Thursday, 13 October 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens showeth: That your petitioners deplore the Federal Government's decision to remove 53 Pharmaceutical drugs-including the best available for the treatment of high blood pressure, cancer, epilepsy, high cholesterol and uneven heartbeat-and place them, for cost saving reasons only, on a special list requiring Authority from a Canberra Bureaucrat, and: That we believe a patient's doctor is clearly the best judge for medication needed for their particular illness and that it is therefore wrong and unfair to force that doctor to waste valuable time referring a case to a person in Canberra who has no personal knowledge of that case. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senators in Parliament assembled will call on the Government to immediately abandon the proposal and keep its election promise of high quality and universal health care for all Australians. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 94 citizens). To 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 Haines (from 52 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 Senator Coates (from 151 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned, (i) are alarmed that some ACT sporting, cultural and community groups are made to feel dependent upon sponsorship funding from tobacco companies; (ii) call for the establishment of an ACT Health Promotion Foundation funded by a 5% increase in the ACT wholesale tax on tobacco products; (iii) urge that tobacco companies be prohibited from promoting their unhealthy products in the ACT through sponsorship agreements or other means, and propose that the ACT Health Promotion Foundation provide sponsorship funding for ACT sporting, cultural and community groups currently addicted to funding from promotion of tobacco products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McMullan (from 99 citizens). Senator VANSTONE(South Australia) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petition, which is not in conformity with Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form, from 107 petitioners, praying that R-rated videos be removed from the home market, that legislation be introduced to refuse classification of X-rated video material and that the majority report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material be implemented: At their Council Meeting on Thursday 9th June, 1988, the members of the National Council of Women of South Australia expressed deep concern regarding the Report of the Select Committee on Video Materials, and request the removal of R-rated videos from the home market and that substantive legislation be introduced to ensure that X-rated video material (and its R-rated equivalent NVE*) is refused classification for the purposes of Commonwealth law. Also to implement entirely the majority report of the Joint Select Committee on video material that a new category of non-violent erotica not be introduced. Also that the Commonwealth Government recognise, with the States and Northern Territory that all forms of pornography (as recognised in the Joint Select Committee Report) and as defined quite clearly, are by their very nature debasing of men, women and children, and in that respect are by their very nature violent. (Para. 3 page 302 and Page 201 where the report treats of the video material regarding women ``as sexual commodities to arouse sexual desires of its target audience; and Page 230 ``reduces persons to objects or occasions of sexual pleasure''). *NVE-Non-violent erotica. Petitions received. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, contingent on a motion being moved for the second reading of any of the following Bills: Australian Securities Commission Bill 1988 Corporations Bill 1988 Corporations (Fees) Bill 1988 Securities Exchanges (Application for Membership) Fidelity Funds Contribution Bill 1988 Securities Exchanges (Membership) Fidelity Funds Contribution Bill 1988 Securities Exchanges Fidelity Funds Levy Bill 1988 National Guarantee Fund (Reportable Transactions) Levy Bill 1988 National Guarantee Fund (Participating Exchanges) Levy Bill 1988 National Guarantee Fund (Members of Participating Exchanges) Levy Bill 1988 Futures Organisations (Application for Membership) Fidelity Funds Contribution Bill 1988 Futures Organisations (Membership) Fidelity Funds Contribution Bill 1988 Futures Organisations Fidelity Funds Levy Bill 1988 Close Corporations Bill 1988 Close Corporations (Fees) Bill 1988 Close Corporations (Liquidators' Recovery Trust Fund Contribution) Bill 1988 Close Corporations (Additional Liquidators' Recovery Trust Fund Contribution) Bill 1988 I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Macklin moving forthwith a motion to refer the Bill to a select committee. 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. AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVESTOCK CORPORATION-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 49 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act 1977. 2. RESOLUTIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL-130th Meeting-Cairns, 14 July 1988. 3. AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 99 of the Telecommunications Act 1975. 4. ARMY AND AIR FORCE CANTEEN SERVICE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT-Report for the period 27 January 1987 to 1 February 1988-including the Auditor-General's Report-regulation 23e of the Army and Air Force Canteen Service Regulations 1981. 5. CENTRAL AND LOCAL TRADES COMMITTEES-Annual Report 1986-87. 