Tuesday, 11 October 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate of the presence of His Excellency Dr Francesco Cossiga, President of the Italian Republic. On behalf of the Senate I extend to His Excellency a warm welcome to Australia and to the Senate. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I propose to invite Dr Cossiga to take a seat on the floor of the chamber. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Dr Cossiga thereupon entered the chamber, and was seated accordingly. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I move: That the Senate extends a warm welcome to Australia and to the Senate to His Excellency Dr Francesco Cossiga, President of the Italian Republic, and expresses the hope that his visit will be an enjoyable and fruitful one and will confirm the cordial relations between our two countries. Australia's links with Italy may be traced back a century or more to the period before the unification of Italy. Perhaps not many Australians know this but it is a fact that there was an Italian, one Raffaelo Carboni, at the Eureka Stockade. Perhaps the words `avanti popolo' which later became famous in Italy were first heard at the Eureka Stockade in Ballarat. Italian participation in Australia's migration programs in the 1950s and subsequently is a foundation on which the present much broader links have been built and which ensures the significant personal awareness of each country in the other. Over 300,000 of today's Australians were born in Italy and another half a million or so are of Italian extraction. These Australians have made an enormous contribution to Australia's economic prosperity and to the enrichment of our cultural life. They are highly valued and respected members of the Australian community. We thank President Cossiga for his visit during our bicentennial year. Italy has played a very prominent part in those celebrations. Many senators have probably visited the Italian pavilion at World Expo 1988 in Brisbane. Bologna hosted a very interesting and well attended conference on Australia earlier this year and there was an Australian pavilion at the Venice Biennale in June. In May this permanent Parliament House was officially opened. The architect is an Italian and so is some of the marble and craftsmanship. The Italian Navy participated in the recent naval review in Sydney Harbour. The artistic highlight of Italy's contribution to our Bicentennial is Italy on Stage, a magnificent festival with 500 artists presenting music, theatre and ballet around Australia, some of which will be performed in the presence of His Excellency President Cossiga. Our business ties with Italy are significant and I think they will become even more so. Many of our larger construction firms were established by Italian migrants. Australia and Italy are substantial trading partners. Our total trade in 1987 was over $A2 billion. I believe that we can do even better than that. Yesterday, Mr President, I had lunch with the Foreign Minister of Italy, Mr Andreotti. He told me that the Italian Parliament is about to consider a change to its standing orders which would require open voting instead of the present system which provides for a secret vote in parliament. I suspect that some members of the Opposition in this Parliament sometimes wish that we practised the Italian system. But on this occasion, in moving that the Senate welcome you, President Cossiga, and your party, I am certain that all honourable senators will be enthusiastic in publicly recording their support. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr President, the Opposition warmly supports this motion. I wish to invite Senator John Panizza to support it on behalf of the Opposition. I do so in part not because I am speechless with pleasure at the President's visit; I am simply speechless. Senator Panizza is, of course, an Australian whose parents came from Italy and we would like him to speak on our behalf on this important occasion. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia) —I welcome the opportunity to support the motion on behalf of the Opposition. We join in welcoming you, Dr Cossiga, to Australia and express the hope that your visit will be enjoyable. Your Excellency, you are visiting a country to which Italians have made a great contribution. As you probably know, Italians first migrated to Australia in numbers around the 1860s. They went into different areas-mostly the harsher areas. They worked in mines. They were engaged in timber felling, cutting sugar, clearing land and the like. They worked in these areas mainly until World War II. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) has said, after World War II the Italian migrants who were here and those who came to this country moved into the professions, businesses and primary industries where they farmed wheat and wool, grew beef and sugar cane and engaged in dairying. All of those industries benefited from their endeavours. As I have said, mining certainly progressed because of the amount of work that they did. Eventually, Italians got into the building industry and highway and bridge construction. They also entered the fashion industry. Carla Zampatti, probably the most well-known fashion name in Australia, is from northern Italy. Italians have also entered the retail and hospitality trades. Many members of this chamber certainly make good use of the hospitality provided by Italian restaurants. Australians have gained many skills that have been brought to this country by Italians. My family originated from the province of Sondrio in north Italy. I can speak with first-hand knowledge of the opportunity that Australia has provided. It is one thing for migrants to come to this country but it is another thing for the host country to provide opportunities. I feel that my family and many others are living proof of what can be achieved in Australia as a result of the opportunities which Australia provided. Older Italians worked hard and deprived themselves of a lot of things so that their children could have what they did not have. One of those was education. As you probably know, Mr President, education was not for everyone in Italy in the early 1920s. Because of the instability of some governments of the time, Italians went all over the world-not only to Australia but also to America, Canada, South Africa and the like-looking for opportunities. As I said, they got those opportunities in Australia. As a result, younger Italians have been able to go into the professions. They have certainly achieved good results there. Italian names appear among university professors, in the professions of medicine, law, dental science, politics and, probably the most important of all, engineering. We have Italian judges and Italian mayors. In fact, Mayor Cattalini, the mayor of Fremantle, the city which hosted the America's Cup, was my guest here last night. I understand that there are now nine Italian members of parliament around Australia. I believe that the President of the Legislative Council of Victoria is an Italian. I also believe that Victoria has an Italian judge. Incidentally, Mr President, you will be happy to know that the first Italian born member of the House of Representatives, Mr Sciacca, was elected to that House last year. In sport also Italian names have come to the fore-famous names such as Barrassi, Silvagni, Pianto, Marchesi, people in Victoria who have made Australian Rules famous. My family name has not done too badly in South Australia, and certainly in Western Australia there are a lot of Italian names in sport. Also, there is an Italian who, if he has not yet made test cricket, is about to do so; that is, young Mike Valetta in Western Australia. In total, Italian migrants have achieved a great deal for Australian society: not only have they contributed to our economy and culture but they have also contributed to Australian family life. Italian family life is certainly respected in Australia. Speaking as an Australian now, Mr President, I can assure you that many Australian families envy the Italian type of family life. Italians have proved that they are the types of migrants that can fully integrate into Australian society, as they have integrated into societies in all parts of the world. On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the opportunity to take into Australia many more migrants in the near future. Mr President, I wish you very well for the rest of your trip in Australia. I hope it will be most enjoyable, and I certainly look forward to my next visit to your country. That is something I do as often as I can and will do again as soon as I can. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —It gives me particular pleasure today to join in welcoming Dr Cossiga to Australia and to the Senate chamber. Much has been said already about the contribution made by Italy and Italians to Australia. This was said at lunch; it was said a few moments ago by Senators Button and Panizza. And those contributions, of course, have included the cultural and economic contribution made by Italian migrants as well, of course, as the more recent very generous contribution made by the Italian people and Government to Australia's bicentennial celebrations. As I said a moment ago, it gives me particular pleasure to speak here today, because only a matter of some two or three weeks ago, as a member of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the European Parliament, I had the privilege of actually meeting Dr Cossiga in his own country and indeed in his own office. It is quite a different experience to meet the President of the Republic of Italy in the sorts of circumstances in which one does over there, surrounded by the ancient and unique beauty of the Italian culture in its own setting. Dr Cossiga was particularly generous in allowing the delegation access to some of the several hundred rooms of the palace in which he has his office. Senator Michael Baume —Hear, hear! Senator HAINES —I am joined in that expression of thanks by one of my colleagues on the delegation, Senator Michael Baume. In fact, I do not think it is going too far to say that we almost overdosed on cathedrals, ceilings, marble and artistry as we moved around Italy, and the President's palace is a classic example of everything that is beautiful and needs to be preserved in Italy. The President also gave us a tremendous amount of his time and discussed a wide range of topics with the members of the delegation, and we could not help being struck by the impressive knowledge that the President had and by the views that he was able to pass on to us. The President's background, as I dare say many honourable senators know, is in constitutional law, and his detailed knowledge of the Australian and Canadian constitutions was immediately apparent. Indeed, it was a quite striking contrast to the appalling lack of knowledge of the Australian Constitution that I think many Australians have. We were somewhat awed by his erudition in this area. We were also able to be part of some discussions with the President and his colleagues about the difficulties of constitutional reform, apt in the wake of our own referendum proposals here. The Senate might be interested to know that while we were there the Italian Senate was debating a number of constitutional changes including an end to the secret ballot provisions that operate in the Italian Parliament. Some changes were being suggested with regard to impeachments of Ministers-Ministers who have been charged with some sort of criminal offence. What was also important to Australia-and I think to the President and other members of Parliament that we spoke to while we were there-was the problems affecting Europe and Australia as 1992 approaches. We benefited considerably from the President's own comments with regard to the coming harmonisation in Europe. I think Senator Baume will acknowledge that we shared his cynicism with regard to possible economic benefits since, as he pointed out, he has not run into an economist yet who has been able to explain clearly what the benefits, ramifications and outcomes are likely to be in 1992. Certainly, Australia needs to look to expand such areas as joint ventures based in Italy and other European countries as well as joint ventures based in Australia if we want to hedge our bets in that area. Along with my Australian Democrat colleagues I welcome the President of the Republic of Italy and hope that he derives as much pleasure and benefit from his visit to Australia as we did on the parliamentary delegation to his country. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —I declare the motion carried unanimously. Dr Cossiga thereupon withdrew from the chamber. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable President of the Senate and senators in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, strongly urge that the Australian Government prohibit the entry of nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered vessels into Australian ports or waters during our bicentennial celebrations and at any other time in the future. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Powell (from 230 citizens). The Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows a request for Medicare benefits for in-vitro fertilisation for the medical treatment of infertile couples. Your petitioners pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled grant Medicare benefits for in-vitro fertilisation, IVF, for the medical treatment of infertile couples. 