such restrictive arrangements would also be likely to prevent a significant number of electors from voting because they had, for example, misplaced the document they needed to obtain a ballot-paper. It would be possible to identify ordinary votes after they had been placed in the ballot-box by issuing numbered ballot-papers and recording the name of the elector to whom each ballot-paper was issued on a corresponding stub. However such a course is totally unacceptable in a democratic country with free elections, and any proposal for its introduction would meet with general condemnation. (3) A computerised voting system could involve either a computer-linked system for immediately recording electors' attendance at the polls with a view to identifying dual voting; or a system whereby electors input their voting intentions directly into some form of terminal or alternatively had their ballot-paper or card read electronically by a process which required a computer. Concerning the first option, the cost and technical demands of a system that linked each of 8,500 polling places with at least their Divisional Office, and preferably with their State centre, and kept that system functioning perfectly throughout polling hours would be prohibitive. The second option was discussed exhaustively in the Australian Electoral Commission's Research Report 1/86, Informal Voting 1984: Senate: Report, at paragraphs 5.14 to 5.25. That Report concluded ``The time-honoured procedures whereby voters write numbers on ballot-papers which are later counted by hand should continue to be the method of voting for some time''. The Government would not wish to commit the resources necessary to abandon these procedures, nor does it consider that abuses of the present system to the extent that they may occur at all warrant diversion of resources in that direction. (Question No. 184) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 16 February 1988: (1) What have been the sharing arrangements between the Commonwealth and the television broadcasting industry over broadcasting transmission sites across Australia in recent years. (2) Does the Government plan to up-grade these transmission sites as a consequence of the proposed aggregation of service areas to bring additional commercial television services to regional Australia; if so, what are the Government's plans in this matter. (3) Has the television broadcasting industry recently withdrawn from negotiations over the sharing of transmission sites, at least on the eastern seaboard, and plans to establish their own transmission sites and associated infrastructure; if so, what was the reason for the withdrawal of the television broadcasting industry from sharing arrangements with the Commonwealth. (4) What is the estimated loss to Government revenue as a result of the industry's decision to withdraw its financial support for the transmission facilities. (5) What effect will this have on the ability of the Government to up-grade the transmission sites for services provided by the A.B.C. and S.B.S. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Commonwealth has shared the use of its transmission facilities with commercial television licensees since the inception of television in regional areas. The arrangements in recent years have involved payment by the licensee of a fee for use of the technical facilities at the particular station and a separate fee for any maintenance undertaken on the commercial transmitter. In a limited number of cases the Commonwealth still operates the commercial equipment and receives payment for this service also. (2) Yes. The Government has included in a co-ordinated program to upgrade various transmission facilities, the provisions of accommodation for commercial transmitting equipment and capacity to accept commercial signals in the UHF antenna system at any Commonwealth broadcasting site where sharing is required. (3) No. However, I recently received representations from the television industry to the effect that the level of charges applicable to the shared use of Commonwealth transmitting sites was such that the majority of licensees would find it economically attractive to establish their own facilities rather than share with the Commonwealth. I instructed my Department to undertake further negotiations with the industry on the level of fees, having regard to the costs licensees would incur in constructing and maintaining their own stations. These negotiations have produced an agreement which I expect will see most licensees sharing with the Commonwealth. (4) Nil. (5) None. (Question No. 186) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 16 February 1988: (1) Has the Department of Transport and Communications or the Minister engaged a consultant to undertake work in relation to the Departmental review of the Broadcasting Act 1942; if so, what procedures were undertaken and followed in the selection and appointment of the consultant. (2) What experience or particular expertise does the consultant possess to enable him/her to undertake a proper assessment of the Broadcasting Act given its varied history and relative complexity. (3) Is the consultant presently undertaking or proposing to undertake a tour of the United Kingdom or other European destinations to study their respective broadcasting legislation; if so, what are the purpose and cost of this trip. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes; the Department of Transport and Communications has engaged a consultant to assist it on certain aspects of its review of broadcasting legislation. Standard procedures for the selection and appointment of the consultant were followed. Eight consultants were invited to tender for the consultancy. Discussions were held with several of those consultants, at their request, prior to the closing date for tenders. When received, tenders were evaluated by a tender committee on the basis of each tenderer's qualifications and experience, fees, proposed approach to the task, ability to meet the consultancy specification and value for money. The consultant selected through this process was appointed by way of a standard consultancy contract. (2) The consultant was not asked to undertake an assessment of the Broadcasting Act. The consultancy specification requires that the consultant provide a report on possible legislative structures and alternative regulatory and licensing approaches which would be appropriate to regulate broadcasting-like services. The consultant's work is to complement and not parallel the broader Departmental review. The selected consultant is Travers Morgan Pty Ltd. The members of its team for this consultancy have, between them, extensive experience in public policy analysis. Mr Paul Wait has over twelve years' consulting experience in Australia and overseas, and has previously been involved in consultancies in the broadcasting field (for the Forward Development Unit of the former Department of Communications) and in telecommunications (for the Australian Telecommunications Commission). Mr David Greig has eighteen years' experience in economic policy formulation and in particular, was head of the Transport and Communications Section of the New Zealand Treasury for four years. In addition, sub-consultants have been engaged by Travers Morgan Pty Ltd-Veljanovski, Bentley and Partners (UK), which has considerable experience in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries overseas. Dr Cento Veljanovski (an Australian) has written extensively on the media and its regulation and has been involved in a number of important projects in the field. In 1985, Dr Veljanovski submitted a report on broadcasting regulation and finances in Australia to the UK Home Office Inquiry into Financing the BBC (the Peacock Committee). Mr Mark Bentley is a lawyer with expertise in broadcasting and telecommunication regulation. (3) Mr Wait of Travers Morgan Pty Ltd travelled to the UK at his own expense in December 1987-January 1988 for personal reasons, and it is understood that he had discussions with Dr Veljanovski and Mr Bentley about the consultancy while there. (Question No. 188) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 16 February 1988: (1) What is the official or what was the original timetable for the construction of the ABC and SBS National Services translators. (2) Have there been delays in the construction of some of these translators; if so, what were the reasons for these delays; (3) What are the revised estimated completion dates, if any, for the construction of the National Services translators. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1)-(2) Since the late sixties, approximately 300 translator stations have been commissioned for the National Broadcasting Services. Further translators are under construction this financial year and more are planned for construction in future years. While the Department of Transport and Communications plans this work several years ahead, the level of activity that can actually be undertaken in a given year is dictated by the availability of funds in the budget appropriations. Differences can often occur between the planned construction timetable and the actual construction dates because of funding considerations, equipment availability problems and various other factors outside the Government's control. For example, delays of unpredictable duration can occur when the construction of a translator station involves environmentally sensitive areas, or relatively remote areas where power supply availability is often difficult to arrange. In complex cases involving the construction of translators to serve residents living in areas of difficult terrain, delays can occur because extensive field survey work may be required to identify the most appropriate transmitting site. In these cases, the sites cannot be purchased or leased by the Commonwealth until the transmitting site has been finally determined. (3) The construction program for new translators will continue for many years as funds become available and the residual reception problems of individual communities are able to be addressed. It is therefore not possible to provide a definitive list of completion dates for all National Service translators. However, the scheduled completion dates for translators already approved for construction are: Fitzroy Crossing WA 1st quarter 1988 Port Lincoln SA 1st quarter 1988 Horsham/Dimboola NSW 3rd quarter 1988 Condobolin NSW 3rd quarter 1988 Crookwell NSW 3rd quarter 1988 Eidsvold Qld 3rd quarter 1988 Moura Qld 3rd quarter 1988 Theodore Qld 3rd quarter 1988 Seymour Vic. 4th quarter 1988 Taroona Tas. 4th quarter 1988 Bridgetown WA 4th quarter 1988 Nannup WA 4th quarter 1988 Narembeen WA 4th quarter 1988 Pemberton WA 4th quarter 1988 Yea Vic. 4th quarter 1988 Safety Beach Vic. 1st quarter 1989 St Georges Basin NSW 2nd quarter 1989 Roleystone WA 3rd quarter 1989 Mallacoota Vic. 4th quarter 1989 Lakes Entrance Vic. 1st quarter 1990 Manjimup WA 2nd quarter 1990 Currie Tas. 3rd quarter 1990 Murwillumbah NSW 4th quarter 1990 (Question No. 213) Senator Newman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 18 February 1988: (1) Why was Dr Kerr-White, who is well known for his views that Schools of Public Health should be abo-lished, appointed by the Federal Government to carry out a supposedly ``independent'' review for the Commonwealth Government. (2) Can the Minister guarantee that the funding available to the research and teaching of tropical medicine will not be reduced in real terms, given the proposed closure of the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine in Sydney, to be replaced by a decentralised program of providing money to universities in Sydney, Brisbane, Townsville, and a new National Centre for Epidemiology and Public Health Studies at the Australian National University. (3) Can the Government also guarantee that an entomology section will be preserved, so that the requirements for expert knowledge, teaching and research which are increasing in southern Australia because of the expansion of the population into the ``bush'' and the ``greening'' of arid areas with irrigation (which increase the amount of contact that humans have with insects and other anthropods), will be satisfied in a practical and viable