6. AUSTRALIAN WOOL CORPORATION-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 123 of the Wool Marketing Act 1987. 7. AUSTRALIAN ARCHIVES-Annual Report 1987-88-section 68 of the Archives Act 1983. 8. ADVISORY COUNCIL ON AUSTRALIAN ARCHIVES-Annual Report 1987-88-section 68 of the Archives Act 1983. 9. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS-Annual Report 1987-88-section 33 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983. Motion (by Senator Richardson) agreed to: That the following Bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend certain Acts relating to Defence. Motion (by Senator Richardson) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —(10.04)-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I table the explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill proposes a variety of amendments to Acts dealing with defence matters. The more important amendments: a. provide the government with proper legal control over claims for salvage by crews of naval ships. b. decriminalise the wearing of items of defence force uniforms by members of the public while retaining a prohibition on the wearing of defence force emblems and other insignia. c. enable the defence administration to require an officer of the defence force who is promoted to the rank of colonel or equivalent or higher rank to render at least one year's service in the rank before resigning. d. remove the upper limit on the amount of reparations that a court martial or defence force magistrate may order a convicted offender to pay. e. enable certain officers of defence small arms factories to be exempted from State and Territory firearms licensing laws when carrying small arms for official purposes. Other amendments: a. make various amendments of defence force retirement and death benefits legislation to take account of recent improvements to superannuation legislation and to remove certain possible ambiguities; and b. put the existing appointment of the Vice- chief of the Defence Force upon a statutory basis. I will explain the more important amendments. The other changes are explained in the explanatory memorandum. Salvage Claims The Bill proposes to amend The Defence Act 1903 to clarify the power of the Government to control the exercise by the crew of HMA ships of their right to claim salvage for the salvage of property at sea, and to put on a proper legal basis the administrative arrangements that are followed when the crew of a warship exercises that right. I should point out that the Bill is not concerned with military salvage-that is, the capture of property at sea from the enemy in time of war-which is governed by what is known as `prize law'. In the case of the successful salvage of property on the high seas, the right of the salvor to reward has been recognised by maritime law from ancient times. The requirement that the owners of the ship and cargo pay salvage to the salvors is a recognition of the effort by the salvor and of the direct benefit conferred on the owners. It is also based on a just regard for the general interests of ships and maritime commerce. The right to claim salvage vests in the owners of a salving vessel and in the crew of that vessel. The greater share of the reward goes to the owners, whose vessel was put at risk. In the case of a crown vessel, manned by employees of the Crown, entitlement of a member of the crew to claim salvage generally arises if the services rendered are outside the scope of his ordinary duties. Warships have real, if undefined, duties stemming from their function of policing the high seas. The law has accordingly implied a high scope for public duty in the case of warships but has nevertheless accepted that it is proper for the crew to claim salvage where the service has been one of an important character. While a very high duty would be expected where the saving of lives is concerned, the crews of warships could not be expected, as part of their duties, to run the same high risks where the salvage of property is concerned. In practice, claims for salvage by crews of HMA ships are infrequent, for two reasons. Firstly, commanding officers are instructed not to undertake salvage if any suitable merchant ship is available. Secondly, the making of claims is discouraged where the service is not regarded as being of an important character. The most recent cases in which claims by Australian naval crews proceeded were the salvage in 1955 of the Swedish ship Pacific Clipper by HMA ships Murchison and Shoalhaven and the salvage in 1972 of the Hong Kong ship Kai Wing by HMAS Sydney. The Bill proposes that, when one of HMA ships renders salvage services to a vessel in circumstances that give the crew of the naval ship an entitlement to claim salvage from the owners of the salved vessel, the following rules will apply: a. the right of the crew of a naval ship to pursue a claim for salvage to be subject to the consent of the chief of naval staff; b. the Commanding Officer to be empowered to act on behalf of the crew in the pursuit and settlement of salvage claims; and c. the distribution of the crew's share to be apportioned according to a prescribed scale, with provision for recognition of specially meritorious service. The reason for the rules are as follows, respectively: a. because warships have the kinds of duties I have described, it is desirable that there be a legally based power to restrict claims to those where the service has been of an important character. b. It would be an excessive administrative burden if the Australian Government Solicitor prosecuting the claim