1 in 10 Australian couples are infertile and unable to conceive and carry a baby to birth. Having a family is one of the most fundamental and rewarding aspects of life and benefits the community as a whole. IVF is an established and proven treatment for infertility. There are existing mechanisms to regulate and control IVF, including the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee. Currently IVF patients pay up to $1500 per treatment cycle for IVF out of their own pockets. This means that some couples who need IVF to help them establish their own family do not have access. We request that Medicare funding be granted for IVF for the treatment of infertility. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows: That we oppose any mineral exploration or mining in any part of Kakadu National Park, the Kakadu Conservation Zone, or the Alligator Rivers Region. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Halt all mineral exploration and mining in the Kakadu conservation zone by revoking current leases and licences and by incorporating the zone in Kakadu National Park; and Prevent proposed mining in Kakadu stages one and two by incorporating the Jabiluka and Koongarra project areas in the National Park and by proclaiming the whole park under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act, 1983. And you petitioners, as in duty bound will ever hope. by Senator Powell (from 47 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned, note that a majority of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material has strongly opposed the proposition that a new NVE category will contain that material as defined in the current `X' classification. call upon the Senate to request the Government immediately to implement the recommendation of the majority of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material by introducing substantive legislation to ensure that X rated video material (and its R rated equivalent) is refused classification for the purpose of Commonwealth laws. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Reynolds (from 61 citizens) and Watson (from 254 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That any decision by Australia Post to close the Invermay Post Office in Launceston will severely inconvenience many aged and infirm residents of the area and further decrease the postal and other services provided to the public. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate should ensure that Australia Post maintains a postal service in the suburb of Invermay. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 500 citizens). To the Honourable the President of the Senate and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth, that (1) they are gravely concerned over the availability of war toys and other combat or violence related toys and games, including video games, in our country; (2) they believe there is sufficient scientific evidence to show that these kind of toys and games are educationally unsound, psychologically damaging to children, and socially undesirable. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: that the Senate will take measures to end all trading in war and violence related toys, games and video games, through either self-regulation by the traders in these products, or legislative action. by Senator Powell (from 47 citizens). Petitions received. Senator SHEIL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following Bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Census and Statistics Act 1905 to provide for the voluntary provision of information under the Act. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Sessional Orders, and unless otherwise ordered, the routine of business on Thursday, 13 October 1988, be as follows: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Ministerial Statements, by leave (4) Discovery of Formal Business (5) Placing of Business (6) Questions (7) Adjournment. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Parer for the period from 11 to 20 October 1988, inclusive, on account of absence overseas on Parliamentary business. Senator COULTER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following Bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to regulate the use of certain substances that can significantly deplete or otherwise modify the ozone layer in a manner that is likely to have adverse effects on human health and the environment, and for related purposes. Senator DUNN(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the nuclear-armed HMS Edinburgh is, at this moment, on a trial run to test the fault in its propellor which forced the ship to return to Sydney on Friday, 7 October 1988; (b) notes with concern that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) is prepared to allow the ship to be dry-docked in Sydney if underwater attempts to fix the propellor are unsuccessful; (c) notes that, if dry-docking is provided, the ship will have to be de-ammunitioned because of its removal from the water which provides for the flooding of a chamber in the event of a fire; (d) notes with dismay that there are no accident plans in place to deal with the very special conditions that apply to an accident which may occur in the transfer of nuclear weapons from ship to shore; (e) calls on the Minister for Defence, in view of the above, to deny the HMS Edinburgh dry-docking facilities as the HMS Invincible was denied several years ago under similar conditions; and (f) calls on the Australian Government to deny all such ships access to Australian ports in light of the fact that weapons which are not confirmed are no safer than those which are. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (a) that the tabling, on 29 September 1988, in the Senate, of a proposal to conduct a Household Expenditure Survey was an attempt by the Australian Bureau of Statistics to legitimise, retrospectively, a survey which was clearly in breach of section 6 (3) of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975; (b) that, despite overwhelming independent legal advice to the contrary, including that of Professor Whalan of the Australian National University, Law Department, the Commonwealth Statistician continually insisted that the survey was legal and compulsory; (c) that the Commonwealth Statistician failed to fully inform the Attorney-General of the significant changes in the content, format and statistical methodology of the survey when seeking a ruling on its legality; and (d) the fact that the Australian Bureau of Statistics is still continuing to exert pressure on those persons who were selected and approached to complete the survey before the proposal was tabled clearly shows that implementation commenced before 1 October 1988. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. SOUTH PACIFIC FORUM-text of a statement by the Prime Minister. 2. DEFENCE REPORT 1987-88-section 25 of the Public Service Act 1922-together with Freedom of Information Section 8 Statement-section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982. 3. AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS-Annual Report 1987-88-section 24 of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975. 4. AUSTRALIAN STATISTICS ADVISORY COUNCIL-Annual Report 1987-88-section 24 of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975. 5. AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE-Annual Report 1987-88-section 67 of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. 6. AUSTRALIAN POLICE MINISTERS COUNCIL-Annual Report on the Activities of National Common Police Services 1986-87. 7. ACCESS TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW: PROVISION OF LEGAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW MATTERS-Administrative Review Council-Report to the Attorney-General. 8. ANNUAL REPORT BY THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON THE OPERATION OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966-1 July 1986 to 30 June 1987-section 314 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Senator Gareth Evans, will be absent from the chamber for Question Time today and tomorrow as he is in Fiji on official government business. Any questions in this chamber which would normally be directed to Senator Evans in relation to the foreign affairs and trade portfolio should be directed to me. Those questions in relation to transport and communications matters should be directed to Senator Ray. I also inform the Senate that the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) left Australia on 5 October on government business overseas. He will return to Australia on 27 October. In his absence the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate, is Acting Attorney-General. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate as Minister representing the Prime Minister and Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. I ask: What is the Government's current position on taxes and wages? Is it a tax cut and a wage increase, as promised by the Prime Minister? Is it a tax cut but no wage increase, as suggested by the Treasurer? Is it neither, as threatened by Senator Walsh? Senator BUTTON —I think it is playing with words and, indeed, with the truth to say that Senator Walsh threatened anything. Let me say that, of course, it has been said since the time of the Budget that the Government would be approaching the wages issue in the early part of 1989 on the basis of a tax-wage trade-off. At the time of the Budget it was said that the size of the tax cut would depend, amongst other things, on the movement in wages that took place following the national wage case of this year and prior to March 1989. The question of a balance between tax cuts and wage rises is something that must be determined, having regard to a number of matters which are likely to take place before that issue is negotiated. It is a matter of taking those factors into account and arriving at an appropriate balance. The Treasurer has said on at least one occasion that the most desirable thing would be for the tax cuts to be of sufficient amounts to negate the necessity for a wage rise, in the light of the Government's statement that it will preserve the level of real wages throughout next year. But again that is a matter which remains to be seen, and it is a matter of judgment at the time as to what will be the appropriate course. The Government will advise when it has reached a conclusion about that matter next year. Senator LEWIS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. So that the Minister cannot accuse me of not quoting Senator Walsh correctly, I shall quote from his speech made on Friday, 7 October 1988, in which he said: For simplicity, I will assume an `average earner' to be a person with a taxable income of $24,000. Such a person presently pays $5,601 tax. A tax cut of $56 a week would reduce that liability by $2,912 or 52 per cent. I ask the Minister: Does he agree with Senator Walsh's statement that an average worker would need a reduction in his or her tax liability of 52 per cent to make up for the imposts of the Hawke Government imposed between March 1983 and 1 July 1989? Senator BUTTON —As I understood the burden of Senator Walsh's comments on the $56 reduction in tax, it was to illustrate the utter innumeracy of the Opposition and its incapacity, as always, to make any sensible calculations that will lead to a sensible economic result. That is what Senator Walsh was concerned to do. I do not believe this is a supplementary question at all, Mr President, because in Senator Lewis's first question he asked whether I agreed with the threat made by Senator Walsh. The only threat in Senator Walsh's comments, as quoted by Senator Lewis, was aimed at the credibility of the Opposition, but that is not much of a threat. The credibility of the Opposition in terms of numeracy is rock-bottom, and there was no threat in what Senator Walsh said. Senator COATES —I ask the Minister for Finance a question about the average living standards in the Australian community. The Minister has stated that real household disposable income per capita increased by 4.4 per cent between 1982-83 and 1987-88. I was concerned to hear a subsequent claim that that was largely due to a rise in capital-sourced income received by the very wealthy in the community. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether that claim is true? Senator WALSH —The simple answer is that the claim is not true, but I will not just leave that hanging in the air-I will produce the evidence. I have seen Mr Peacock's press release and he clearly has difficulties with the concept of an average. The figure for average weekly earnings which he likes to use is an average of the wages and salaries of all adult full time wage and salary earners. That means that it includes the salary of the Federal President of the Liberal Party, for example, as well as the wages of less well paid Australian workers. The average that Mr Peacock likes to use appears to be an average of adult male full time wage and salary earners, which therefore obviously ignores the one million self-employed, the 1 1/2 million retired people, be they social security recipients or not, and the fact that almost three million women are in the paid work force. Surely the average living standard of the Australian community is what applies to all Australians and not just to a subsection of them. But I have asked my Department to check on Mr Peacock's claim. I will quote Mr Peacock: the increases in Senator Walsh's aggregate measure of real per capita household disposal income have been largely due to a rise in capital sourced incomes . . . When I asked members of my Department to analyse and check this claim, they informed me that if real household disposable income per capita were recomputed with income received by households from interest, dividends and rents excluded, the increase over the period-I repeat `the increase'-from 1982-83 to 1987-88 was 4 per cent as against 4.4 per cent if they were not excluded. Senator Messner —What about the 52 per cent you told us about? Senator WALSH —Senator Messner thinks that that is great news. Before he becomes too enthusiastic about it, let me tell him that when the figures are adjusted to exclude capital sourced incomes, although the growth figure between 1982-83 to 1987-88 goes down to 4 per cent real increase, the fall in real per capita disposable incomes in 1982-83-and who was in charge of the economy then, Senator Messner?