Tuesday, 19 April 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament assembled. The petition of these residents of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation provides the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia with the only nation-wide independent radio and television service. that the introduction of commercial sponsorship or any form of advertising material from commercial sources, would destroy the independence of the Corporation. Your petitioners therefore request that the Honour- able Senators will oppose the introduction of any form of sponsorship or advertising material from commercial sources into the programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. by Senator Giles (from 80 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the House assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we most strongly oppose the process of `food irradiation' by Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. That we oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process being permitted by State Governments. That we express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances for the purpose of food irradiation and disallow regulations permitting the irradiation of food in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Coates (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable, the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: we wish the legislation introducing the ID card, known as the Australia Card, to be rejected. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should not vote for this legislation as it will affect the civil liberties of every Australian and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator McLean (from 29 citizens). To the President and Senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator McLean (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and senators assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia points out that aged and disabled people who require accommodation and support in nursing homes are entitled to the highest possible standard and quality of nursing care. We, the petitioners, request the Government to ensure that provision of funds for nursing homes in Victoria is sustained at least at a level sufficient to maintain the high standard of care now available in nursing homes in this State. by Senators Alston (from 70 citizens) and Robert Ray (from six citizens). Petitions received. Senator POWELL(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals in Australia, be established to inquire into and report upon: (a) the adequacy of arrangements under the proposed legislation relating to agricultural and veterinary chemicals for administration and co-ordination systems for agricultural and veterinary chemicals; (b) the efficacy of chemical, non-chemical and integrated management systems; (c) the economic, social and environmental impact on Australia of agricultural and veterinary chemicals and their alternatives. (2) That the committee may consider and recommend amendments to the proposed legislation to be introduced into the Parliament by the Government during the 1988 autumn sittings, but not so as to delay the passage of such legislation. (3) That the committee present a progress report on or before the first sitting day in 1989, and that it present its final report on or before the last sitting day in 1989. (4) That the Committee consist of six Senators, as follows: (a) three to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, (b) two to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, (c) one to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats. (5) That the Committee proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (6) That the Committee elect as Chairman one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Government. (7) That the Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman of the Committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee. (8) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote. (9) That the quorum of the Committee be three members. (10) That the Committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations it may deem fit. (11) That the Committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the Committee is empowered to consider, and that the quorum of a subcommittee be a majority of the Senators appointed to the subcommittee. (12) That the Committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the Committee with the approval of the President. (13) That the Committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. (14) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Committee has completed its report, the Committee may provide the report to the President, or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy President, and, in that event (a) the report shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate, (b) the publication of the report is authorized by this Resolution, (c) the President or the Deputy President, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the report, and (d) the President or the Deputy President, as the case may be, shall lay the report upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate. (15) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator POWELL(Victoria) —I withdraw General Business notice of motion No. 26, standing in my name. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —On behalf of Senator Cooney, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: That the time for presentation of the report of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on the feasibility of and need for a national identification system be extended to 1 December 1988. Senator CHANEY —Does the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations believe that the claim for a 7.5 per cent increase in award wages being pursued by the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia (BWIU) represents an acceptable increase in labour costs? Is the Government satisfied that this is not a case of using union muscle, or industrial muscle, to pressure employers in the field to obtain wage increases beyond the capacity of the economy to pay? I ask whether the Minister agrees with the following statement by Mr Tom McDonald, the National Secretary of the BWIU: When the current system expires in May, unions will be free to make claims [as] there won't be any guidelines. Senator BUTTON —I do not know what the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and other bodies will decide in May about future wage fixation procedures. Mr McDonald is entitled to his view. I cannot comment on it really, except to say that we will have to wait and see what the Commission, having received submissions from a variety of sources, determines about the future conduct of wage negotiations. In respect of the BWIU claim, I do not know whether it is a question of using industrial muscle to obtain particular results. I would have thought that the notion that these matters can be left to corporations and employees to decide was very much inherent in the philosophy of the Liberal Party in relation to wage fixation procedures. For example, the second tier negotiations involved some level of industrial disputation which was higher than that which previously existed because it forced the parties into negotiations amongst themselves during which the proposed weapons were used on both sides. In so far as a claim has been made for a 7.5 per cent increase in award wages in the building industry, I have no particular knowledge of the circumstances of the building industry, but I think that that would be a claim which the Government would not willingly invite employers to accede to. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I note the Minister's reference to what the Opposition's policy might be, but I am more interested in what the position of the Government is. I ask: Bearing in mind that he has indicated that he does not know what the Commission will decide in May, which is a very fair response, is the Government proposing that there should be an open go with respect to negotiations post-May, or does the Government have another approach in mind? Senator BUTTON —It is not my understanding that the Government would be advocating, in a submission to the Commission, what Senator Chaney calls an open go. I am not aware of the contents of any submission to be made by the Government, but I do not believe that that would be the central point of it. Senator COLLINS —My question is to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. I refer the Minister to a recent Press report in the Melbourne Herald of 15 April 1988 that there are significant deposits of uranium at Coronation Hill. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the accuracy of these claims and whether the joint venturers deliberately omitted reference to uranium mineralisation in their preliminary environmental impact statement? Senator RICHARDSON —I am aware of reports that suggest that uranium has been found at Coronation Hill. However, I am not aware that there is any basis to them, nor is anyone in my Department. In fact, Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP) personnel have informed us in the last few weeks that, despite intensive exploration at the site, they have been unable to find any uranium deposits. Even if there are no deposits suitable for mining at the moment, obviously there must be some trace of uranium there, given that it was certainly an operating uranium mine in the 1950s. There is ample evidence of that for anyone who visits the site, so I am sure there must be some uranium there. As far as BHP is concerned, it is not in a mineable quantity. As far as I am concerned, it does not pose any problem for us at present. My Department, in discussions concerning the guidelines for the environmental impact statement which is being prepared for the project, has asked BHP to ensure that any potential radiological hazards are addressed fully. I should add that the exploration authority which was recently given to BHP Gold Pty Ltd for the purposes of Coronation Hill specifically excluded exploration for uranium. I assure Senator Collins and the Senate that, in line with current Australian Labor Party policy, there will be no mining of uranium at Coronation Hill. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Is the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories aware that in a Press release last month the Minister for the Arts and Territories, the Hon. Gary Punch, reaffirmed the Government's generous resettlement scheme for Christmas Island workers who had been made redundant-namely, $9,000 per redundant worker in addition to the redundancy package, which averages $40,000? In light of the offer to the Christmas Island workers, will the Minister agree that the offer of financial assistance of $2,500 to the workers displaced because of the rainforest listing in far north Queensland is a very paltry amount? Can the Minister give any information about further redundancy payments to north Queensland workers so that they will not feel that this Government has discriminated against them? Senator RICHARDSON —Senator Bjelke- Petersen should look a little more carefully at the package that I announced for north Queensland last Friday. The sum of $2,500 was the main element of the interim package announced last December, but it is far from the main element of the package that I announced a couple of days ago. The Government was concerned to ensure that in that package it delivered on its promise of jobs, and so it made jobs the hallmark. The $2,500 is, of course, included, but that is by no means the only prospect for workers displaced in north Queensland. As an example, specifically included in that package is provision for workers aged 55 and over to receive up to $30,000 as a redundancy package. So the Government has looked at adjustment assistance for workers, including retraining and relocation allowances, et cetera, as well as at providing a substantial number of jobs. On top of that, it will provide payments where workers find themselves in difficulty. I would have thought all of that added up to a complete package and that therefore no-one in north Queensland would find himself worse off than a Christmas Island worker. Mind you, had we all lived and worked on Christmas Island for the last few years we would all be doing pretty well