way. (4) Will Australia have the expertise that is needed when an unforeseen issue of public health and medical entomology requires attention. (5) What action is being taken to ensure that Sydney, our major point of entry for overseas visitors, is not left unprotected from the entry of disease. (6) What is now happening to the advisory service performed for Qantas by the School of Public Health in Sydney. Senator Cook —The Minister for Community Services and Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Dr Kerr White was appointed by the Government because of his impeccable credentials as an expert in public health education. Dr White is a former Professor of Public Health at John Hopkins University, a former Deputy Director of the Rockefeller Foundation and currently is Principal Consultant to that Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation is known throughout the world for its support of public health initiatives. Whilst preparing his report, Dr White consulted widely. He studied 116 written submissions, interviewed 151 people in depth, and conversed with a further 50. Finally, a seminar with 65 participants representing a wide range of institutions and viewpoints was held. (2) Substantially more money has been made available for tropical health, which will be concentrated in Queensland under the new arrangements. The University of Queensland, the Queensland Institute of Medical Research and the James Cook University of North Queensland have been allocated grants totalling $12.72m over the next seven years. (3) Teaching and research in entomology is continuing following the transfer of tropical health studies to Queensland. Associate Professor John Bryan from the former School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine has taken up an academic post at the University of Queensland. Also under a co-operative agreement between the Commonwealth Government, the University of Sydney and the New South Wales State Government, Dr Richard Russell, Senior Lecturer in entomology has remained in Sydney to work at Westmead Hospital on insect borne diseases of temperate areas. (4) Because of increased funding and wider access to research and training, Australia will have available greater expertise in the areas of public health and medical entomology. (5) The Commonwealth Department of Community Services and Health has, for the most part, only a policy-making role in relation to human quarantine matters. Quarantine procedures are carried out by the Department of Primary Industry's Australian Quarantine Inspection Service, in conjunction with the Australian Customs Service. Sydney's excellent protection from the entry of diseases from overseas will be unaffected by the closure of the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine. (6) The services previously supplied to Qantas were food analysis and occasional bacteria analysis and consultancy services on the disinfection of aircraft. The Australian Government Analytical Laboratory is now doing food analysis; Qantas has made private arrangements for bacteria analysis, and information on insects in aircraft is being supplied by an entomologist employed in the Department of Primary Industry. Dr Richard Russell will still be available for consultancy work in this area. (Question No. 219) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1988: (1) How many apprentices has the Department employed since 1 January 1988. (2) How many apprentices have been employed by Statutory Authorities for which the Minister is responsible since 1 January 1988. (3) Can the Minister provide a breakdown of the numbers of these apprentices in their respective trades. (4) Can the Minister also provide a further breakdown showing in which State or Territory the apprentices have been employed. Senator Reynolds —The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There have been no apprentices employed by the Department since 1 January 1988. The nature of the Department's work does not lend itself to the employment of apprentices. (2) One apprentice has been employed since 1 January 1988 by a Statutory Authority for which the Minister is responsible, viz. Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation. (3) The apprentice is employed in the horticulturist trade. (4) The apprentice is employed in New South Wales. (Question No. 233) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 February 1988: (1) How many apprentices has the Department employed since 1 January 1988. (2) How many apprentices have been employed by Statutory Authorities for which the Minister is responsible since 1 January 1988. (3) Can the Minister provide a breakdown of the numbers of these apprentices in their respective trades. (4) Can the Minister also provide a further breakdown showing in which State or Territory the apprentices have been employed. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (2) (3) and (4) No apprentices have been employed by the Department or by Statutory Authorities for which the Prime Minister is responsible since 1 January. (Question No. 235) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1988: Can the Minister provide details of how many employees of the Department are presently listed as unattached (to a substantive position within the Department). Senator Reynolds —The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: 235 officers of the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs are presently unattached. Of these officers, 147 are at various base grade (entry point) levels, and the remainder are at classification levels up to and including the Administrative Service Officer Class 8 (ex-Clerical Administrative Class 11) level. (Question No. 238) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 23 February 1988: Can the Minister provide details of how many employees of the Department are presently listed as unattached (to a substantive position within the Department). Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: There were 1,044 unattached officers (690 of them at the base level where most recruitment takes place and where positional cover is not necessarily required).