-previously recorded at 1.8 per cent, declines to 2.5 per cent. So in the last year that the discredited former Treasurer had the principal responsibility for the management of the Australian economy, real per capita disposable incomes, with the rent, interest and dividends taken out of them, fell by 2 1/2 per cent in one year. In the last year that Mr Howard was in charge of this economy the incomes of ordinary Australians, with capital sourced income excluded, fell by 2 1/2 per cent; and on that basis they have increased by a net 4 per cent since. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I refer to the Western Australian Government's decision to invest an initial $175m to purchase a 43 per cent share in the proposed petrochemical project in that State and also to commit Western Australian taxpayers to hundreds of millions of dollars more in interest payments in relation to the borrowings of the project. I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that the two businessmen who had been trying to develop this project had failed to arrange finance, leaving them with, as the Australian Financial Review put it yesterday, `100 per cent of not much at all'.? I ask the Minister: In view of his close interests in and indeed responsibilities in an indirect way for the expenditures of State governments, will he inform the Senate of his views on this latest venture of the Western Australian Government? Senator WALSH —If Senator Durack wants to ask questions about Western Australian Government business, I suggest that he get back into the Western Australian Parliament, which, if I remember correctly, is where he came from. Senator DURACK —I have a supplementary question. Do I take it from Senator Walsh's answer that he is stating that he has no interest in and no concern for the most extravagant expenditures that a State government may embark upon? Senator WALSH —No. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer for Prices. Is the Minister aware of a recent Investigators report which describes some of the problems associated with door-to-door sales? The report in particular outlined complaints received by the South Australian Legal Services Commission about alleged malpractices by a South Australian frozen food sales company called Mr Freezer and specifically discussed the targeting of people with intellectual disabilities. Is the Minister aware of these complaints and what action is the Government planning to take to ensure that Mr Freezer adheres to responsible trade practices? Senator BOLKUS —I thank Senator Crowley for raising this issue. It is one I am aware of and it appeared on the Investigators report, which detailed specific allegations received by the South Australian Legal Services Commission about the operation of Mr Freezer in South Australia. Senator Aulich —Put him on ice. Senator BOLKUS —I might be tempted to do so, Senator Aulich. There are two series of complaints about Mr Freezer, one related to a period in about February this year when complaints were made to both the South Australian Legal Services Commission and the South Australian Department of Consumer Affairs. Those complaints ranged on four specific levels: first, as to the cost of the services provided; secondly, the quality; thirdly, the approach and the manner of the salespersons involved operating for Mr Freezer, which from time to time were seen to be assertive, aggressive, tough, evasive and so on; and fourthly, misrepresentations on behalf of the organisation. All of those complaints were brought together by the South Australian Department of Community Welfare and, together with the then Consumer Affairs Department's involvement and the Legal Services Commission, the matters were, I think, rectified in that all complaints, particularly all of those by pensioners, and disputes about the organisation were settled quite amicably. Because those complaints were settled the Federal Government, through the Trade Practices Commission, took a holding interest in the operation of the organisation. Commitments were made by Mr Freezer that the marketing strategy of that organisation would be changed and in fact that the practices that had been complained of would not be proceeded with. As a consequence, as from the middle of June this year, the Trade Practices Commission, as I said, conducted a holding operation of the Mr Freezer organisation. However, since that date, particularly on 13 August, the Commission received a further complaint as well as three other complaints, totalling four, about the operation of the organisation. The complaints are very similar to the ones that were raised beforehand and are identical to those in the Investigators program. As a consequence of those complaints the Commission is waiting to take action. However, we are talking, firstly, through both State and Federal government agencies, to the Mr Freezer organisation to see whether we can, through the established processes, once again settle the problems involved. If that is not done, there is provision under the Trade Practices Act, particularly section 52a, to prosecute, amongst other things-- Senator Aulich —Freeze his assets. Senator BOLKUS —To prosecute but not to freeze his assets. As I said, if the complaints are not settled amicably or to the satisfaction of the consumers involved, the Commission is at the ready to institute proceedings under section 52a of the Act to ensure that consumers in this instance and in the future are not ripped off in this way. Senator COULTER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health. Is the Minister aware that Dr John Colquhoun, the former Chairman of the Fluoridation Promotion Committee of New Zealand, has recently shown that there is equal or less tooth decay in unfluoridated Christchurch than in the other major cities of New Zealand, which are all fluoridated? He has also shown that the decline in tooth decay in New Zealand children commenced before the fluoridation of water supplies or the use of fluorides in any form. Is the Minister also aware that Dr Alan S. Gray, former Chief Dental Officer of British Columbia, Canada, has revealed that there is less tooth decay in the unfluoridated parts of his province than in the fluoridated parts? Is he aware that the incidence of tooth decay is the same in unfluoridated Brisbane as in fluoridated Adelaide and Perth? In short, is the Minister aware that there is growing scientific evidence that fluoridation of water supplies may be less effective than its proponents have claimed? If the Minister is aware of all this new evidence, will he initiate an open inquiry into fluoridation by people who are not committed to fluoridation and are independent of the usual dental advisers of the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Department of Community Services and Health? Senator COOK —I am aware that Dr John Colquhoun has been making claims concerning fluoridation in New Zealand and parts of Australia and that he is campaigning against fluoridation as a means of preventing dental decay. I am advised that data presented by Dr Colquhoun in Community Health Studies Volume II, pages 85 to 90, 1977, which purport to show that children in unfluoridated Christchurch, New Zealand, have less tooth decay than in fluoridated New Zealand cities, have a major discrepancy in that they fail to take into account the fluoride history of the children. The children in Christchurch would comprise a mixture of lifelong residents and newer arrivals. Similarly, the children in fluoridated cities would comprise lifelong residents and newer arrivals. The only valid way of comparing the effects of fluoridation on dental caries is to compare lifelong residents of a fluoridated community in the same geographic region. Dr Colquhoun has not done this. The claim that dental decay declined before the introduction of fluoridation applies only to New Zealand five-year-olds. Extensive data is available for two older age groups, namely, eight- to nine-year-olds and 12- to 13-year-olds. This data shows that there was no decline in dental caries before the introduction of water fluoridation. I am advised that no data has appeared in the referred scientific literature from Dr A. S. Gray relating to dental decay in children in British Columbia, Canada, which takes into account a fluoride history of the subjects. In relation to caries rates in Australian school children, the question apparently referred to data collected by school dental services of each State and processed by the Department of Community Services and Health. Such data cannot be used to draw inferences about the effectiveness of water fluoridation. It does not take into account such important factors as, first, the fluoride history of the subject; secondly, regional difference in dental caries; thirdly, the size and severity of caries lesions; and, fourthly, the number of primary teeth previously extracted because of dental caries. The fluoridation of water supplies has been the subject of numerous inquiries in the past. There is no recent data which negates the support of the National Health and Medical Research Council for fluoridation of water supplies. A very comprehensive collection of reports and statements from all over the world entitled Fluoridation of Water was published in 1985 by the Department of Community Services and Health. The Department's view is that the evidence in support of continual fluoridation is overwhelming. I table for the interest of the honourable senator the document Fluoridation of Water-a collection of reports and statements from the Department of Community Services and Health. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I refer to the recent plebiscite in Chile, South America. What is the Australian Government's response to statements by the defeated General Pinochet that he will not allow free elections to be held as soon as possible, as now called for by the opposition parties? What is the Government's view of General Pinochet's stated intention not to allow early changes to the Chilean Constitution and to continue in office until 1990? Will the Australian Government be expressing its concern to the authorities in Chile about police brutality in repressing demonstrators in the aftermath of last week's plebiscite? Senator BUTTON —I am advised that, on 5 October, a clear majority-about 55 per cent-of Chileans rejected the prospect of a further eight years of rule by General Pinochet. The Australian Government welcomes the result of the plebiscite as a victory for democracy and the people of Chile. The 1980 Constitution provides that Chile will now proceed to open presidential and congressional elections late in 1989, with General Pinochet continuing as caretaker President until March 1990. There have been calls, mainly from some sections of the Opposition both in Chile and outside, for the election process to be accelerated. I am told that General Pinochet has reaffirmed his intention to adhere to the constitutional arrangements entered into in 1980. The Australian Government believes that the timing of open elections is a matter for the Chileans themselves to decide but, having regard to the history which I have just outlined, we would be hopeful that they would be as soon as possible within that framework. The Government also hopes that in the sensitive period ahead all sides will recognise the need for open and constructive dialogue in an atmosphere free of violence and rancour. We are aware of reports of violence arising from post-plebiscite demonstrations. It is vital that the liberalisation of public freedoms and political debate which preceded the plebiscite should be allowed to continue. The Australian Government will continue to urge respect for the human rights and democratic freedoms of all Chilean citizens wherever possible. Senator BOSWELL —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware that at a meeting of the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) being held in Adelaide this week the hand-picked acting commissioners who were appointed following the recent sacking of the previous commissioners combined to pass a motion of no confidence in the Chairman of the Aboriginal Development Commission, Mrs Shirley McPherson? Is the Minister further aware that the same acting commissioners sought to secure the dismissal of the General Manager of the Commission, even though no questions have been raised as to the quality of his performance or the competence with which he has carried out his duties? Will the Minister ensure that the civil rights of the Chairman and General Manager are properly safeguarded-if necessary with a direction under section 11 of the Aboriginal Development Commission Act? Most importantly, will the Minister for Justice, as the Minister appearing before Estimates Committee E with the officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Aboriginal Development Commission, ensure that all appropriate officers, in particular the Chairman and the current General Manager of the ADC, are made available for the Estimates Committee and ensure that there is no attempt to suppress information on this contentious issue? Senator TATE —I am not aware of the particular resolutions which Senator Boswell says were passed at a meeting of the Aboriginal Development Commission earlier this week-whether it was yesterday or today I am not quite sure. But I certainly will seek to confirm what resolutions have been passed which may be relevant to the chairperson of