because the rates Christmas Island workers have been looking at and the subsidies they have received in the last decade place them well in front of the average Australian worker. Senator COATES —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security seen recent Press articles questioning the adequacy of the family allowance supplement (FAS)? Can the Minister explain whether the family allowance supplement represents the limit of the Government's attack on child poverty? Senator BOLKUS —I have indeed seen recent articles reporting concerns of welfare groups about the Government's commitment to alleviating child poverty. These articles have emanated most recently from Queensland. We should not be surprised that these sorts of reports are coming out of Queensland, because of the low level of State funding and concessions in education, transport and housing provided in that State. The people there would obviously feel the effects of not having those services provided. The answer to Senator Coates's question is that the family allowance supplement is not the limit of the Government's attack on child poverty. It can be called a crucial centrepiece of our attack, but it is very much a part of a broader commitment. That broader commitment was spelt out quite recently by the Prime Minister at a child poverty conference in Melbourne, where he said that our attack on child poverty must include three issues-job creation, the cost of housing, and reform of education and training programs. Senator Stone —What did he say during the election campaign? Senator BOLKUS —I would have thought it would be better for Senator Stone to stay quiet for as long as possible these days. I repeat that the Government commitment involves a broad approach, and that broad approach, despite the cynicism expressed by spokespeople such as Senator Stone, has since 1983 delivered one million new jobs, allocated $5.3 billion to public housing and provided 110,000 approved child care places. The Government's commitment to its attack on child poverty is a strong one, and it should be noted in this context that our family allowance supplement is now being paid to over 115,000 working families. Over and above that-Senator Vanstone is coming in to gain some education-increased child care payments are now being paid to 412,000 pensioner and beneficiary families. I should also make mention of the fact, especially in respect of the second part of our commitment, that increased rent assistance of $15 a week is also payable under FAS. If I am to be greeted with some sort of cynicism from, amongst other senators, Senator Vanstone, I should refer both Senator Vanstone and Senator Haines-- Senator Vanstone —You have let paranoia get the better of you. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator BOLKUS —It is little wonder that they call her the rising damp of the Liberal Party. I refer the Senate to a quotation from Helen Brownlee of the Institute of Family Studies. It states: The achievement of the benchmarks- that is, the family allowance supplement benchmarks- will mean a reduction in child poverty of more than 75% in working families and more than 30% in non-working families. Senator Michael Baume —The rising damp is better than the dry rot coming from you. Senator BOLKUS —In this context I should also refer to the actual rate of payments. The Government's commitment is to raise the level of payments from 11.1 per cent of the married rate pension, which it was when we inherited it in 1983, to at least 15 per cent for children under the age of 13 and 20 per cent for older children. In response to the interjections that I am getting from Senator Michael Baume, I should refer those opposite to the sort of record that their Government was responsible for up to 1983 when Senator Chaney was Minister for Social Security. We should remind them of the fact that over 200,000 adults and children were thrown into poverty, onto the unemployment heap; child payments fell from 15.2 per cent of the married rate of pension in 1977 to 11.1 per cent in 1983; and pensions were cut in real terms by 2.4 per cent. The direct answer to Senator Coates's question and to the criticisms in the Queensland Press is that the Government's commitment to child poverty is not solely family allowance supplement based; it is a much broader commitment and it is one on which we are achieving much progress. Senator Tambling —I ask the Minister to table the document from which he has been quoting. The PRESIDENT —Will the Minister table the document? Senator BOLKUS —I was not quoting from a document. If Senator Tambling wants to see the notes that I have, I will table them. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce and relates to the views expressed by Clive Hamilton, a member of the Bureau of Industry Economics, and quoted extensively in an article in the Age earlier this month in what Kenneth Davidson described as a recent valuable and original paper on micro-economic and macro-economic effects of the depreciation of the Australian dollar. Mr Hamilton said: Our foreign debt . . . arose because of an excess of spending on imports due to incomes inflated by foreign borrowing. The debt caused the deficit rather than the deficit caused the debt. The cure can thus at best be only partially obtained by depreciations. The fundamental principle needs to be stressed that foreign borrowings become a debt burden when they (or, rather, the imports they . . . finance) are not put to productive use. Does the Minister agree with Mr Hamilton's assessment and, if he does, what action is the Government taking or planning to take in order to correct the problem? If the Minister, and/or the Government, does not agree with Mr Hamilton's comments, can and will the Minister say why Mr Hamilton is wrong? Senator BUTTON —That is an extraordinarily difficult question for me to answer, limited in economic literacy as I am. But let me say that I see some substance in Mr Hamilton's views. The honourable senator then goes on to ask: What is the Government going to do about it? I suppose she is asking me-- Senator Chaney —Shoot Mr Hamilton. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney says, `Shoot Mr Hamilton'. Senator Chaney remembers being in government a few years ago when one used to do that sort of thing. If one did not like the advice one got, one shot the person. We are not like that. We are a very benign government. Senator Stone —I am unscarred. Senator BUTTON —Senator Stone is unscarred, as he points out-from both governments. The first Government was probably scared of him and the second Government probably should have taken the first Government's example of what it did with other bureaucrats. I think the important point in the answer is that we have to reduce foreign borrowings. For that reason, the Government has set about the task of reducing the domestic deficit and getting the Budget into surplus, which will increase our capacity to reduce foreign borrowings at government level. I suppose that is the simple explanation of what the Government is about in terms of the attack which it has made on outlays in government expenditure, reducing the public sector borrowing requirement and so on. Senator Haines —So you do not agree with Mr Hamilton? Senator BUTTON —The point I am trying to make is that I do not agree with the honourable senator. For as long as I can remember, the Australian Democrats have kept cycling up the view that foreign borrowings of any kind in themselves are evil and that, at the same time as we are rejecting foreign borrowings, we can go on spending government money like a man with no arms, or whatever the expression is. Senator Walsh —A cargo cult. Senator BUTTON —Senator Walsh interjected and described it as a sort of Democrat cargo cult. It is, and I very much regret that. Senator Stone will correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was Glendower who said `I can call spirits from the vasty deep', and Hotspur who said, `But will they come?'. The honourable senator is always summoning these visions from the vasty deep and she now brings Mr Hamilton to her aid in this matter, I think with not much success. Senator HARRADINE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the controversy raging in the United Kingdom over the use of aborted foetuses as brain transplant donors? Is it not a fact that the transplant procedure requires that the foetus be delivered alive and then decapitated so that the brain tissue is fresh and intact? Has the Minister noted today's statement by Dr Helga Kuhse supporting this procedure, and adding that in exceptional circumstances it might be acceptable for a woman deliberately to become pregnant and have an abortion to save another person's life? Is this the Dr Helga Kuhse who, with Dr Peter Singer, has been given $450,000 of medical research funds by Dr Blewett for a project entitled `Bioethical Issues in the Use of Human Foetal Tissue, Embryos and Gametes'? Will the Minister issue a statement condemning this uncivilised brain transplant procedure and take steps to ensure that it will be banned in Australia, as it is in the United States of America, or are we to assume, in the absence of any such condemnation, that the Government's policy is where its money is going? Senator COOK —I am, of course, aware that the Government is establishing a national bioethics consultative committee, but I am not in a position to answer the detailed questions that Senator Harradine has raised. Senator Vanstone —Neither are they. Senator COOK —That may not be the case. Therefore, I propose to put the question on notice and reply to it in due course. Senator HARRADINE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I find this very unsatisfactory, because I have asked specific questions about this matter and I have not received any answer. The only answer I have received from the Minister is some nebulous thing about a bioethics committee. I asked a question quite frankly whether the Minister would issue a statement condemning the uncivilised procedure-- Senator Coates —Which Minister? Senator HARRADINE —The Minister for Community Services and Health. I asked whether he would issue a statement condemning the uncivilised procedure which I have described. Secondly, I asked whether action should be taken to recoup some of the money given to Dr Helga Kuhse, who holds views which would not be those held by the vast majority of Australians in this particular area. Senator COOK —By way of a reply to an interjection from Senator Coates, Senator Harradine said that he had asked a question of the Minister for Community Services and Health. That Minister is represented in this chamber by me and, since the question is directed to that Minister, I will undertake to pass on the question to Dr Blewett and furnish Senator Harradine with a reply as soon as one is to hand. So far as anything else I can say on the subject is concerned, I know that issues, perhaps not going directly to the point raised by Senator Harradine but issues of a like nature, were raised with officers of the Department during the Estimates committee hearings. That is another avenue for Senator Harradine to pursue, if he is dissatisfied with the response from the Minister. I repeat that I will undertake to get an answer from Dr Blewett and provide it to Senator Harradine as soon as possible. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to his response to Senator Chaney's question on 13 April in which Senator Button endorsed the Australian Labor Party's decree refusing to allow journalists to cover the coming Australian Labor Party National Conference unless they produce evidence of union membership. Is the Minister aware of the motion passed overwhelmingly by a meeting today of the Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery that it `cannot accept the principle that any legitimate media representative is denied access to an event of genuine public interest on the grounds of union membership or non-membership'? How does the ALP intend to enforce its compulsory unionism decree for members of the media covering its coming National Conference? Do the ALP's decree and his public support of it represent Government policy? What is the Government's policy on the imposition of restrictions such as this which limit the rights and freedoms of Australians? Does this policy or any existing legislation cover a situation in which any organisation may choose to limit attendance at its conferences to journalists who are not union members? Will the ALP and the Government reconsider this absurd decree in the light of its rejection by a group of media professionals who will be most directly concerned in reporting the ALP Conference? Senator BUTTON —I accept Senator Michael Baume's description of what happened at the meeting of the Parliamentary Press Gallery this morning. However, I must say that I do not think journalists are much different from others in this community when it suits them to behave in particular ways. For example, there were large scale threats of dismissals at certain newspapers in Australia recently, and if an event arises in future I am quite sure that some of the journalists who are now complaining will readily join the unions if they are not already members. Senator Haines —That is not the point. Senator BUTTON —I am coming to the point. Senator Chaney —You are not suggesting that the journalists are anti-unionists per se, are you? Senator BUTTON —I did not say that, Senator. In answer to Senator Chaney's question the other day, I said that I did not regard the requirement of the ALP organisation as an inhibition on the freedoms of members of the journalists' profession. They can either go to the ALP Conference or not go, whichever they please. Apart from that, this is not in essence a Government matter and is not a matter within my portfolio responsibilities. It relates to the ALP as a political organisation. Senator Walters —You may be Leader of the Government in the Senate but you haven't got a clue. Senator BUTTON —Thank you, Senator; I am glad that you acknowledge what I have said. It is no more a matter of ministerial responsibility at Question Time in this chamber than it is the responsibility of Senator Chaney to answer any allegation that might be made against the Federal President of the Liberal Party. Senator Chaney —There has been plenty of that in here; there has been talk of nothing else. Be consistent; you talk about nothing else. Senator BUTTON —We talk about nothing else, but Senator Chaney does not answer; he does not stick up for him. All we get is a wimpish interjection from Senator Chaney explaining that Vat 69 is the Pope's telephone number and not a bottle of whisky. That is all the defence we get of Mr Elliott from Senator Chaney. Anyway, it is not the responsibility of the Government and I have nothing further to add to what I have said. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I have a supplementary question, Mr President. Perhaps the Minister was not listening, but I specifically asked him about matters relating to the Government's and his actions and Government policy. I will repeat the question for the Minister's benefit: Do the ALP's decree and the Minister's public support for it represent Government policy? What is the Government's policy on the imposition of restrictions such as this which limit the rights and freedoms of Australians? Does this policy or any existing Federal legislation cover a situation in which any organisation may choose to limit attendance at its conferences to journalists who are not union members? I would be grateful if the Minister addressed his mind to the matters of substance of the question. Senator BUTTON —The Government's policy on this is consistent with the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which provide for the encouragement of union membership in all pursuits. Senator Stone —By making it compulsory? Senator BUTTON —No. Senator Stone —Take it up with the National Executive resolution. Senator BUTTON —Just a minute; I am being asked about the Government's position and I am trying to explain it. If Senator Stone wants to send a question off to Bob Hogg about this he should do so, but do not ask me. I have been asked about the Government's position, which is consistent with the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which encourage the representative organisation of employees in every circumstance and the rights of people as individuals to be excused from that obligation of union membership in certain circumstances. That is the position. Senator DEVEREUX —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health. Is the Minister aware of reports in the weekend Press that one in 10 Australian men have a daily intake of alcohol 75 per cent above the safe level, and that one in 10 women have a daily intake 50 per cent above the safe level? Can he advise the Senate what the Government is doing to educate the Australian public about the dangers of alcohol abuse? Senator Richardson —You had better tell us what the safe level is. Senator COOK —In my response to the question I will tell Senator Richardson what is a safe level of alcohol consumption. I am aware of the reports in the weekend Press, and I am also aware of a report in Monday's West Australian about a survey that the Commonwealth Department of Community Services and Health has released about national dietary habits. It was a survey that had been retaken for the first time in 40 years and was thus able to provide a check in the changeover time of dietary habits of Australians. That survey, which was concluded in 1983, covered 6,255 people aged between 25 and 64 years who were living in State capitals. Because of that, it excluded those living in provincial centres, but the general evidence of the Department of Community Services and Health indicates that the alcohol consumption of people who live in provincial centres in certain circumstances is more of a danger and a more serious problem for younger age groups than is necessarily the case in capital cities. So the survey does not take into account that which, I guess, is another worrying feature. The survey found that one in 10 Australian males has a daily alcohol consumption of 75 per cent above the safe level and that one in 10 Australian women consumes 50 per cent above the safe daily level, which means that men consume more than 40 grams of alcohol per day on average and women 20 grams of alcohol per day on average. The safe level for men is four standard measures of beer, table wine, fortified wine or spirits per day, whereas the standard measure for women is half that amount-two standard measures per day. The consumption of alcohol is not the only factor affecting health standards in this country. Australians, of course, have a propensity to eat fattier foods, at a level much higher than one would wish to encourage. I note on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, John Kerin, that in the primary industry area this matter is being addressed by the lean beef campaign and a number of other campaigns involving primary producers, to try to make red meat in particular more attractive for the dietary conscious. To answer the other part of the question asked by Senator Devereux, a number of States around Australia are running anti-alcohol campaigns. In my own State of Western Australia there is a television campaign called the Drink Safe Campaign. As well, the Australian Hotels Association in the State is running a campaign to discourage underage drinking in Western Australia. The Federal Government, in association with the States, is also running a television campaign on drinking which is aimed in particular at cutting down the incidence of binge drinking among teenagers in the age group of 12 to 14 years, at increasing parents understanding of alcoholism in youth, thus enabling them to counsel and advise in this area, and at encouraging parents to set themselves up as model examples so that younger children and early teenage children do not follow bad examples that might be set in the home. The campaign is supported by all the States and I commend it to the Senate and to the Australian community as a means of educating this country to be more socially responsible in the use of alcohol. It is not a wowser campaign aimed at stopping alcohol consumption but it does preach the very strong message that it is a public campaign aimed at bringing responsibility to consumption. Senator DURACK —Is the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories seriously considering a proposal to nominate the Shark Bay area of Western Australia for World Heritage listing? If he is doing so, does he propose to consult widely with the local community and with the State Government and other people who would be vitally interested in this matter? Secondly, will he obtain a socioeconomic study of the region and the impact of such a decision on the region before any decision is taken on this occasion, and not after the decision, as the Government did in relation to the north Queensland rainforest? Senator RICHARDSON —Shark Bay is being considered for inclusion on the World Heritage List in terms of discussions that are taking place with the Western Australian Government. The Western Australian Government released in, I think, March of 1987 a proposal for the future management of the Shark Bay region. In the documents that were released on that occasion reference was made to World Heritage listing. The Western Australian Government is continuing to liaise with local communities on that matter, so the Federal Government, of course, is keeping a watchful eye on it, just as it did when it made comments on that plan released in March 1987. In fact, tonight I am going to Western Australia to meet with-- Senator MacGibbon —Good. Don't come back. Senator RICHARDSON —It is all right; I will be back tomorrow for Question Time. I will be going to Western Australia tonight to meet with two local consultative committees from the Shark Bay region which will be in Perth to discuss with the Western Australian Government what heritage listing can mean. So, no decision has been made to list for World Heritage or to make a nomination for listing. All I can say is that it is a matter that is being discussed at the moment with the Western Australian Government. In terms of the socioeconomic study to which the honourable senator refers, I would not give consideration to calling for a socioeconomic study unless I regarded the discussions on the listing of Shark Bay to have gone much further than I currently regard them to have gone. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. In the event that the Minister does propose to take this matter further, will he guarantee that the socioeconomic studies will be obtained before the Government makes a decision and not after? Senator RICHARDSON —As I said, I will consider socioeconomic studies if and when I think the decision on World Heritage is coming much closer. I would obviously speak to the Western Australian Government about any such recommendation for a study. I have no doubt it would insist upon one being done anyway. I can contrast the attitude of the Western Australian Government with that of the Queensland Government and I am in a position to say that we would always wish to have socioeconomic studies done beforehand. Given the cooperation of the Western Australian Government, that would be possible in this case. Senator VALLENTINE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. In light of the Minister's statement condemning the use of chemical weapons by Iraq on the Kurds in the north-east of that country and in particular the attack on Halabja in March when 5,000 people were killed and 10,000 injured, I ask the Minister whether the Government is prepared to reconsider its earlier refusal to treat victims of these attacks in Australia. As the earlier refusal was based on the alleged effect on Australia's even-handed position regarding the Iran-Iraq war, is the Government now prepared to follow the example of the United Kingdom, which has put humanitarian reasons before such political concerns? In light of the Government's highly commendable work on a chemical warfare ban at the international level and also in respect of the answer given to Senator Wood last week, how can Australia maintain its commitment in this area when public servants with expertise in this field have been moved on from the peace, disarmament and arms control branch of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade without being replaced by staff at the same level? Senator GARETH EVANS —Australia declined an Iranian request to receive chemical warfare victims in Australia on the basis that they could be better treated closer to Iran and that Australian hospitals had limited capacity, and that remains the Government's approach. Our