that Commission, Mrs Shirley McPherson, and the chief executive officer, Mr O'Brien. I will try to confirm that as soon as possible, maybe before the end of Question Time. As to what was thought to be inferred from that particular course of action, if it were undertaken by the Aboriginal Development Commission or the Board, I would not wish in any way to accept any colouring of the action it may have undertaken in passing such motions, if indeed it did so. Until we get confirmation of that it is best that no assumption be made by honourable senators of the reasoning leading to those motions being passed. As to the Estimates Committee meeting, of course, as is the normal practice, those officers from both the Department and the Commission who are normally required in order to assist me in this particular instance in answering the legitimate questions of members of the Committee will be made available. Senator VALLENTINE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. On the subject of the Anzac frigates, I ask: If the New Zealand Government withdraws from the project for economic reasons, what consequences would there be for the Australian Government's relationship with New Zealand? Specifically, would there be retaliation from the Australian Government at an economic level or cuts in intelligence cooperation or cuts in defence cooperation? Senator RICHARDSON —New Zealand's participation in the Anzac ship program is for the New Zealand Government to decide on the basis of its own strategic and budgetary priorities. There is no question of Australia threatening New Zealand in relation to that decision. Australia and New Zealand have a close defence relationship which is very important to the strategic posture of both countries. The scope and vigour of our defence relationship naturally depends on the compatibility of our defence forces. In order to maintain a defence relationship with New Zealand, we believe it is important for New Zealand to continue to operate capable naval ships. We believe that for island nations like Australia and New Zealand blue water naval forces are essential. The New Zealand Government in its White Paper last year expressed the same conviction. The Anzac ship is being specifically developed by Australia and New Zealand to meet the needs of our region and will be built and maintained in Australia and New Zealand. It will provide both nations with the most cost-effective way of maintaining their maritime capabilities and sustain their close defence relationship. Senator PETER BAUME —Mr President, my question, which is directed to you, relates to the motion of no confidence against Mrs Shirley McPherson passed within the last few days at a meeting of the Aboriginal Development Commission. In light of reports that one ground for censure of Mrs McPherson was her decision to present relevant evidence as an individual to a committee of the Senate pursuing a reference on behalf of the Senate, I ask you, Mr President, three questions: First, whether or not Mrs McPherson, or any other witness, has any protection from intimidation should they give evidence to a Senate committee; second, whether there has occurred any breach of privilege in this matter; and, third, whether you will set in motion the procedures relating to breaches of privilege should you receive from me or any other senator an appropriate letter on the matter. The PRESIDENT —I had no knowledge of this question. I am not aware of the facts. Witnesses are, of course, protected. I will look into the other matters raised by Senator Baume and make a reply as soon as possible. Senator PETER BAUME —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Will you also look at the first part of my question-that is, what the extent of protection of witnesses is from intimidation should they appear before Senate committees? The PRESIDENT —I will make a full statement on it. Senator COLLINS —My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade relates to the death of Mr David Blenkinsop. Could the Minister advise the Senate what steps the Australian Government has taken to investigate claims that an Australian national, David Blenkinsop, was murdered by Indonesian police? Senator BUTTON —A number of inquiries have been conducted through the Australian Embassy in Jakarta. Information so far available makes it clear that an appalling tragedy has occurred. From the account given by David Blenkinsop's fiancee and other evidence, it appears the actions by the local Indonesian officials are, to say the least, reprehensible. I am sure that the Senate would concur in extending deep sympathy to the Blenkinsop family. For a number of weeks our representatives in Jakarta have sought to obtain a satisfactory account of what occurred and have kept the family informed of developments. In the last few hours we have been advised by the Australian Embassy in Jakarta that the policeman involved in the incident has been suspended and will be charged under the military penal code, and that the civilian involved has been placed under arrest under the civilian penal code. None of this, of course, will diminish the tragedy which has befallen the Blenkinsop family, but it puts the matter in a better light from the point of view of our bilateral relations with Indonesia. Our embassy in Jakarta will stay in the closest possible touch with the Indonesian authorities in order to obtain as much further information as possible and to endeavour to achieve a more satisfactory outcome. Senator NEWMAN —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I draw the Minister's attention to his submission to the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal in which he stated that most members of the Australian Defence Force received a service allowance to compensate for restrictions on personal freedom, for working beyond normal hours and for disruption of family life. As the Minister clearly recognises the importance of the service allowance as compensation, as there is serious disaffection within the Services caused by the lack of equity in the service allowance, and in the light of the serious wastage of trained personnel from the Services, I ask the Minister: Why has the Government not recommended that a meaningful service allowance be extended to all ranks of the Australian Defence Force? Senator BUTTON —I am sort of familiar with the question which Senator Newman asked, because I have had some correspondence about that issue from returned servicemen's organisations. Might I say that in getting that correspondence I must be regarded as somewhat unlucky. I was Acting Minister for Industrial Relations for a very short period, during which I happened to sign the submission to the Remuneration Tribunal. That does not matter; I am not complaining about that. Senator Alston —It sounds to me like you are. Senator BUTTON —A person of the honourable senator's churlish nature would turn anything into a complaint. Since I received correspondence about that matter I have written to the Minister for Industrial Relations and to the Minister responsible for repatriation to obtain further details about that issue and what the extent of-- Senator Newman —Try Defence. Senator BUTTON —Well, I may have written to the Minister for Defence, too. I am grateful for the honourable senator's interjection. I have written to appropriate Ministers on the question of the policy in regard to defence allowances. As soon as I get an answer on that, I will be in a position to provide the honourable senator with one. Senator GIETZELT —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister noted the intemperate remarks made by the President of the Law Council of Australia, Mr Denis Byrne, criticising the Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Boucher, in his endeavours to collect equitable tax from all eligible citizens? Is it not a fact that too many lawyers spend too much of their time advising companies and non-pay as you earn taxpayers how to evade or avoid their tax obligations, as distinct from PAYE taxpayers, who have no legally contrived schemes available to them to avoid or evade tax? Will the Minister give the Senate an assurance that the Australian Taxation Office and its Commissioner have the unequivocal support of the Government and the Parliament in their endeavours to have a tax system that operates in accordance with the principles of ability to pay? Senator WALSH —I have noticed-I think it was last week-the criticisms made by Mr Byrne. I was then asked whether it was a fact that too many lawyers spent too much of their time advising high income and usually non-PAYE taxpayers on how to evade or avoid tax. I do not know whether too many are currently doing that, but certainly in the past a very large number of lawyers devoted a lot of their time and such skills as they had to that end. Indeed, I do not know whether the Law Council per se was involved in this or whether it made public statements at the time of the late 1970s and early 1980s, but among the most shameful episodes, if not the most shameful, in the history of the Australian legal profession was the collaborative endeavours of tax evaders and prominent lawyers in that late 1970s-early 1980s period to pick the pockets of honest Australian taxpayers. I was asked by Senator Gietzelt whether I could give an assurance that the Taxation Office and the Commissioner of Taxation have the unequivocal support of the Government and the Parliament. I do not think I can answer about the Parliament because I do not know what the views of people in the Opposition are about this. But I can assure Senator Gietzelt that the Tax Commissioner has the unequivocal support of the Government, a fact which Mr Dawkins as Acting Treasurer has already made public. In expressing that view Mr Dawkins was expressing the view of the Treasurer, and indeed the Government. Senator ARCHER —I direct my question to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer to the announcement of discussions that would, if successful, extend Australia's arrangements with the China Steel Corporation beyond the present $250m a year by establishing a steel plant in Australia. Would the proposal fit in with the Government's steel plan and are there any fundamental obstacles that could prevent such a proposal proceeding? Senator BUTTON —I saw the report in the Australian Financial Review about this matter yesterday. At that time I had no information about it at all. I have asked for some inquiries to be made since I read that article. As I recall, it was a report from Taipei. Whether there has been any inquiry locally in Australia about the matter I am not sure at this stage. Senator Archer asked me whether it would fit in with the Government's steel plan. The Government's steel plan ends on 31 December 1988. It is quite unlikely that any major investment would be made before then. The question about whether it fits in with the plan will not be relevant. Whether it is desirable in terms of the Australian economy is a matter in respect of which one would want further information. My own view is that it would be and it would predominantly be a facility dedicated to exports. Of course, increased competition in the Australian marketplace may not be anything but a good thing. In terms of inhibitions regarding the matter, I think every foreign investment proposal has to receive foreign investment guideline approval. I do not think it is likely that there would be any objection to that but it has to go through the normal procedures which are much less onerous than they used to be. There may be other objections but none that I can see at present. If I can obtain further information about the matter I will make it available to Senator Archer. Senator DEVEREUX —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Does the decline in manufacturing production during the June quarter indicate poor prospects for the manufacturing sector in the future? Senator Messner —It is a penetrating question. Senator BUTTON —Senator Messner interjects that it is a penetrating question. That is a very interesting interjection because it was Senator Chaney, his Leader, who alleged that it did have implications for manufacturing in the future; so that is the basis of the question. I regret that Senator Chaney is not here to hear the answer. Conclusions of this kind should not be based on the results of one quarter. It is true that manufacturing production did decline in the June quarter following five decades of very strong growth. Senator Walsh —Five quarters. Senator BUTTON —Senator Walsh, who has a great skill and a penchant for precision as well as numeracy, as the Opposition well knows, has pointed out that I said `five decades' when I meant `five quarters'. If I said `five decades' that would have embraced the period when the Opposition was in government. It would have been a dreadful fib to say that production improved during that period. Senator Messner —It would also embrace the Whitlam period. Senator BUTTON —Certainly. I am perfectly ecumenical about that. It is five quarters. There are a number of factors influencing the decline in the June quarter, particularly the decline in food, beverages and tobacco resulting from the New South Wales floods. On the other hand, we have seen a resurgence of manufacturing under this Government. Production is now at record levels; 20 per cent higher than in 1983, more than 5 per cent higher than in 1987-88. Senator Hill —How is employment going? Senator BUTTON —Employment in manufacturing increased by some-- Senator Hill —Since you came to government? Senator BUTTON —In Australia employment in manufacturing, if that is the purpose of Senator Hill's interjection, in the last two years has gone up significantly for the first time in 20 years. What is of regret is that Opposition commentators in talking about figures for one quarter seek to talk down what has been a significant recovery in the manufacturing sector. Senator Chaney said last week: The downturn raises doubts about the competitiveness of the sector . . . for investment . . . and for exports. In my view the outlook for manufacturing investment is very good. While investment fell in the June quarter, this also followed strong rises in previous quarters. Investment in 1987-88 was 6 per cent higher than in 1986-87. It is forecast to rise by 3 per cent in real terms in 1988-89. The latest trade figures also provide little evidence for Senator Chaney's suppositions. Manufacturing exports were 16 per cent higher in the three months to August 1988 than in the same period in 1987. In August alone manufactured exports rose by 4 per cent. Australia's international competitiveness, as measured by the unit labour cost index, for the June quarter 1988 shows that competitiveness is some 30 per cent better than in 1984 and almost 20 per cent higher again than in the early 1970s. Senator HAMER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications. I refer to the recent strikes on Ansett Airlines of Australia which caused disruption to internal air flights. These were strikes over the number of flight attendants in the new Ansett Airbuses. I ask: Was there, or is there, as alleged by the strikers, some air safety issue involved? If so, what was the air safety issue? Senator ROBERT RAY —I thought about this matter at great length as I sat at Melbourne Airport last Saturday for two or three hours. I did not come to a definitive conclusion. I have not investigated the matter myself but certainly now that Senator Hamer has raised the matter I will urgently refer it to Mr Willis to get a response to those air safety aspects to do with the dispute. Having done so, no doubt in two or three days when Senator Gareth Evans is back from overseas he will give Senator Hamer a considered response. Senator FOREMAN —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether he has seen a press statement put out by the shadow Treasurer on Friday describing as patently absurd the Minister's statement: . . . $56 appears to be based on the tax cut required so that an individual would be paying the same nominal amount of tax today as was the case in March 1983. Can the Minister explain the derivation of this figure which Mr Howard claims to have originated, but which Mr Peacock has bandied about? Senator WALSH —I have seen the press statement. The underlying facts behind my statement are these: in March 1983 the average total earnings of adult full time wage and salary earners was $344 per week-I will leave off the odd cents-on which the tax payable was nearly $77. In June 1988 the average total earnings, again for full time wage and salary earners, was $495 per week. Assuming a 5.5 per cent wage growth by June of next year, that figure will become $523 per week, on which the tax payable will be $132. Again, I leave off the odd cents. However, by deducting the weekly tax of March 1983 from the weekly tax of June 1983-of course, these are in nominal dollars-the precise difference is $55.567, which of course rounds up to $56 a week. Perhaps Mr Peacock did not arrive at his $56 a week in that way. If he did not, I invite him to explain in which way he did arrive at it. Whatever peculiar methodology Mr Peacock may have used-if, indeed, he used any methodology at all-it is a very peculiar view of `making up for the absence of tax scale indexation'. What Mr Peacock clearly fails to understand, regardless of what pseudo or voodoo methodology he may have used, is that if nominal income doubles over a period, and the nominal amount of tax remains the same, the average tax rate will halve, and the real level of tax revenue will be halved with it. Of course, Mr Peacock is the man who, a couple of months ago, told us he was not going to bring an accountant's view to these matters-an intention which, if I may say so, becomes more apparent every time he opens his mouth. I also note Mr Peacock's assertion in his press release that-- Senator Lewis —On a point of order, Mr President: the Minister has made an improper imputation about Mr Peacock in that last remark, and I ask him to withdraw. Senator Robert Ray —On the point of order, Mr President: Senator Walsh is quoting what I also heard Mr Peacock say, and he is entitled to do so. It is not unparliamentary. It may be ungracious, but it is certainly not unparliamentary. The PRESIDENT —Order! I do not regard Senator Walsh's comments as being unparliamentary. Senator WALSH —For the record, I point out the desperation tactics that the Opposition has been employing for months. Every time the Opposition is getting a caning in Question Time, it raises spurious points of order. I note the assertion in Mr Peacock's press release that `the Opposition has never advocated an average $56 a week tax cut'. I refer senators, firstly, to the Australian Financial Review of 29 August which states: In an interview with The Australian Financial Review, the Shadow Treasurer, Mr Peacock, was pleased to suggest personal tax cuts-around $56 a week for average earners . . . If Mr Peacock has never advocated that, he should have corrected the Financial Review at the time. While he is about it, he might also care to correct one of the other less distinguished members of the Opposition front bench who, in a letter published in the Western Farmer on 22 September, said: Australian families need tax relief now. A tax cut of $56 per week is necessary just to put the household income back to 1983 pre-Keating levels. Of course, the latter assertion in that quotation is false. Mr Blunt is clearly advocating a tax cut of $56 a week, as I understand it, for average earners and presumably proportional reductions in taxation for people with incomes above and below average earnings. As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, and repeated last week-although Senator Lewis chose not to quote that part of my speech today-the cost to revenue would be $23.5 billion. So we have two $20 billion men floating around as the leading economic spokesmen for the Opposition, advocating the irresponsible fiscal policy that the Opposition advocated about 15 months ago. Mr Peacock should really cease allowing Dr Hewson to set him up as a patsy in these matters in the way that he does. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Given the Government's decision to free up the public sector by making Commonwealth public authority commercial undertakings more responsive to market conditions by lessening Parliament's direct controls, including an authority's right to appoint private sector auditors, I ask the Minister: What are the so-called `enhanced measures of accountability' for the newly freed up authorities to be accountable to the Parliament? Senator WALSH —In regard to auditors, it is not in my view an easy question to decide whether government owned operators-- Senator Watson —What about auditors? What about accountability? Senator WALSH —I am coming to that. It is not easy to decide whether government owned business enterprises ought always to be audited by the Auditor-General or by some private auditor. I will cite one particular example which I find particularly difficult to deal with: the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust, which itself is required to be audited by the Auditor-General, has a number of joint venture arrangements with the private sector. The condition of at least one of these joint venture arrangements was that the auditor chosen for the joint venture had to be mutually agreed between the two shareholders, which clearly gave the private sector shareholder the right to veto the appointment of the Auditor-General as the auditor if the private sector shareholder chose to do so. In fact, that is exactly what happened. I can see no easy resolution to that problem, Senator Watson. As far as I am concerned, and I have been involved in this exercise for nearly four years, the bottom line of accountability to the Parliament is the return on the assets which are invested in public enterprises; that is, if the value of the assets is showing a proper return, after adjustment in some cases for acknowledged obligations to provide certain services which are by themselves uneconomic, that is the measure of control and the measure of accountability. But, of course, all business enterprises, be they in the public sector or the private sector, have to be accountable in the sense that their accounts must be presented accurately to their shareholders and to the public in general and they must not be involved in dishonest practices. Senator WATSON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Would the Minister direct his answer to the thrust of the question about the enhanced measures of accountability to this Parliament? Senator WALSH —I have not got very much to add to what I said before. The final measure of accountability-and I have made this very plain throughout this exercise-is the economic performance of the enterprise. It is intended that there will be with all these enterprises a corporate plan which I expect to be made public. No, perhaps in all cases that may not be desirable, but it certainly will be made available to the Government. Unless there are good commercial in-confidence reasons for not doing so, I believe it should be published, and the performance of the enterprises can be measured against the projections in the corporate plan. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister for Consumer Affairs. In view of the longstanding concern in developing countries about the marketing practices relating to breast milk substitutes, what steps has the Australian Government taken to implement the World Health Organisation (WHO) code of marketing of breast milk substitutes? Senator BOLKUS —Article 11 of the World Health Organisation code, which is the one that Senator Giles refers to, does ask member governments to take action to give effect to the principles and aims of the code. The Australian Government has taken this to mean that the most appropriate action by way of implementation is not to legislate but to embark upon a number of alternative measures. At this stage I think only six countries in the world have, in fact, adopted the World Health Organisation code by way of legislation. Australia has decided, as have most other countries, to take the alternative course of action and has preferred to give effect to voluntary adoption of the principles of the code. The code has been adopted by six countries, as I mentioned. Those six countries are the ones in which infant mortality is at the highest rates. As I said, our preferred approach has been to take the alternative and to promote voluntary adoption of the code. In doing so, we have taken three substantive measures. Firstly, we have negotiated with industry the adoption of the principles by way of an industry code of practice. This has been signed by manufacturers of infant formula. Secondly, and with reference to Article 9 of the WHO code, this aspect, which deals with product labelling, has been incorporated into Standard R7 of the food standards code, the standard which deals with infant formula. This code has been adopted in all Australian States, other than New South Wales and the Northern Territory. We anticipate that the New South Wales Government should, in an attempt to obtain uniformity with the rest of Australia, adopt the food standards code, and I gather the Australian Capital Territory has already indicated that it will adopt the code and in doing so will adopt this particular provision of it. The third measure the Government has taken-an important one in terms of educating the community-is to publish a booklet in 17 languages entitled Baby's First Food. In essence, therefore, the Government's approach in the future, having taken the first two measures with industry and also within the food standards code, will be to concentrate on an educational approach to this area. Together with State Ministers, the Federal Minister for Community Services and Health, to whom I am indirectly related in this portfolio because of our joint interest in the food standards code, will be encouraging State governments to promote educational activities to ensure that the principles of the World Health Organisation code are implemented. Senator PANIZZA —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Does the Minister confirm or deny that the Government intends to sell the Anzac Rifle Range in Sydney, just like it sold the Williamstown range in Victoria? Can he tell the Senate whether representations have been received from the National Rifle Association of New South Wales to retain that range for the purposes for which it was originally developed? If so, can he tell us the present situation? Senator RICHARDSON —As far as I am aware, the intention to sell the rifle range still remains, although my understanding is that the Department of Administrative Services has had some difficulty with the tendering. To know what stage that has reached one really needs to ask the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. I cannot give the details of what has happened, except to say that my understanding is that the Government's announced decision to sell the rifle range has not been changed. Negotiations have been entered into with the National Rifle Association, or whichever organisation was using the premises. I recall that it had a very long lease of the premises. As far as the details are concerned, they are not the responsibility of the Department of Defence but of the Department of Administrative Services and I will have to refer the matter to my colleague. Senator ROBERT RAY —I have some information for Senator Panizza on the matter. The Government did decide, as part of the 1986-87 Budget, to sell the Anzac Rifle Range. Future land use zonings were agreed by the previous State Government. These zonings allow for residential development on the western portion, for recreation and tourism on the range area, with two small areas for open space and recreation and a national park and nature reserve at the headland. The tender process ran from 21 January 1988 to 25 March 1988. Twelve tenders were received. Subsequently the New South Wales Rifle Association was granted a Supreme Court injunction, which effectively stopped the Commonwealth from concluding a sale of the property. As a result all tenders were rejected. The Department of Administrative Services has been meeting with the rifle association with a view to negotiating a mutually satisfactory solution to what is currently a legal impasse. We are hopeful that this will be achieved, otherwise the matter will proceed through the courts. When the legal situation is resolved and the Commonwealth is able to proceed with the disposal, we will make a public announcement. Any sales to private interest will be through full and open competition. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —by leave-I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr President, during Question Time I raised a point of order with you that a statement made by Senator Walsh was disorderly. Apart from not wanting to waste Question Time, my respect for you personally and for the Chair is such that I did not dispute your ruling, but I wish to draw your attention to standing order 418. If you examine Hansard you will see that Senator Walsh's remarks about Mr Peacock in relation to an accountancy qualification were undoubtedly disparaging. Standing order 418 says: . . . all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly. Standing order 418 is very clear. I repeat that. It says: . . . all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly. Mr President, for a considerable time you have been taking another of the Standing Orders and referring to words being improper. I was not referring to the words being improper; I was referring to standing order 418. With respect, I ask you to look at that standing order, to look at some of the precedents in relation to the use of that standing order, and in future to ensure that Senator Walsh's conduct in this chamber does not personally reflect on members of this chamber or the other place. The PRESIDENT —Order! I did not consider the phrase to be unparliamentary. I will look at Hansard to see whether there was an imputation of improper motives and I will give the honourable senator an answer at a later date. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented. The PRESIDENT —I call Senator Boswell. Senator BOSWELL —In Brisbane yesterday the 4QR Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio news at 4 p.m. ran a news story in which a spokesman from Senator Richardson's office described claims I had made in relation to the north Queensland rainforest area as `a load of rubbish which has no basis'. This claim is totally incorrect. The statement I made was based on information from a report entitled Wet Tropics of Queensland: A report to the World Heritage Committee Secretariat, dated September 1988 and prepared by the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. My statement indicated that the north Queensland World Heritage area could become a federally controlled territory within a State. I also stated that the Federal Government was threatening to introduce new Federal legislation to give it total control of the area if the State Government did not agree to participate in the cooperative management arrangements. The Government's own report backs up these claims on page 12. It states: If the State Government is unable to participate in co-operative arrangements, the existing interim arrangements will be adapted to provided long-term Federal management arrangements. Federal management arrangements would be given effect under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act or in new Federal legislation closely associated with the Act. The report clearly states that the Government is considering the option of new legislation to give it control of the area. The report contains a clear diagram outlining the-- Senator Robert Ray —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Senator Boswell claimed that he had been misrepresented because his views were described as rubbish. He can proclaim that they are not, but I do not think he is entitled to give a long term lecture on why they are not rubbish. Otherwise he may no longer have a point in terms of being misrepresented. Senator Lewis —Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. It is clear that, notwithstanding the fact that Senator Boswell has asked to make a personal explanation, you, Mr President, have accepted him as speaking on the adjournment and accordingly-- Senator Robert Ray —You are making a joke out of this. Senator Lewis —I may be incorrect but-- Senator Button —You are incorrect. Senator Lewis —I withdraw, then, but it seems to me that the Senate is now in the adjournment debate and Senator Boswell is entitled to make a speech on the adjournment. The PRESIDENT —Order! We are not in the adjournment debate. Senator Ray moved the adjournment and Senator Boswell sought the call to make a personal explanation. I have a statement to make before the Senate adjourns and I know that Senator Messner wishes to speak on the adjournment. Senator Boswell is making a personal explanation. Senator Boswell, it is getting rather long. It is becoming a debate rather than a personal explanation. Senator Button —You are a big, fat windbag, Ron. Senator BOSWELL —Mr President, that is offensive to me. I know the Minister does not mean it. Senator Lewis —Mr President, I have to take a point of order. I ask that Senator Button withdraw. The PRESIDENT —Senator Button, will you withdraw the comment? Senator Button —Mr President, I withdraw. Senator BOSWELL —Mr President, I have only a half a paragraph to go. I ask the Senate to bear with me. The report contains a clear diagram outlining the proposed management structure comprising the Federal Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, a Federal rainforest agency and a community and scientific consultative committee. It further states: Under long-term Federal arrangements, management control would be exercised by the Federal Minister for Environment or the Director of the Federal Rainforest Agency as appropriate. I totally reject the claim that my statement is incorrect in any way. My claims are fully documented and I stand by them. I seek leave to table the documents. Leave granted. The PRESIDENT —Before the Senate adjourns I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committee A will meet in committee room 16, Estimates Committee C will meet in committee room 14, and Estimates Committee D will meet in committee room 10. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.00) —During Question Time today Senator Walsh again tried to trivialise the fall of $56 in the living standard since this Government came to power in March 1983. He sought to dismiss it in a most simplistic manner by citing average weekly earnings in 1983 compared with now and calculating the tax payable on each amount. If he turns to page 1101 of the Senate Hansard of 30 September 1988 he will see a very comprehensive table showing how a drop of $56 a week in living standards has been calculated by my colleague Andrew Peacock, shadow Treasurer. We assert that a family-that is, mum, dad and two kids-earned a total of $370 a week in 1983. That figure compares with an average level of income of $564 a week today. We have taken into account the Medicare levy, the changes which this Government has brought about in the tax rebates for a dependent spouse, the removal of various concessional expenditure rebates for rates and taxes and for health insurance premiums, and the unchanged family allowance. We have also taken into account all other factors relating to social security benefits which might apply to such a family. Lastly, we have applied the consumer price index as the deflator on those incomes in order to calculate the real disposable income for that particular family-and there are a great number of such families suffering under the pressure brought about by this Government's attitude to standards of living. On that calculation, there has been a drop of $56 a week in the real disposable income for this family of mum, dad and two kids. That is what has happened under this Government since March 1983: the real living standards, as measured in terms of cash available to the family on average weekly earnings, has declined by $56 a week. No matter how Senator Walsh seeks to dissemble and no matter how he tries to misrepresent the information provided in the Parliament by Mr Peacock and Mr Howard, the Leader of the Opposition, the simple fact remains that that measure of available income for the average family in this country shows quite clearly a fall of $56 a week since March 1983. Senator Reid —Families know it even if this Government does not. Senator MESSNER —As Senator Reid says, if this Government does not know it, families do. They demonstrated it with a 13 per cent swing towards the Liberal Party in the Oxley by-election last Saturday. It is happening all over Australia. Again, it shows people how arrogant and how out of touch this Labor Government under the Hawke-Keating leadership is. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 4.05 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 305) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 May 1988: (1) Since 11 July 1987, how many Senior Executive Service (SES) Officers have become unattached within the Minister's area of portfolio responsibility, including statutory authorities, and, of these: (a) how many were placed in substantive positions at their own level; (b) how many were placed in substantive positions below their substantial level; (c) how many were offered early retirement packages; (d) what was the mean value of the packages; (e) what was the age structure of these officers. (2) Since July 1987 how many administrative support other scientific and technical officers became unattached, and of these: (a) how many were placed in substantive positions at their own level; (b) how many were placed in substantive positions below their substantive level; (c) how many were offered early retirement packages; (d) what was the mean value of these packages; and (e) what was the age structure of these officers. (3) What programs of retraining and redeployment are in place to usefully employ those permanent officers still on the unattached, supernumerary and redundancy list. (4) What has been the net saving in SES and other positions in each portfolio/statutory authority since 11 July 1987. Senator Tate —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) 44 (a) 12 (b) 1 (c) 3 (d) $49828 (e) 1 x 50's, 2 x 60's (2) 138 (a) 52 (b) 0 (c) 0 (d) N/A (e) N/A (3) Personnel staff arrange redeployment for those who require it and also assess whether any training is required beyond on-the-job guidance. Personnel staff monitor placements to determine their effectiveness and suitability. A rehabilitation program is in place in the Central Office of the department for RSI sufferers returning to work. The Occupational Health and Safety Office works in conjunction with Personnel staff in assessing placement and training needs of medical redeployees: if required, training is planned and implemented on an individual basis. (4) On 24 July 1987 elements of the Department of Special Minister of State were transferred to the Attorney-General's portfolio. The average staffing level (ASL) applied to these elements in DOSMOS was reduced from 171.0 to 152.9 on transfer. The Department completed a rationalisation of its SES profile in late 1987 and the continuing SES staff profile in the Department was reduced from 107 to 98. The Trade Practices Commission and the National Companies and Securities Commission have also completed a rationalisation of their SES structure and they have each reduced their SES profile by one. The following is a list of statutory authorities that have achieved net savings in SES and other positions since 11 July 1987: Authority 1987/88 Budget 1987/88 Outcome Savings Australian Institute of Criminology 43.4 42.9 0.5 Australian Institute of Family Studies 27.0 26.7 0.3 Cash Transactions Reports Agency 2.0 0 2 High Court 90.0 88.9 1.1 Trade Practices Commission 184.2 177.9 6.3 Data Protection Agency 11.5 0 11.5 (Question No. 357) Senator Archer asked the Minister for Resources, upon notice, on 17 May 1988: In view of Japanese claims that the organic chemical Phosphoric Diphenylethylhexyl (ODP), found in certain plastic wrapping, may be toxic, what action is being taken by the Minister to establish the position beyond doubt and to ensure that our meat reaches Japan in a form that meets Japanese requirements in the meantime? Senator Cook —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Australian meat has met and continues to meet Japanese requirements for the chemical ODP. No concern about this chemical has been expressed by Japanese health authorities. The claims Senator Archer refers to are no more than media reports on a presentation by a Japanese researcher to a public health conference held in Japan. The researcher, Mr Osatu, has since indicated to Australian authorities that he regrets and apologises for the fact that his research has been misused and exaggerated by the media in the way in which it has. ODP is approved as a plasticiser in the manufacture of plastic food wraps by the Standards Association of Australia and the United States Food and Drug Administration. There are no indications that its