humanitarian concerns on this matter and similar matters are effectively pursued, we believe, by other means. On 14 April Mr Duffy announced that Australia would contribute $100,000 to an International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) appeal for the victims of the Iran-Iraq war and some of the funds would be used by the ICRC to assist victims of the chemical attacks on Halabja. Australia also contributed $70,000 in 1984 to the previous ICRC appeal for victims of the war. On the last part of Senator Vallentine's question, as I explained to Senator Wood last week, the Government continues to allocate a very high priority and a considerable number of staff to the pursuit of Australia's arms control and disarmament objectives. There is no question that adequate resources and expertise do still exist in the peace, arms control and disarmament branch of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to ensure that Australia continues to play a positive and active role in efforts towards the achievement of a chemical weapons convention. As to Senator Vallentine's momentous revelation that some staff changes have occurred, she should recognise that in a department which manages the country's foreign service, rotation of staff between different policy areas and posts is unavoidable and, provided it is properly managed, highly desirable. Senator PARER —The Minister for Transport and Communications will be aware that with the realignment of the runway at Brisbane Airport it was planned that southbound aircraft would track over Moreton Bay and thus avoid urban areas. Can the Minister advise why aircraft are tracking over suburbs of Brisbane, particularly eastern suburbs, if they are southbound aircraft? Is it a fact that this is occurring because of deliberate action by air traffic controllers and, if so, what is the reason for that action? What, if anything, is the Government doing about this source of great annoyance to people who in the past were not subject to aircraft noise? When can they expect some relief? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware that some 250 complaints have been received by the Department's Queensland regional office since operations from the new airport began on 20 March. Weather conditions since the airport opening have required that a greater proportion than normal of flights take off over southern suburbs rather than to the north over the bay. The Department is currently taking noise readings in affected suburbs and is exploring options for relieving the problem. That is as much as I have in my brief on the subject at the moment. I will look at the question further in the light of Senator Parer's question and give him any further information that I have to hand. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. In the light of the many recent distressing reports about events in the occupied territories of the Middle East, can the Minister advise the Senate of the actions the Government has taken to promote a humane and more conciliatory approach by Israel to the problems of this area? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has expressed its concerns on a number of occasions at the continuing abuse of Palestinian human rights by Israel. It has received confirmation from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency of certain recent media reports underlining the gravity of the present situation, although we do not need UNRWA reports to tell us about the gravity of the situation as it has evolved in the last 48 hours. Mr Hawke, in his letter to Prime Minister Shamir back in February, noted that the extent and nature of some of Israel's responses to the resistance to its presence in the occupied territories, including the deaths and beatings among the civilian population, have damaged Israel's image in Australia and have made even more difficult the task of achieving a just and lasting peace in the region. The Prime Minister, in his letter to Mr Shamir, also noted that the deportation of Palestinians to Lebanon was inconsistent with Israel's responsibilities under the Geneva Convention and an infringement of Lebanon's sovereignty. In addition, Australia has made firm and critical statements at the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva and at the United Nations regarding Israel's response to unrest in the occupied territories. We emphasise our deep concern over Israel's deportation of Palestinians and the need for Israel to recognise the Palestinians' right to self-determination. We condemn certain Israeli practices, including the use of live ammunition against unarmed demonstrators. Senator MESSNER —I refer the Minister for Transport and Communications to his decision today to announce a review of the Government's pay television policy. Can the Minister confirm that, as a result of the Government's present moratorium on pay television and of its review of pay television announced today, the community will not get the benefit of these very important services until 1991 or 1992 at the earliest? In view of the Government's proposal to increase the television audience reach limits from 60 per cent to 75 per cent, would not the immediate introduction of pay television contribute to greater diversity of broadcast services? Under the disguise of its review announced today, is it the Government's intention to introduce only one primary pay television service on the remaining UHF frequency in metropolitan markets in 1991 and to expand pay television services on Telecom's optical fibre network after 1995? Why is the Government depriving Australians, including those living in regional and remote areas, of the benefit of more diverse broadcasting services which are rapidly expanding in many overseas countries? Senator GARETH EVANS —I would be inclined to take more seriously a communications policy question from Senator Messner and the Opposition if the Opposition could show any signs of getting its own communications policy act together. I understand that for the umpteenth week in a row there has been deferral of consideration of a whole variety of matters. That is perfectly understandable when one understands the hotchpotch of issues that are flowing around in the Tory breast on this issue at the moment and when one has regard to the manifest lack of understanding of the technical issues involved that are embodied in questions of the kind I have just received from Senator Messner. The basic situation so far as pay television is concerned is spelt out in detail in the Press release I have issued today, which explains the technological and legal realities of the situation. A statutory moratorium exists until the latter part of 1990. We have set in train a review process now to enable ourselves to have a clearly formulated and articulated policy in place well in advance of the expiry of that statutory moratorium so that in the event that a decision is made to proceed with some form of subscription or pay television it can be put in place immediately after the expiry of the moratorium, although not necessarily as late as 1991 or 1992. We will be hoping for a lead time of at least a year or so to enable the necessary financial and physical arrangements to be made. In regard to what sorts of options there may be, that is essentially a matter for the review process to untangle. The reality is that, in terms of the primary or national distribution of pay television, there are two basic options-the satellite and Telecom bearers. The satellite tends to be the preferred technology because it is substantially cheaper. In regard to local delivery systems, there are essentially four technical options. One is multipoint distribution systems (MDS)-very high frequency distribution by radio frequencies, which I have described in another Press release today and on which we have been sorting out our policy. There are the two cable options-coaxial and optical fibre-and, of course, there is UHF or VHF television through a properly encoded mechanism. Those four options are technically available and could be introduced, so far as coaxial cable or MDS is concerned, relatively early, should the policy go-ahead be given and should any entrepreneur be willing to meet the financial cost that is involved, because they are both pretty expensive technologies. There will be available in 1990 at least one UHF frequency in each capital city. That could be used more or less immediately in the event that the policy decision was made. It could be used in conjunction with MDS, for example, as a secondary distribution mechanism. There is only one frequency available in the immediately foreseeable future, so to that extent the options are somewhat narrow. What will really open up the options is the availability, on a community-wide basis, of optical fibre from the latter 1990s-probably more like 1997 than 1995. That will create many possibilities for an expansion of pay or subscription television beyond the relatively limited opportunities that will exist technically before then. How to balance all of these considerations is something that the Government will obviously be giving a lot of attention to. The plan at the moment is to prepare a public discussion paper which fully canvasses all of these options over the next three months or so, put that out in the public domain for an extended period of consultation and debate, perhaps have some sort of parliamentary committee inquiry running alongside that, and complete the process of decision making some time next year in order to give ample lead time to enable pay television to be introduced-if that is the decision-by the end of 1990. I think that that is an entirely rational, systematic, step-by-step approach to a very difficult and sensitive policy problem. I would like to see the Opposition do any better. Senator SCHACHT —Is the Minister for Home Affairs aware of a story which appeared in the Adelaide News of 8 April, reporting comments of Senator Messner and entitled `Polling booths blasted'? Was Senator Messner's criticism of polling booth facilities in the Adelaide and Port Adelaide by-elections fair? What are the procedures followed by the Australian Electoral Commission to ensure that easy access to polling facilities is provided to voters? Senator ROBERT RAY —I did read the article in the Adelaide News. I think the headline was a little dramatic. I think `stodgily admonished' would have been a more appropriate headline, but I guess it would not fit so well. The criticisms made by Senator Messner about access to polling booths by the disabled and the elderly are not entirely unfair. Senator Messner and others should realise that once an election is called, apart from State schools, we have no priority for halls. So any bidding for particular booths has to be done on a first come first served basis. Quite often, especially if it is the time for fetes and other things to be held, we do not have priority to use booths. But we do make sure that in every subdivision at least one booth is accessible to the disabled and the elderly. We also send out an electoral information pamphlet to every elector these days, listing a whole range of things-offering postal votes, explaining absentee votes, and listing every booth in the electorate where he or she may vote. Certain booths, marked with an asterisk, are available to the disabled and the elderly. I notice that Senator Messner suggested that we could put up temporary ramps to help people. I point out that that is not so easy when we take the compensation aspect into account. In many cases those temporary ramps can be very dangerous. We acknowledge these days that it is the right of the disabled and the elderly to vote at the booths. They should not be forced to vote by postal vote and, as I say, at least one booth in every subdivision is, wherever possible, accessible to those people. The other dangerous thing that Senator Messner does not allude to is the fact that the various conservation groups have adopted a new tactic of asking that stickers be put on ballot papers. Their standard tactic is to stand outside the polling booth, hand out the stickers and, at two minutes past six, issue a Press release saying that 35 per cent of the people put a sticker on their ballot paper. That sort of thing is all right except for that small percentage of people who do put a sticker on their ballot paper and then drop the remains on the floor. In the Adelaide by-election two elderly people tripped over and fell because of those conservation stickers. If that sort of behaviour continues we might have to outlaw those stickers in polling booths and the conservationists of the world will have to make up some new fibs. Senator ALSTON —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. Is the Government aware of the widespread concern, concern even shared by the H. V. Evatt Research Centre in recent days, that Aussat Pty Ltd has not or cannot make available to its board members or the general public precise estimates of future demand for its services which would inspire confidence that there will be a sufficient future stream of income to meet its debt servicing obligations in respect of any purchase of second generation satellites? Does the Minister agree that Aussat is unlikely to be able to obtain any level of borrowing without implicit government guarantees? In view of the taxpayers' direct interest and concern in any such contingent liability, is the Minister prepared to request Aussat to make public the results of a study recently completed by PA Management Consultants on the future needs of Aussat's major users? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that the very substantial borrowing that will be needed to underpin the second generation Aussat satellite could reasonably be suspected to be forthcoming only against a government guarantee, explicit or implicit. I do not for a moment deny the reality of that part of Senator Alston's question. As to whether or not the cash flow and profitability potential of Aussat are such as to justify the full extent of the borrowings presently contemplated for the full extent of the original second generation program, that is something to which the Government will obviously be giving very close attention, as will the Aussat board, in the next few weeks as this matter comes to the point of final decision. In the meantime I do not propose to preempt that decision-making process in any way, nor to speculate on the outcome. Obviously the Government is conscious of its responsibilities to taxpayers; on the other hand, it is very conscious of the nature of the technology and the risk factors and so on involved in satellite ventures of this kind. It has never regarded them as likely cash cows in the same way as a number of other telecommunications and broadcasting ventures might be regarded. The matters raised by Senator Alston are significant and important, but I can assure him they are ones that the Government is well and truly apprised of and is very carefully looking at. Senator ALSTON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister in due course be prepared to release publicly the basis of the forward estimates made by Telecom Australia as to future demand? In particular, I ask whether he will request the Aussat board, perhaps at a later date, to make available the recent study completed by PA. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will take those matters into account. I have never indicated any great willingness to conceal information of this kind in the past, and I think the honourable senator will acknowledge that even the Caucus discussion paper which I prepared on the subject of Aussat, as well as other government business enterprises, is quite forthcoming and revealing on the financial history and projected future of that particular enterprise. Senator BEAHAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I refer to comments made by Senator Stone and reported on the front page of this morning's Australian that while he `did not want to get into the particularities of the BCA proposals, the general thrust'-that is of the call for continued spending restraint-`is totally right'. What are the factors on which the usefulness and credibility of calls for cuts in government spending depend? What contribution can organisations such as the Business Council of Australia (BCA) and the National Party of Australia make to the process of achieving expenditure restraint? Senator WALSH —In reply to the last part of the question, the BCA has already made a contribution. Whether one agrees with it or not, the BCA has published a list of specific, identified and I believe credible programs which it proposes to be cut for certain savings. The National Party has not done that; all the National Party has done is to add to a list of existing spending propositions. Mr Sharp, the honourable member for Gilmore, in one hit put up nearly $700m worth last week when he was speaking to his own constituents at Goulburn. Mr Lloyd, who is a frontbencher, but still a fiscal ratbag like all the rest of them, put up a proposition for increasing-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. That is unparliamentary language from the Minister. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister to withdraw. Senator WALSH —Very well, I will withdraw. A fortnight ago it was a parliamentary term apparently and now it is not. If those opposite are so sensitive, I will withdraw it. Mr Lloyd, a frontbencher, put up a proposition to increase Commonwealth outlays by $77m in Queensland last week. So, far from providing a list of explicit spending cuts, all the National Party has done has been to put up proposals to increase spending by just over $700m in two weeks. The question drew attention to the fact that Senator Stone said that he did not want to get into the particularities of the BCA proposals. It is fair enough to stay away from the particularities of the BCA proposals, but he does not have any particularities of his own. The reason for that, I suppose, is that he is not allowed to speak about outlays any more than he is allowed to speak about taxation, except in the most generalised terms to say that it would be a good idea to reduce taxation. The other fork of the National Party tongue out there amongst its own constituency says that it will be a good thing to increase outlays as well-increase outlays and reduce taxation. That sums up the policy of the National Party and, indeed, of the coalition Opposition. Their logic is as muddled as their arithmetic was last June. Mr Peacock, of course, could make the contribution of-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The Minister is debating the question-not very well, but he is debating it nonetheless. I ask you to call him to order. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister not to debate the question and to answer the original question. Senator WALSH —I believe I am. I was asked about the BCA proposals to cut expenditure and National Party proposals to cut expenditure. There are specific BCA proposals for cutting expenditure. People can take them or leave them. Mr Peacock originally took them and then he left them. Indeed, he more than took them. He said that they were not nearly enough. He said, `Thanks very much. We will have all this, but it is not enough'. The next day, he said that he did not endorse any of them. His logic is as muddled as his predecessor's arithmetic was last June. All the National Party has been able to do, far from putting up a list of expenditure cuts as at least the BCA has had the intellectual integrity to do, is go out among its own constituency preaching and feeding demands for an extra $750m worth of spending. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. My point of order, again, is that the Minister is debating the question. You drew his attention to the need to answer the question rather than debate it. Unless the word `debate' means something different from my understanding of it, it seems to me that the Minister clearly is debating the question. He is engaging in a series of rhetorical flourishes without too much regard to the facts of the matter. I think it is quite clear that he is not answering but is in some ways arguing the case. I think you should call him to order and require him to follow your ruling instead of treating it with contempt. The PRESIDENT —I have no power as to how the Minister will answer a question. I was not of the opinion that he was debating it, but I will ask him to finalise his answer as soon as possible. Senator WALSH —I had in fact finished the answer, Mr President. I can understand why Senator Chaney does not like to have the lead of the National Party of Australia in the coalition saddlebags. Senator BUTTON —At Question Time on 15 April Senator Chaney asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, a question relating to work bans by the Transport Workers Union (TWU) on the delivery of concrete in Canberra. I have a further answer from the Minister which I shall ask to be incorporated in Hansard. The essence of the answer is that the matter was heard by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on 12 April and progress was made in that forum. The TWU members decided on 18 April to return to work on 19 April. I seek leave to have that answer incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- Senator BUTTON —On 15 April 1988 Senator Chaney asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, the following question without notice: Is the Minister aware that bans placed by the Transport Workers Union on the delivery of concrete in Canberra on 30 March are threatening to close down the ACT building industry, which is now entering a stand down phase because of those bans? Is the Minister further aware that the drivers involved in the dispute have failed to obey an Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission recommendation to return to work to allow negotiations to take place? Does the Minister agree that this action is but the latest example of defiance of the Arbitration Commission within the ACT building industry and once again demonstrates the need for effective compliance provisions which would enable the Commission to issue directions to terminate industrial action which are legally enforceable. In my reply I undertook to seek further information from the Minister for Industrial Relations. The Minister has provided the following response: I am aware that bans by drivers of quarry and concrete agitator lorries, members of the Transport Workers Union, prevented the delivery of concrete to building sites in the ACT from 29 March. The dispute arose from negotiations over the 4% second tier claim. I understand that the matter was heard by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on 12 April and that progress was made in that forum. Following the Commission hearing I understand a change in the rostered day off arrangements for AWU members on concrete batching work was agreed. In the circumstances the TWU members decided at a meeting on 18 April 1988 to return to work on 19 April 1988. In view of the fact that the employers did not seek to exercise all available avenues under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to ensure compliance the situation here hardly constitutes reasons for legislative changes of the kind Senator Chaney proposes. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney also asked me a question on 18 April relating to the Quadrant building. I think I can describe the question as very detailed in regard to the number of subquestions, and I undertook to get an answer in respect of that matter. I seek to have the somewhat lengthy answer incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- Senator BUTTON —On 18 April 1988 Senator Chaney asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, the following question without notice: My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. I ask: Is the Minister aware that the dispute on the Quadrant building site in Canberra City has now entered its ninth week, despite a direction from the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that all bans and limitations be lifted and that a 10-tonne concrete tank was dropped next to a pump, preventing it from being taken from the site, allegedly because the pump operator refused to provide two cases of ``grog'' as demanded by the crane crew? Is he aware that an official of the Transport Workers Union who sought to assist in moving the pump was threatened with violence by an official from the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association and a member of the crane crew? Is he also aware that the Commission, in a hearing on the dispute, has described the ACT building industry as being in a state of anarchy and said that the union was supporting liars and frauds and that events on the site raised a question of criminal action? Is he aware that the staff of White Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd have been intimidated, abused and physically assaulted in relation to the dispute and that the car door of the industrial relations director of the Master Builders Association (MBA) was smashed in while he was attending a meeting at the site? Is the Government aware that it has been put to the ACT Master Builder's Association that the solution to this dispute is for him to collect a bag of $10,000 to pay to the crane driver for him to leave town? Is the Government aware that there is a complaint that elements of the union movement have attempted to blackmail members of the council and executive of the MBA into silencing the association from putting these facts forward? I ask: Why has the Government not responded to the MBA's letter of 23 March seeking assistance in dealing with this appalling situation? What is the Government's attitude to the state of anarchy in the ACT building industry? What action is the Government taking to deal with the matter? In my reply, I undertook to refer the question to the Minister for Industrial Relations. The Minister has provided the following response: I am aware of a continuing dispute on the Quadrant project and that Commissioner Baird issued a direction on 26 February 1988 that normal work resume. I am also aware that a number of statements have been made by the Master Builders' Association of the ACT alleging that improper industrial practices, violence, abuse, intimidation, criminal action and blackmail have occurred on this site. Until yesterday I was not aware of an allegation that the dispute could be settled by the payment of $10,000 to the crane driver, but I have since confirmed that the ACT MBA has made such an allegation. These allegations are of an extremely serious nature and, if true, would constitute a deplorable state of affairs in the ACT building industry. If there is truth in the allegations then I would have expected those with the evidence would refer them to the police to allow a proper investigation. In fact, this very course has been urged upon the Master Builders Association on a number of occasions by the Government. In the absence of such action however my colleague the Minister for the Arts and Territories has written to the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate, requesting a police investigation. In relation to allegations of improper industrial practices, Commissioner Baird has referred the transcript of proceedings before him on 26 February to the Inquiry into the Building Industry being conducted by a Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Officers of the Department of Industrial Relations have strongly recommended to the Master Builders Association of the ACT that it raise its concerns in the Inquiry. The Government has intervened in the Inquiry and will make submissions as appropriate. The Government does not accept, however, the ACT Master Builders' Association claim that it has exhausted the available processes under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The Master Builders' Association has not sought to take the matter to a Full Bench of the Commission nor has it sought to obtain a bans clause to activate the compliance provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Since the MBA (ACT) first conveyed its concerns to the Government there have been numerous contacts by my Department, the Office of ACT Administration and the Office of the Minister for the Arts and Territories, with employer associations and the Building Workers Industrial Union on ACT building industry problems and specifically the Quadrant site question. The Government has been advised in the course of these discussions that negotiations are in progress in an attempt to settle what is a complex dispute. Unless the current problems in the building industry are resolved quickly it will be difficult to maintain a substantial building program in the ACT. The Government therefore believes that it is incumbent upon the employers to exercise their rights under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to resolve these issues without any further delay. The Government further urges the unions involved to exercise responsibility in this matter in the interest of industry and the future employment of their members. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I seek leave to move a motion to take note of the answer sight unseen without wishing to debate it now. Senator BUTTON —I have not finished what I am saying. In so far as Senator Chaney's question related to conduct which appeared to have a degree of criminality in it, I should say that the Master Builders Association had been advised as early as 30 March that it should refer those matters to the Australian Federal Police, and on two other occasions has been so advised, but, no action having been taken, as I understand it, at the instigation of the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch), the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate, has requested a police investigation into those matters. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) to a Question without Notice asked by Senator Chaney on 18 April 1988, relating to an industrial dispute on the Quadrant building site in Canberra. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation as I claim to have been misrepresented by Senator Calvert. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON —Yesterday at Question Time I was asked a question by Senator Calvert in relation to the Cold Weather Technology Centre in Tasmania and the Antech report and I said I would provide an answer as quickly as possible. Senator Calvert asked whether I was aware of the report, to which I answered yes. He asked whether I was aware that the report had been widely circulated in New Zealand, perhaps at Tasmania's and Australia's expense, and had I received representations from the honourable member for Denison (Mr Kerr) on the matter. In response to those questions I said, `I am not aware of the details of that matter. I will obtain an answer as quickly as I can for the honourable senator'. Yesterday, following that answer, Senator Calvert saw fit to put out a Press release, which states: Senator Button advised that he was unaware of the report or its progress and in response to further questioning from Senator Calvert, said he was unaware also of any representations from Denison Labor MHR Duncan Kerr, about the matter. There are two misrepresentations in that. I did not say I was unaware of the report. I was not further questioned by Senator Calvert. He asked one question and one question only. There was no supplementary question. That Press release put out by Senator Calvert is grossly misleading and grossly misrepresents my answer of yesterday. It does Senator Calvert no credit at all. Having made that explanation, I seek leave to present the detailed response which I said I would provide for Senator Calvert as soon as possible. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON —I have received representations from the honourable member for Denison, Mr Duncan Kerr, in this matter and he certainly has played a key role in the Government's consideration of Antech. The matter has received a continuing consideration by the Government, including at Cabinet level, where preliminary decisions were made about this issue in February. The essential issue that needs to be addressed is whether there is sound commercial feasibility in the proposal, a matter which was not fully analysed in the original report. Antarctic matters now fall within the portfolio responsibility of Senator Richardson, who has been asked to bring forward a submission addressing all aspects of the proposal. Finally, I say as a matter of comment that it is no surprise that New Zealand is interested, but New Zealand would be interested in assessing costs and likely commercial benefits just as the present Government here in Australia is. Senator TATE —I have obtained further information in relation to the question asked by Senator Patterson yesterday in respect of the advertising of interest rates and the role of the Trade Practices Commission. The Trade Practices Commission has sought the cooperation of financial institutions to ensure that consumers are not misled about the true rates of interest they are paying. In connection with its role in educating business about its responsibilities under the Trade Practices Act, the Commission from time to time publishes guidelines in relation to matters which are causes of concern to it. In 1986, a guideline was published, titled `Deposits and loans: their advertising and the Trade Practices Act', discussing, among other issues, the use of unqualified interest rate figures in advertising, failures to make clear whether rates are fixed or variable and the making of inaccurate comparisons of the costs of loans. Financial institutions which advertise interest rates in a manner contrary to the guidelines or in any other fashion which may mislead or deceive consumers are at risk of legal action by the Commission. Industry acceptance of the guidelines is currently being reviewed by the Commission. Consumers are also afforded protection by credit legislation applicable in the various States and Territories. In relation to regulated credit sale and loan contracts, such legislation requires the giving of an `annual percentage rate' which will approximate the effective rate of interest. Credit legislation, including disclosure of interest rates, is being reviewed by a working group of Commonwealth and State officials which is examining consumer financial services. Another relevant development is the working party on interest rate description which was recently established by the Standards Association of Australia. Senator COOK —Yesterday I answered a question from Senator Panizza and indicated that I would take part of that question on notice. I now have something to add to that answer. The question concerned eligibility for Medicare of overseas students and overseas visitors. Foreign students undertaking courses of study in Australia are currently eligible under the Medicare arrangements. Long term overseas visitors-that is, those with an entitlement to remain in Australia for more than six months-are also covered by the Medicare arrangements, except where a visit is specifically for the purpose of obtaining medical or hospital treatment. Short term overseas visitors, that is, those visiting for six months or less, are not generally eligible for Medicare unless the visitor is from a country with which Australia has a reciprocal health care agreement, such as the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Medicare eligibility provisions generally have been the subject of extensive review for some time. Specifically the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) recently wrote to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) on the question of Medicare access for overseas students. This matter will be the subject of discussions between the officers of those departments in the near future. Senator BOLKUS —In Question Time on 23 March Senator Patterson asked for details of the administration costs of the young homeless allowance (YHA). I am advised that the estimated administration costs to the Department of Social Security for applicants for YHA is $280. This amount includes the initial administration cost as well as ongoing maintenance costs. I am further advised that it is not possible to estimate other costs such as those for local government youth workers since they are not employees of the Department and their advice and the time spent on each case will vary. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented by Senator Bolkus. During Question Time Senator Bolkus referred to me as a rising damp in the Liberal Party. While at first sight this may seem to be a somewhat trivial matter, I take strong objection to being placed in a category that can be described as `rising damp'. The truth is that the Liberal Party as a whole and I as an individual reject the categorisation of individuals into one stereotype or another as `wet' or `dry'. The Liberal Party and I see such categorisations as useless because they deny the responsibility and freedom of the individual to choose the political path of his or her own making and imply the need to choose, as Labor does, between one faction or another. The Liberal Party has always acknowledged the primacy of the individual, unlike the Labor Party, where, if one votes against the Party by crossing the floor, one is out on one's ear, like poor old Senator Georges. People have attempted to apply a number of descriptions to members of the Liberal Party and rising damp is not a new one. A colleague of mine occasionally refers to himself as the Perrier of the Liberal Party, namely, the sparkling wet. We can have sparkling wets, dripping dries, or whatever. I claim to be misrepresented because I do not fit into any of the categories that Labor would seek to apply to us. I regard myself as a Liberal, and I am proud to be so. I am happy to accept the freedom and individual political choice that being a Liberal passes onto me. I would be ashamed to be a member of the Labor Party, which has such a poor view of individualism. In closing, I point out that the obvious proof of the points that I make is in the notes that the Minister used in his answer to the question without notice, which clearly was not without notice because he had a prepared script. I wonder whether the prepared note referring to me as a rising damp-the load of drivel that it was-was prepared by a public servant for the Minister. If so, I wonder whether the taxpayer expects public servants to spend their time incorporating personal political assessments into draft answers. Scripted jokes, pathetic jokes, are indicative of a level of cognitive capacity which, if I were the Minister, I would not be proud of. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the notes that were previously tabled. Leave granted. The notes read as follows- The most recent article reported the concerns of welfare groups in Queensland. We should not be surprised that the primary concern is the low level of education, transport and housing concessions provided by the Queensland National Government. But the answer to the Senator's question is that FAS is not the limit to the Government's attack on Child Poverty. It is a crucial centrepiece, but it is part of a much broader commitment. As the PM pointed out at the recent Child Poverty Conference, any attack on Child Poverty must also include issues such as: job creation the cost of housing reform of education and training programs. The Government remains committed to the broad approach which has delivered: 1 million new jobs since 1983 $5.3 billion on public housing since 1983 110,000 approved childcare places The Government's commitment to an attack on child poverty is strong: Family Allowance Supplement is now being paid to 115,000 working families. the increased child payment is also being paid to 412,000 pensioner and beneficiary families. increased Rent Assistance $15 per week is payable with FAS. If anyone doubts the importance of the Government's achievement with FAS, they should listen to these words: ``I would like to thank the person or persons . . . who devised, developed and approved the family allowance supplement for working families. The extra $88 per month is a godsend.'' Letter to West Australian Or from Helen Brownlee of the Institute of Family Studies: ``The achievement of the benchmarks will mean a reduction in child poverty of more than 75% in working families and more than 30% in non-working families''. The Government is making steady progress towards achieving the benchmarks for FAS: 15% of married rate pension for children till age 13; 20% of married rate pension thereafter. Over every year since 1983 we have made significant improvements in the level of payments for children: from 11.1% of Married Rate Pension to 12.0% in 1984, 12.6% in 1985, 13.0% in 1986. up to 14.1% for children under 13 and in 1987 and 17.2% for children 13, 14 and 15. The Child Support Scheme, passed in this place last night will also bring substantial relief to sole parent families. For the first time it will be possible for sole parents to receive regular maintenance, without humiliation or threat of violence. The achievement and commitment of the Government in this area is outstanding. Let us compare this to the Opposition. In 1983 when Senator Chaney was Minister for Social Security: 200,000 people and their children were thrown onto the unemployment heap. Child Payments had fallen from 15.2% of Married Rate Pension in 1977 to 11.1%. Pensions had been cut in real terms by 2.4%. The rising damp of the Liberal Party, Senator Van Stone is a record condemning the destructive effect of our policies on families. I ask her to consider the effect of budget cuts advocated by her colleague. The Shadow Treasurer: What would be the effect of: reducing the child qualifying age to 10 as the Opposition suggested at the last election? abolishing Family Allowance and replacing it with a flat rate payment. cutting back on Childcare. The effect would be to send Australian families back to the despair of the early 80s. 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 Department of Defence safety principles for explosives. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.18) —To enable the Estimates committees to meet, I move: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(3.19) —I refer to a report which appeared in this morning's Canberra Times, and it arises from an incident at the Duffy Primary School fete on 31 October 1987. This morning's report says: Mr Mark Howard Kenta, 17, who had his charge changed from murder to manslaughter, pleaded guilty to punching and kicking Grant Andrew Cameron at the Duffy Primary School fete on 31 October 1987 and causing his death. There has been great disquiet in the community over this incident, particularly in relation to the change of the charge from murder to manslaughter. The accused was brought before the Canberra Court of Petty Sessions some time ago now and was committed for trial by a magistrate on the charge of murder, but from then until now something has occurred which has caused that charge to be downgraded. There may be good reason for this but certainly it is not apparent to people in the community, who feel very worried indeed that a young boy can go to a school fete and finish up dead after being kicked and punched. I heard of this matter some weeks ago and I wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions after receiving letters and telephone calls from people who were appalled at the suggestion of the reduction of the charge from murder to manslaughter as a result of some arrangement that no-one knows anything about. I received a letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions dated 13 April 1988, in which he, in part, says: The matter was properly brought to my attention because of the painful nature of the case. I would suggest that the `painful nature of the case' is a rather strange way to refer to the incident that occurred resulting in the death of a young boy. The matter then came before the court yesterday, the accused having agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charge. The Chief Justice who heard the case, then adjourned it until 29 April this year, pending receipt of a welfare report. He spoke of strong disappointment about the report not being ready, as reported in the Canberra Times. As I understand it-and my understanding might be wrong-it was clearly expected that the welfare report was to be available yesterday. The matter has now been put off. What makes this a matter of great concern to a number of people is the fact that the Children's Services Ordinance No. 13 of 1986, which came before us last year, has not yet been proclaimed. I am told that it is to be proclaimed on 26 April. The provisions of that ordinance will mean that the penalty may be somewhat less severe than might have been the case had the matter been dealt with yesterday. There is disquiet about this matter. How can it be that, when the magistrate committed the accused on a charge of murder, something was able to be done behind the scenes for the charge to come out as manslaughter, to which a plea of guilty is entered, and then yesterday the case was adjourned until 29 April, in a way that leads many people to think that there is some advantage in this-- Senator Button —On a point of order, Mr President: I do not wish to interrupt Senator Reid, and I have a lot of sympathy with what she is saying, but there is a sub judice rule, which means that one should not comment on matters currently before the courts, particularly the criminal courts. With respect, I think Senator Reid has come a little close to breaching that rule. I do not have any quarrel with Senator Reid's basic querying of this matter, but I think one has to be careful in doing so. Senator Lewis —On a point of order, Mr President: I understand the point that Senator Button is making, but I draw the attention of the Senate to the situation. The accused person has pleaded guilty to the offence, and what is sub judice-and I think Senator Reid would acknowledge this-is the sentencing of the accused person, because that is the matter that has not yet been resolved. I think Senator Button would acknowledge that, although Senator Reid is talking about the charge which was brought against the accused person, she is not talking about the penalty which will in due course be the decision of the Chief Justice of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court. So, I suggest to you, Mr President, on my understanding of the facts of the case, that the specific thing that Senator Reid is talking about is in fact not subject to the sub judice rule. The PRESIDENT —As the sub judice rule has been applied sparingly for quite some time, I do not feel like stopping Senator Reid, but I ask her to note that she should not say anything that would prejudice the case, because the case is still continuing. Senator REID —Thank you, Mr President. I certainly acknowledge Senator Button's comments. It is a matter that I myself have certainly given great thought to. I leave it hopefully for the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate, to respond to it some time after he has had an opportunity to look at it, to see what explanation can be given to the public for the change in the charge and why the welfare report was not available yesterday. I ask for leave to have incorporated in Hansard my letter to the Director of Public Prosecutions dated 25 March, his letter to me dated 13 April and the report from the Canberra Times of 19 April 1988 that I have referred to. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- Parliament of Australia THE SENATE OPPOSITION WHIP SENATOR MARGARET REID SENATOR FOR THE A.C.T. PARLIAMENT HOUSE CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600 25 March, 1988. Mr Ian Temby, QC, Director of Public Prosecutions, GPO Box 401, CANBERRA ACT 2601 Dear Mr Temby, I have received letters and many calls from people in the Canberra community who are appalled at the reduction of the charge against the youth accused of the murder of Grant Cameron, from murder to manslaughter. These people are at a loss to understand why when at the committal proceedings the Magistrate accepted the evidence warranted prosecution on a murder charge, a prosecution will now proceed on the lesser charge of manslaughter. I too, was surprised, at this development, and would appreciate any information which might be of assistance to me in answering the questions which I am being asked about this matter. Yours sincerely, Margaret Reid, Senator for the Australian Capital Territory COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Ian Temby Q.C. PO Box E370 Queen Victoria Terrace Canberra ACT 2600 Telephone 062 705 666 Facsimile 062 731 411 Telex AA61702 Our reference 88/180:GD 13 April 1988 Senator Margaret Reid, Senator for the A.C.T., Parliament House, CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Senator Reid, I apologise for the delay in replying to your letter of 25 March 1988. The decision to indict the youth involved in the death of Grant Cameron on a charge of manslaughter was made by me. The matter was properly brought to my attention because of the painful nature of the case. I and others here who have considered the case were mindful, as we always are, of the interests of the victim and those close to them. However, the legal issues were clear. The law requires that to make out a charge of murder the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the act causing death