use is any way harmful to public health. I also refer the Senator to my reply to a question without notice on this issue from Senator Panizza on 25 May 1988, Hansard page no. 2874. (Question No. 428) Senator Powell asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 2 June 1988: Is any member of the Plant Variety Rights Advisory Committee, established under the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987, an expert in systematic botanical classification; if so, who is the member and what is that member's qualification; if not (a) will the Minister take immediate steps to have an expert in systematic botanical classification appointed to the Committee; if not, why not; and (b) until such an appointment is made, will the Minister instruct the Registrar for Plant Variety Rights not to consider any applications or submissions concerning plant variety rights; if not, why not. Senator Cook —The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: This is the first of a series of seven questions asked by the honourable Senator. They would be more appropriately directed to the Registrar of Plant Variety Rights rather than spend this House's time on matters that were debated at length when the legislation was being considered. However for the record I will give a brief response to each. The Plant Variety Rights Act does not require that there be a taxonomic botanist on the Advisory Committee. Advice in this area is sought from a range of specialists as required. (Question No. 429) Senator Powell asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 2 June 1988: (1) Given that the Plant Varieties Journal Vol. I, No. 1, shows that the Plant Variety Rights Advisory Committee consists of a departmental officer as the chairperson, an academic, a representative of a multinational seed company, two producers of horticultural material, a representative of the States, and a lawyer, will the Minister immediately increase the size of a Committee to include at least one person to represent the interests of; (a) the horticultural industry; (b) the growers of field crops; (c) cereal, grain and oil seed producers; (d) the horticultural societies in Australia; (e) the home gardener; and (f) the conservation movement; if not, why not. (2) Will the Minister extend the time for Submissions on plant variety rights until an increased committee has been constituted; if not, why not. Senator Cook —The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Membership of the Plant Variety Rights Advisory Committee is established by the Act and there is no evidence to suggest that this is not an appropriate balance. Present members consist of a producer, a public sector breeder and a private sector breeder, a consumer representative nominated by the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations, two members with special qualifications (a nurseryman and a senior officer in a State Department of Agriculture) and the Registrar of Plant Variety Rights. The role of the Committee, as stated in the Act, is to advise on the general-species to be covered by the Act and on technical and administrative matters. Specialist advice in specific areas is sought from the relevant organisations and individuals and the Committee has developed close working arrangements with a wide range of interested groups throughout Australia. (Question No. 430) Senator Powell asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 2 June 1988: For the purpose of the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987, is Lycopersicon Esculentum a fruit or a vegetable. Senator Cook —The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Plant Variety Rights Act is only concerned with plant genera and species designated by their botanical names. The plant groups are used for convenience and are not legally binding. When all vegetables are prescribed in July 1989 it will be by genus or species name and not by plant group. (Question No. 431) Senator Powell asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 2 June 1988: (1) How many times a year does the Plant Variety Rights Advisory Committee established under the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987 meet. (2) How many days does each meeting last. (3) How many different species of plants could the Committee be reasonably expected to consider at each meeting. (4) What sitting fees and travelling allowances are paid to each Committee member. Senator Cook —The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Plant Variety Rights Advisory Committee meets as required (Section 48 of the Act) and is currently meeting quarterly. (2) 1 or 2 days. (3) The Committee has already made its major recommendation to me regarding the inclusion of genera and species under the Act. Individual applications will be examined by the Registrar's Office in consultation with relevant Committee members and experts in the particular species. The Committee will advise on broader policy issues and specific technical questions. (4) Members are paid remuneration and allowances in accord with s46 of the Act. (Question No. 432) Senator Powell asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 2 June 1988: (1) Under the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987, into which plant group do each of the following plants fall: Aspergillus flavus, Asplenium nidus, Carpentaria acuminata, Cocos nucifera, Colocasia esculenta, Cymbidium hookerianum, Dendrobium kingianum, Dichondra repens, Dicksonia antarctica, Eucalyptus delegatensis, Eucalyptus ficifolia, Grevillea dryandri, Grevillea striata, Jatcorhiza palmata, Lactobacillis panis, Manihot esculenta, Nandina domestica, Nymphoides crenata, Petroselinum crispum, Phoenix dactylifere, Phyllostachys aurea, Psalliota campestus, Rauwolfia serpentina, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Saccharum officinarum, Vanda sanderiana and Zingiber officinale. (2) What is the final date for submissions for the inclusion under the Act for each of the above plants; and if the final date has passed, will the Minister permit late submissions; if not, why not. Senator Cook —The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Act specifically excludes fungi, algae and bacteria. Therefore some of those listed in this question are not covered by the definition of ``plant'' in the Act and are not eligible for PVR. The Plants list will be included as proposed in the schedule in the Plant Varieties Journal, covering all genera by March 1990. (2) Comments on the schedule for inclusion of genera and species in the PVR regulations can be submitted to the Registrar up to 5 months before their inclusion date. This period allows comment to be sought on any proposed alteration before the regulations are proclaimed. (Question No. 433) Senator Powell asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 2 June 1988: (1) Given that the Plant Varieties Journal Vol. 1, No. 1, states that an hourly fee of $50 will apply to the examination of an objection under the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987, does the Minister agree that this cost is a deterrent for the general public to participate in the registration procedure. (2) In answer to my question in the Senate on 23 March 1988, did the Minister say: ``In this way the whole community will have the opportunity to comment on the known existence of the variety''. (3) Will the Minister permit ``public interest'' objections to be examined free of charge, so that the whole community will have the opportunity to comment; if not, why not. Senator Cook —The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Page 7 of the June issue of the Plant Varieties Journal clearly states that people who do not have a direct commercial interest may make comment on the eligibility of a variety at no charge. (Question No. 434) Senator Powell asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 2 June 1988: (1) Did press advertisements in March 1988 call for submissions by 23 April 1988 for over one million plant species to be included under the provisions of the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987. (2) Are over 20,000 plant species scheduled for inclusion under the provisions of the Act by July 1988. (3) Does the Minister agree that it is impossible for submissions to cover all the species within the time frame allowed. (4) Will the Minister instruct the Registrar of Plant Variety Rights to re-advertise for submissions for a more realistic number of species to be considered at any one time; if not, why not. Senator Cook —The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Either the genus or species must be included in the regulations before application can be made for PVR on a new plant variety. The press advertisement in March 1988 called for comment on a schedule to include all plant species in the PVR regulations by March 1990. The schedule was developed from public comment and included some 50 specific genera or species by July 1988. The schedule for implementation is realistic and will ensure that a workable PVR system is established in a relatively short time. It is unlikely that there will be applications for varieties from more than 200 species in the first few years. It is reasonable however that PVR be available for all species, and allow all sectors of industry to have the same opportunity to gain the benefits of the system. (Question No. 444) Senator Patterson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 23 August 1988: (1) How many sole custodial parents are in receipt of the forms of Government pension or benefit that would allow them to be covered by the Child Support Scheme. (2) How many sole custodial parents excluded from the Scheme rely on voluntary maintenance agreements made between parties and filed with the courts. (3) Is it correct that these sole parents are not covered by the Scheme and therefore if maintenance payments fail they have no speedy remedy through the Child Support Agency to have payments restored. Senator Bolkus —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Child Support Scheme covers all custodial parents who receive a relevant pension or benefit regardless of separation date. Custodial parents who do not receive a relevant Government pension or benefit are covered by the Child Support Scheme if they have a court order or registered maintenance agreement and: they separated on or after 1 June 1988, or they have a child born on or after 1 June 1988, where the parents did not live together (except in Queensland and Western Australia), or their maintenance is currently being collected (or they have an order or an agreement lodged for collection) by a State or Territory collection agency. Recent figures indicate:- There are approximately 258,000 sole custodial parents in receipt of the relevant Government pension or benefit that would allow them to be covered by the Child Support Scheme. It is not known how many have the necessary order or court-sanctioned agreement to make them eligible for Child Support Agency collection. (2) See my answer to Question 1 above. Accordingly, sole custodial parents who have registered maintenance agreements are excluded from the Scheme only if: they do not receive a relevant Government pension or benefit and they separated before 1 June 1988 or their children were born before 1 June 1988 where they did not live together, and their maintenance order or agreement is not being collected (or lodged for collection) by a State or Territory collection agency. Figures on the number of sole custodial parents in this category are not available. (3) In the interest of efficient introduction of the Scheme, it was decided to concentrate assistance on pensioners and beneficiaries. The Government is closely monitoring the operation of the Scheme and will review the Scheme's coverage in the light of the monitoring report. (Question No. 470) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, upon notice, on 24 August 1988: (1) When will the independent review panel to control the quality of nursing homes in Queensland which was referred to by the Minister in his press statement of July 1988 be in a position to provide a report. (2) What input is being provided by the proprietors of Queensland nursing homes. (3) What assistance has been given by the Ahern Government to the investigation referred to in (1) above. Senator Cook —The Minister for Housing and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Through Standards Monitoring Teams, the Commonwealth Government monitors nursing home standards as specified in Special Gazette No. S303. Sanctions can be imposed under Section 45E of the National Health Act as a consequence of severe and persistent non-compliance with these standards. A Standards Review Panel will, on request from a nursing home proprietor, review the decision to impose sanctions on a nursing home. A panel has recently been established in New South Wales, with members drawn from industry, consumer, union and professional groups. The New South Wales panel is seen as a pilot venture and experience gained in its operation will provide guidance on the approach to be adopted in establishing panels in other States, including Queensland. (2) Queensland nursing home proprietors will have an opportunity to nominate representatives and participate in the panel as representatives of the industry group. Proprietors will also have the opportunity to provide information to the panel when appealing against decisions to impose sanctions. (3) When it is decided to proceed with the establishment of panels in other States and the Territories, the respective State and Territory Governments will be invited to participate. (Question No. 511) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 August 1988: (1) How many employees under the Public Service Act were encouraged to retire during the months of May