was done with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm. The first of these had no application and the evidence and circumstances of the case did not prove the latter. In my opinion if the youth concerned had been indicted on a charge of murder then a jury would not have found the case proved to the requisite standard. In fact I doubted whether a murder count would be allowed by the judge to reach the jury. You have noted that the youth was committed on a charge of murder. That of itself does not discharge my duty to ensure that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the charges preferred. Further, I note that on the hearing of the bail application Gallop J. expressed the view that the Crown case was slight. I can well understand the concern within the community and your need for further information on the subject. The matter is, however, still before the courts and I am reluctant to go into further details. As you may be aware the matter is listed for hearing on 18 April 1988. Finally, I should mention that I have great sympathy for the parents of the deceased. On 23 March 1988 I wrote to them explaining my decision. Yours faithfully, IAN TEMBY DEATH-CHARGE YOUTH `DIDN'T LIKE WESTIES' By Andre Coelli and Deidre Mahoney A youth had allegedly kicked a boy to death because the youth ``didn't like Westies'', the A.C.T. Supreme Court heard yesterday. Mr Mark Howard Kenta, 17, who had his charge changed from murder to manslaughter, pleaded guilty to punching and kicking Grant Andrew Cameron, at the Duffy Primary School fete on October 31, 1987, and causing his death. In a statement read by the prosecution, Mr Kenta had allegedly arrived at the school about 4 p.m. with a friend. The two had been drinking and been in aggressive moods. Mr Kenta had allegedly wanted to provoke a fight and had approached Mr Cameron, who had been talking to some younger boys. The prisoner had said to Mr Cameron, ``I don't like Westies'' and had delivered two or three heavy blows to Mr Cameron's face. He had then kneed Mr Cameron in the stomach and the boy had fallen to the ground. Mr Cameron had tried to get up, and had been on all fours and had allegedly said, ``What did I do?'' Mr Kenta had then kicked Mr Cameron in the neck. Mr Cameron had fallen, rolled on to his stomach, had begun shaking and his face had turned blue. He had been taken to Woden Valley Hospital but had been brain-dead on arrival. After the kicking, Mr Kenta had left but someone had stopped him and asked him what he did it for. He had replied, ``I don't know'', had laughed, and said, ``I think I killed him''. An autopsy had revealed that Mr Cameron had died from head and neck injuries, which had caused a sub-arachnoidal haemorrhage to all surfaces of the brain. In his record of interview with the police, Mr Kenta said he had been punched the night before at Rumours disco, in Phillip, for being dressed in trendy clothes. The person who had picked on him had looked like a ``Westie'' [a person from the Western suburbs of Sydney, usually dressed in gym boots, denim jeans and a checked shirt]. The next day he had gone to the Duffy fete and seen Grant Cameron leaning against a fence. He had thought he looked like the Westie who had punched him the night before. In the interview, Mr Kenta said he had hit Mr Cameron in the mouth and asked him if he wanted a ``blue''. He had hit him again, and ``kicked him in the guts''. He had told police he had been watching another fight that had ``stirred him up''. He had decided to ``blue'' with Mr Cameron when he saw him at the fete. He had not been sure he was the man from Rumours, but had told police, ``You have to put them down first before they hit you''. It had later been confirmed that Mr Cameron had not been at Rumours. The blows had been a sharp blow to the eye with his right fist, and a quick right to the centre of the face. He had said face blows shocked more. He had kicked Mr Cameron with his bare feet on his chest or stomach. He had seen people running to Mr Cameron, and thought he had broken his neck, as he had heard someone shout this. He had told police in the interview that he hoped Mr Cameron was all right, and would do anything he could to help. An Australian Federal Police spokesman said Mr Kenta, then 15, had left school in Year 9, as he felt he was being picked on, and had had various jobs since then. He was an A.C.T. ice-hockey representative. The spokesman, Detective-Sergeant John Lawlor, said he felt Mr Kenta lived a loutish lifestyle, drinking and possessing a gang mentality. A senior social worker with the juvenile justice branch of welfare, Mr Michael Tidbill, said he felt the Qamby remand centre would not be suitable for Mr Kenta. Dr Allen Bartholomew, previously a consultant in psychiatric services at Pentridge Prison, Melbourne, said he thought Mr Kenta ``a pretty normal, adolescent boy, with very little psychiatric interest''. He said that, statistically, people who pleaded guilty to murder or manslaughter were unlikely to repeat such an offence. Chief Justice Miles adjourned the case till April 29, pending a welfare report, He spoke of a strong disappointment with the report not being ready. ``This is a difficult matter and an unusual one,'' he said. ``Assistance is available in other parts of Australia; I don't see why it's not in the national capital.'' He granted $10,000 self-bail, with two sureties of $10,000 each. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.26) —I am sorry to hold the Senate up for a few minutes but I believe that I have been misrepresented and I am taking the opportunity of the adjournment debate to talk about it. I refer to notices of motion in the Senate Notice Paper to set up a proposed select committee on agricultural chemicals. In a letter to the President of the National Farmers Federation dated 18 March 1988-and I understand in various other letters written to various primary producers and primary producer bodies-the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Kerin, has said: You will be well aware that the proposal for an inquiry was not initiated by the Government but by the beef industry through the Liberal-National Coalition Opposition. Notwithstanding recent disclaimers from the Opposition spokesperson on rural matters, I draw your attention to the attached Hansard extract from December 15 1987 which clearly shows what the Opposition was trying to do. The enclosure is a copy of Senate Hansard dated 15 December 1987, page 3104. On that page is reported a notice of motion, given by leave, about the setting up of a select committee. In Minister Kerin's Press statement of 16 March he states: The Government did not initiate the inquiry. The dubious honour belongs to Victorian Liberal Senator Austin Lewis . . . Both statements are untrue. As page 3063 of the Senate Hansard reveals Senator Powell of the Australian Democrats, on the morning of 15 December, on behalf of the Democrats, gave notice of a motion seeking the establishment of a select committee on the use of agricultural chemicals in Australia. So the dubious honour that Minister Kerin refers to is in fact Senator Powell's honour, if it is an honour. The motion given notice of was for a very wide ranging inquiry. As a result of the concern of the Liberal and National parties about Senator Powell's proposal, by leave that evening I gave notice of a motion, which I have referred to and which Minister Kerin keeps quoting, which was put as an alternative proposal of a much more limited nature as a counter to the Democrat's proposal. The sole intent of my notice of motion was to give the Government an alternative which would be restricted in scope, compared with the Democrat's notice of motion, to issues relevant to specific problems and in particular questions of speedy compensation and assistance to growers who were and are suffering quarantining. The facts of life in this Senate are that no party can carry a motion without support from other parties. I had made it clear to the Government that the coalition parties would not-repeat not-support the Democrat's proposal and that I understood that the Democrats would not support the coalition proposal. I had had certain discussions, which were confidential, the result of which was that the Government and the Minister's staff were well aware of our position and that I was ready to negotiate further. That gave the Government four options: The first was to support the Democrat's notice of motion with its wide-ranging scope. The second was to support the coalition notice of motion with its narrow scope and capacity to resolve the question of speedy compensation to quarantined farmers. The third was to oppose both motions, in which case it is likely that both motions would have been lost. It came then to me as a considerable surprise to learn that Minister Kerin chose to support the Democrat's proposal, which means no speedy compensation to quarantined farmers but a wide ranging examination of the problems created by chemicals to primary industries around Australia. Minister Kerin did not attempt to negotiate further with me, which he could have done as the fourth option. Worse than that, Minister Kerin keeps claiming that it is my notice of motion that is causing the Government to support the Democrat's notice of motion. That is nonsense. The Government is not required to support the Democrat's notice of motion because of my notice of motion. I might add that the Democrats would have great difficulty getting their notice of motion up in accordance with the procedures in this chamber. The coalition parties have not been asked by the Minister or the Government to withdraw their notice of motion. I can assure the Minister and the Government that we would give earnest consideration to any such request. Our concern is the protection of primary industries and primary producers in Australia. The Democrat's proposal puts both at risk. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —Before the Senate adjourns, I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committee A will meet in the chamber, Estimates Committee B will meet in committee rooms 1 and 2 and Estimates Committee C will meet in committee room 6. The bells will be rung for three minutes prior to the commencement of the sittings of the committees. Senate adjourned at 3.31 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 202) Senator Lewis asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 17 February 1988: (1) How many seizures occurred under section 229 of the Customs Act during the past 5 years and what percentage of these seizures proceeded to prosecution. (2) In the case of unsuccessful prosecutions and cases not commenced, what action has been taken to return the seized goods and/or securities. (3) Where the Australian Customs Services (A.C.S.) has allowed seized goods to deteriorate to the state at which they are no longer commercially saleable, what compensation, if any, has the A.C.S. provided to such importers where the seizure has not led to prosecution or the prosecution has been unsuccessful. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Over the past five years (1983-1987) the total number of commercial seizures by the A.C.S. is 1067. Not all seizures proceed to prosecutions. Region No. of seizures No. to prosecution Approx. percentage NSW ... 167 119 71 Vic ... 604 98 16 Qld ... 48 19 39 SA ... 68 27 40 WA ... 144 70 48 NT ... 10 10 100 Tas ... 26 24 95 (2) There has been a total of 22 cases where the seizure action resulted in an unsuccessful prosecution. In all but 3 of those cases the goods and/or securities were returned. Of those 3 cases, 1 company had gone into liquidation and in 2 cases Customs maintained the seizure action. (3) There is no concluded cases known to the A.C.S. where compensation has been paid to importers on returned goods after unsuccessful prosecutions. (Question No. 250) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, 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 Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Forty five officers of the Department are listed as unattached. Four of these officers are currently working in the Department, the remainder are on various forms of long term leave, on a staff development program, or seconded to a Minister's office, to another Department or to a statutory authority. Another twenty nine staff are employed as temporaries and are not held against substantive positions.