and June 1988. (2) How many accepted the proffered packages. (3) How many of those were retired as a result of job abolition. (4) What was the mean age of those officers accepting packages. (5) What was the average cost of each package. Senator Bolkus —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) 2 employees under the Public Service Act (not SES officers) were offered early retirement during the months of May and June 1988. (2) 1 (3) 1 (4) 63 (5) Severance Benefit-$27,845.83. Accrued entitlements, ie payment in lieu of Long Service Leave, Recreation Leave (excluding Superannuation Benefit)-$40,073.49. (Question No. 525) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 29 August 1988: (1) How many positions in each Senior Executive Service and administrative service category were abolished and how many in each category were created in 1987/88 in the Minister's portfolio. (2) Of those created, how many have the same or similar functions as one or more of those abolished. Senator Button —The Minister for Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) During 1987/88 the following number of positions were abolished and created in each Senior Executive Service and administrative service category: Level Positions Abolished Positions Created Senior Executive Level 6 - 2 Senior Executive Level 5 - - Senior Executive Level 4 1 1 Senior Executive Level 3 - 1 Senior Executive Level 2 1 2 Senior Executive Level 1 1 - Administrative Service Officer Class 8 11 25 Administrative Service Officer Class 7 22 46 Administrative Service Officer Class 6 26 66 Administrative Service Officer Class 5 2 29 Administrative Service Officer Class 4 16 34 Administrative Service Officer Class 3 1 29 Administrative Service Officer Class 2 20 54 Administrative Service Officer Class 1 6 42 107 331 (2) Of those positions created the following assumed the same or similar functions as one or more of those abolished: Administrative Service Officer Class 8 7 Administrative Service Officer Class 7 18 Administrative Service Officer Class 6 18 Administrative Service Officer Class 5 2 Administrative Service Officer Class 4 9 Administrative Service Officer Class 3 - Administrative Service Officer Class 2 11 Administrative Service Officer Class 1 4 69 When the Department of Industrial Relations was created on 24 July 1987 no positions were provided from the former Department of Employment and Industrial Relations in the Machinery of Government process for the administrative and co-ordination functions within the new Department. A significant proportion of the positions created in 1987/88 relate to these functions. The figures also include 105 creations and 97 abolitions within the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, largely associated with a major reorganisation following an external review commissioned by the then Minister, Mr Willis. (Question No. 538) Senator Archer asked the Minister for Resources, upon notice, on 29 August 1988: Following allegations made through The Canberra Times, have there been instances when screw-worm flies, or their larvae, have been discovered on ships transporting live cattle from Australia; if so: (a) what action has been taken to monitor the existence of screw-worms on the mainland; (b) what programs are currently in place to ensure the thorough inspection and eradication of the flies prior to docking of ships transporting livestock returning from overseas destinations; (c) what monitoring programs are currently in place around the Australian ports where these ships dock; (d) would there be any prohibition or restriction on livestock or meat exports from Australia by recipient countries should the screw-worm fly take hold in Australia; and (e) what would be the estimated cost to Australian exports of such restrictions. Senator Cook —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Yes-Adult dead Screw-Worm Flies (SWF) were discovered on one cattle ship in Darwin in September 1986. Adult SWF were also trapped on a cattle ship at the port of Darwin in April 1988 and identified in May 1988. There have been no reported instances of the larvae of SWF being identified on any ship transporting cattle from Australia. (a) Routine SWF trapping programs have been carried out for many years in areas of greatest risk of entry of SWF from affected countries to the north of Australia SWF traps using ``Sworm lure'' attractant are located at strategic sites in the Torres Strait, Cape York Peninsula and in the Northern Territory. Following the recent case of the discovery of SWF on a livestock vessel in Darwin harbour the following additional precautions were implemented: sentinel cattle were located at a number of sites within a 50 km radius of Darwin to detect possible SWF infestations and incursions regular inspection for SWF and other fly strike in cattle and other animals is carried out at abattoirs, saleyards, mustering points, animal parks and prior to export shipment additional SWF trapping devices have been located at strategic sites and at points of high animal concentrations, such as abattoirs, within a 50 km radius of Darwin surveillance for myiasis in man is being carried out in co-operation with State Health Departments a producer awareness program was initiated to have producers inspect stock, report suspicious cases and to submit samples of larvae for identification. (b) Current procedures for livestock vessels to ensure freedom from insects are: disinfection of the vessel within 48 hours prior to docking inspection of the vessel either at, or prior to, the quarantine line which entails visual inspection of all livestock compartments, holds and galleys for evidence of live and dead insects examination of the Ships Log and empty insecticide containers if live insects are observed the vessels will require re-disinfection before docking is approved insectocutors are placed on livestock vessels either at the Quarantine line or after docking to assist in the monitoring of the procedures. These procedures are currently under review by Government and industry to enhance the effectiveness of the disinfection and surveillance procedures. (c) Monitoring programs at Australian ports vary between southern and northern ports in northern ports, insectocutors are placed on the vessels during the time in port and these are inspected and cleaned daily in southern ports, limited monitoring as above is undertaken at most ports. (d) It is unlikely that there would be any prohibition or restriction placed on livestock or meat exported from Australia should the Screw-worm fly establish in Australia. However it is expected that export livestock would need to be inspected for the presence of SWF larvae. (e) No additional costs would be involved for Australian exports as all live animals are currently inspected prior to export. (Question No. 546) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 29 August 1988: For the financial years 1986-87 and 1987-88, what was the expenditure, by quarter, for travel and accommodation for the Department. Senator Button —The Minister for Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Department of Industrial Relations was established on 24 July 1987 through the amalgamation of certain functions from the former Departments of Employment and Industrial Relations, Defence and Special Minister of State and the former Public Service Board. There are no financial records available to this Department that would enable a complete and accurate answer in respect to the financial year 1986-87. The following table details expenditure for 1987-88: $ Quarter Expenditure December 318,113 March 1,242,181 June 675,033 With regard to the 1987-88 financial year an expenditure figure for the September quarter cannot be provided because during the period July to October the Department's accounts were being paid by the Departments of Employment, Education and Training, Administrative Services and Defence and the Public Service Commission. Actual reimbursement of this expenditure ($518,029) did not occur until the March quarter hence the high expenditure level for that quarter. (Question No. 550) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 August 1988: For the financial years 1986-87 and 1987-88, what was the expenditure, by quarter, for travel and accommodation for the Department. Senator Bolkus —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Quarter Ending Expenditure on travel and accommodation (i) $ 30 September 1986 3,240,936 31 December 1986 3,131,076 31 March 1987 3,078,644 30 June 1987 4,737,366 30 September 1987 3,474,120 31 December 1987 3,596,030 31 March 1988 3,438,640 30 June 1988 5,662,870 (i) Expenditure comprises payment of the fare category (car, bus, train, plane) and the travelling allowance provided under Determination 10 of 1983. It is the responsibility of the officer travelling to meet accommodation expenses. (Question No. 567) Senator Archer asked the Minister for Resources, upon notice, on 30 August 1988: In view of the incidence of potato cyst nematode in New Zealand potatoes, under what conditions is it possible to import New Zealand potatoes into Australia? Senator Cook —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Potatoes can be imported only for processing and only from defined areas in New Zealand which are free of black wart disease and potato cyst nematode (PCN). All imports must be to approved premises in metropolitan areas under quarantine supervision. Following the discovery in March this year of PCN in the Manawatu-Rangiteiki district of North Island there are currently no potato growing areas in New Zealand which satisfy Australia's requirement for freedom from the disease. (Question No. 568) Senator Archer asked the Minister for Resources, upon notice, on 30 August 1988: What Australian fruit and vegetables are precluded from entry into New Zealand because of quarantine from disease? Senator Cook —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Sweet corn (Zea mays) and sweet potato or Kumara (Ipomoea batatas) are the only fresh products precluded from entry into New Zealand for quarantine reasons. Some other Australian fruit and vegetables are permitted entry only after treatment for particular pests and diseases. (Question No. 570) Senator Archer asked the Minister for Resources, upon notice, on 30 August 1988: In view of the incidence of fire blight in New Zealand apples, under what conditions is it possible to import New Zealand apples into Australia. Senator Cook —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The conditions for importation of apples from New Zealand are prescribed in the Quarantine (Plants) Regulations under the Quarantine Act. The regulations require certification by the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries that apples are produced in districts where fire blight does not occur. In practice New Zealand officials have not been able to provide this certification therefore apple imports from New Zealand have not been permitted. Australia recently rejected New Zealand proposals for certifying orchards free from the disease as it could not be demonstrated that they were adequately isolated from other orchards. Senator Cook —On 25 November 1987 (Hansard, page 2391), Senator Coulter asked Senator Walsh, as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, a question without notice concerning the occurrence of cadmium in Australian food. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Australia does not have the sort of cadmium pollution that occurs in the industrial countries of the northern hemisphere and therefore the use of the word pollution to describe the Australian situation is somewhat exaggerated. Some incremental cadmium may accrue from the application of fertilizers derived from phosphatic deposits and this may be of significance in areas where other factors, such as soil acidity, favour uptake by plants. Directly or indirectly, soil is the source of cadmium for grazing cattle and sheep, but the distribution of high cadmium levels in the kidneys of sheep and cattle is not always correlated with the use of phosphatic fertilizers. The factors governing uptake and accumulation of cadmium in plant and animal tissues are complex and not well understood. Kidney levels tend to increase with age, and higher levels are found in females than in males. Kidneys have higher levels than liver and negligible levels are found in muscle. The 1986 National Residue Survey found 7 per cent of wheat samples analysed for cadmium to contain more than 0.05 mg/kg of cadmium. In the 1987 survey period only 2.86 per cent of samples were above 0.05 mg/kg. Since that period no further violations on wheat have been reported. There is no record of a shipment of Australian wheat being rejected by Sweden because of cadmium contamination. Indeed, the last shipment of Australian wheat direct to Sweden appears to have been made in 1953. Sweden is a net exporter of wheat and is only a small and irregular importer. The 1986 National Residue Survey found that 21.3 per cent of sheep kidneys and 12 per cent of beef kidneys sampled exceeded the Australian standard of 2.5 mg/kg for bovine and ovine kidney. The Western Australian data showed 47.1 per cent of sheep kidneys exceeded that level, not 75 per cent as mentioned by the honourable Senator. The samples analysed since 1986 show a somewhat lower incidence of levels exceeding the Australian standard. Only 8.6 per cent of sheep kidneys and 4.7 per cent of cattle kidneys had levels above 2.5 mg/kg, while the figures for Western Australia were 26.8 per cent for sheep and 14.7 per cent for cattle. The complex issues governing the uptake of cadmium by plants and animals are being investigated by the Bureau of Rural Resources in the Department of Primary Industries and Energy in close consultation with State agencies, the CSIRO and the NH&MRC.