had to be authorised individually by all the sailors involved in a claim and were required to deal with each sailor separately. c. The setting by law of fixed shares for each class of member relieves the arbitrator of the difficult task of apportioning the reward between the sailors involved. Rules of this kind are not necessary in the case of salvage services provided by merchant ships, because the crews are much smaller and, in any case, may belong to unions who can press claims on behalf of their members. The government did consider whether the right of the commanding officer and crew of HMA ships to claim salvage reward might be abolished, on the ground that members of the Navy have a duty to perform for which they are adequately recompensed. Against this, it is a fact that salvage at sea remains a difficult, hazardous and uncertain operation and encouragement to persons to assist in successfully salvaging an endangered vessel should be continued. As to the question of duty, it has been indicated already that this is of limited extent where property only is concerned. Members of the Navy are not trained salvors and the design of naval ships makes them ill-suited to salvage work. Furthermore, it would be inequitable to deny the right of salvage to members of the Navy while retaining that right for merchant seamen employed by the Commonwealth. Wearing of Defence Force Uniforms and Emblems Section 83 of the Defence Act creates offences relating to the use and wearing by unauthorised persons of Defence Force uniforms, emblems, flags, et cetera, and their supply and manufacture. The section attempts to cover both peace and war situations. It extends to the forces of Commonwealth countries and, in time of war or defence emergency, to forces of allied countries and to other uniforms, emblems or flags specified by the Minister. So far as Defence Force uniforms are concerned, the offence of wearing such uniforms without authority is, in peacetime, widely disregarded. This is not surprising since the Commonwealth itself facilitates this breach of the law by selling surplus Defence Force uniforms to disposals retailers for sale to the public. This Dickensian situation has been the subject of comment in the press and of representations to Ministers. The Bill accordingly proposes to decriminalise the wearing of defence force uniforms while retaining the offences of wearing Defence Force emblems, badges, et cetera. Since the controls necessary in peace and war are so different, the dual role of section 83 is unsatisfactory. The Bill therefore deletes the wartime offences and all reference to foreign forces etc. Restriction on Resignations of Senior Officers When an officer of the defence force who has not less than 20 years effective service resigns, he is entitled to a pension calculated in relation to the annual rate of pay applicable to him immediately before his resignation. If such an officer resigns shortly after his promotion, he is entitled to pension calculated by reference to the salary applicable to the higher rate, notwithstanding that he had provided the Commonwealth with very little service in the higher rank. Such resignations also cause significant disturbance to staffing arrangements particularly when the promotion has been made in conjunction with posting the other officer concerned. The Bill proposes to amend the provisions of the Defence Act 1903 and the Naval Defence Act 1910 relating to officers' resignations so that the relevant chief of staff may reject such a resignation if tendered to take effect before 12 months has elapsed since the date of promotion to the rank of colonel or equivalent or higher rank. A similar amendment will be made for the Air Force by statutory rules amending the Air Force Regulations. Reparation Orders The Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 empowers Service tribunals to order a convicted person to pay reparations to a person who has sustained loss or damage through the offence that was committed, up to a limit of five times the maximum amount of fine that could have been imposed. No such limit applies to ordinary criminal courts. The limit on Service tribunals was imposed because of doubt whether Service tribunals should be concerned with reparations involving substantial sums. One consequence of the present limit is that where substantial reparations should be ordered it is necessary for there to be the cost, and delay, of a separate civil court action. It also means that the Service tribunal cannot, in sentencing the person, take into consideration the amount of reparations that the offender will be required to make. Finally, it seems inconsistent that a general court martial may impose life imprisonment but is subject to limits as to the amount of a reparation order. The Bill proposes to remove the limit on the amount of reparations that may be ordered by a court martial or Defence Force magistrate but retain the present limits on summary authorities. Financial Impact The amendments made by sections 10 and 42 regarding officers' resignations will ensure that a minimum of 12 months' service will be rendered by senior officers after promotion. This will result in deferring for a period the commencement of payment of pension to the officers concerned but no figure could reasonably be estimated of the saving to the Commonwealth. The amendment made by section 22 is expected to eliminate the institution of civil court proceedings to recover the balance of the loss or damage suffered by the Commonwealth in cases where the loss or damage exceeded the amount that the offender could have been ordered, by a court martial or Defence Force magistrate, to pay, in a case where recovery of the amount so ordered is appropriate. No figure could reasonably be estimated of the saving to the Commonwealth. The amendment made by section 25 to ensure that the provisions relating to the transition from the DFRB scheme (1948) to the DFRDB scheme (1973) do not operate with regard to re-entered recipient members will prevent the payment of additional unintended benefits to pensioners but no figure could reasonably be estimated of the saving to the Commonwealth. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade) —by leave-I inform the Senate that Senator Button is absent from the chamber for Question Time today as he is representing the Government at the bicentennial air show. Any questions which would normally be directed to Senator Button as the Leader of the Government, Minister representing the Prime Minister or in relation to his own portfolio should be directed to me. Questions on industrial relations matters should be directed to Senator Cook. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I should indicate to the Senate, and particularly to Opposition senators, that Senator Button contacted me and made the point that he had made the arrangement to be out of the Senate today without realising that Question Time was at 10 o'clock in the morning instead of at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, which is our normal Question Time. I thank him for that courtesy and note that that was the basis on which he is missing Question Time today. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. It follows Senator Boswell's question asked last Tuesday concerning moves by Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) Board members against the Chairwoman of the Aboriginal Development Commission, Mrs Shirley McPherson, and the General Manager, Mr Mick O'Brien. What was the basis of the Board's action in both cases? Is the Minister aware that ADC staff in Sydney yesterday walked out in protest against what they described as the apparent victimisation of Mrs McPherson and Mr O'Brien and that staff in Melbourne, Canberra, Adelaide and Darwin passed motions criticising the actions of the board at its Adelaide meeting? Does this not indicate that the Government's hand picked board members-I remind the Minister that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs sacked the Board and replaced it just a few months ago-are out of touch with the activities of the Commission and the performance of both the persons concerned? Given that the Secretary to the Minister's Department is a member of the Board, did the Minister have prior knowledge of the attack on Mrs McPherson and Mr O'Brien? Will the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs agree to meet Commission staff, as requested at yesterday's Sydney meeting, to discuss this latest episode in the Government's gross mishandling of Aboriginal affairs policy? Will the Minister tell the Senate whether the Government retains confidence in Mrs McPherson as Chairwoman of the Development Commission? Senator TATE —I am not aware of the basis of the Board's resolutions if they were carried in the terms which have been relayed to the Senate chamber in Question Time and that we have read about in the press. As I understand it the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Gerry Hand, has written to the Chairperson of the Aboriginal Development Commission, Mrs Shirley McPherson, asking the Commission to advise him urgently as to the motions that were passed, rather than relying on press reports or questions asked in Question Time. The proper process would be for the Commission to make available the confirmed minutes of its meeting so that we can all be in a position to know exactly what resolutions were passed. I believe that is a correct and responsible attitude by the Minister in seeking that particular advice as a matter of urgency. He also asked whether, if there were any other matters upon which the Commission wished to advise him, it would do so so that he, and I in turn, might be in a position to answer such questions as may properly be asked here in this chamber or in the Estimates committees. No doubt they will be. As to the question of a staff walk out in New South Wales, I was not aware of that, nor of the passing of motions by other staff around Australia concerning this matter. Senator Chaney —You were not aware of it? Senator Stone —Don't you read the newspapers? Senator TATE —I have been involved with other matters and no, I have not read that particular newspaper item. I was asked whether the Minister had prior knowledge of the motions of no confidence. I do not believe he did but I will have to ask him. I do not believe that that was the case. I was asked whether I would pass on a request that the Minister meet staff whom Senator Chaney described as disaffected by the decision of the Commission. I will pass on that request to the Minister. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I express some amazement that a matter which has received such wide publicity has not been the subject of some briefing from the Department. I suggest to the Minister that that is probably because he carries on in such a way that the Department is not aware of what he is doing. My supplementary question is: given these reports of the concerns that have been expressed by Aboriginal people, whom this Government in the past has been so prepared to claim to be the spokesperson for, will the Minister give the Senate a simple undertaking, a guarantee, that his Government will not put under pressure, will not bulldoze, those Aboriginal people who choose to express views which are contrary to the plans of the Minister for the drastic reorganisation of Aboriginal affairs? Can we expect fair and honest dealing for Aboriginal Australians from this Government, because it is certainly beginning to appear that we cannot? Senator TATE —The fact is that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, in exhaustive and endless consultations with the Aboriginal people, has indicated a willingness to listen to points of view expressed by them. The consultation process that he engages in is extensive. I can assure the Senate that it is the intention of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to take into account all points of view that are properly put to him. I am sure that they will influence the course that government policy takes. Senator CROWLEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources. Further to the decision announced by the Minister on Tuesday this week regarding new pricing arrangements for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), can he explain the implications of that decision for the Government's economic reform policy and what, in particular, will be the effect of those changes on Australian domestic consumers? Senator COOK —Not only did I announce the changes to the regulation of wholesale prices for LPG, but the Prime Minister also referred to them in an address he gave this week to the Business Council of Australia. Senator Archer —Which Prime Minister? Senator COOK —The only Prime Minister of Australia, and the one who is likely to remain Prime Minister for a very long time yet. He referred to them in the context of the Government's micro-economic reform agenda and a move to a freer market in petroleum products. At the current point, prices for LPG are set by a formula which the Government adjusts every six months. It was last adjusted on 1 October. In March this year we released a discussion paper posing the possibility of a complete deregulation and a free market or a continuance of the same methods of price adjustments. We received 43 submissions from various organisations right across the broad spectrum of all parties interested in LPG. A number of backbenchers from all sides of the Parliament chose to support a number of those submissions. On Monday this week Cabinet decided to move to a free market from 1 February next year by asking the Prices Surveillance Authority, from that date on, to determine the maximum wholesale price for LPG, with the Government at the same time not to renounce but to put on ice, in reserve, its export control powers-a move that it would review in 18 months' time. The reason for that second provision is, of course, to ensure that the local market is serviced-that supplies to the local market are maintained rather than our losing supplies to the export market. This brings liquefied petroleum gas into the same regime, in terms of the Prices Surveillance Authority, as a number of other crude oil based products which were deregulated at the beginning of this year, following the move to the free market under the portfolio when it was held by Senator Gareth Evans. The Prices Surveillance Authority determines prices for a number of petroleum products, including gasoline, aviation gas and jet engine fuel. It is consistent with our move in deregulating the financial sector, with our liberalisation of foreign investment policy, and with the tax reform package we have put through this Parliament. We believe that these steps will assist considerably, first of all, in encouraging further use of LPG. It is an underutilised fuel resource. It is particularly important as a developing energy source for transport. It is very important that, if that is to continue, its marketing be efficient and competitive. We believe that these steps will assist. It is important as well that as our crude oil resources run down over time the market, if I can put it in these terms, be liberated to ensure that LPG can pick up the slack that it can obviously take advantage of in such a position. We believe that the decision will provide a climate for better investment in LPG storage and distribution, particularly at seaport facilities for LPG. We believe it will give a greater incentive for LPG, particularly in the production of natural gas, to be syphoned off and used in terms of the market it serves both in transport and industry. As I say, it is a move towards a free market. The honourable senator asked me how we would protect consumers. I believe that the consumers' interest is properly protected by the Prices Surveillance Authority exercising its powers and by the reserve powers and export controls being held for the period of 18 months, subject to review after that. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the fact that Mr Keating, when asked in London whether the proposed tax cuts would go ahead despite concern about the trade balance and the strength of domestic demand, said, `I think so'. Does the Minister agree that that response places the tax cuts in considerable doubt? Senator WALSH —The answer is no. I have here a transcript of what the Treasurer said yesterday, but I am not sure whether it is exhaustive. I do not know whether Senator Lewis was quoting from a transcript or a newspaper report. If it is the latter, it is not unprecedented, to say the least, for newspaper reports to be incomplete or to put responses out of context. But the answer, of course, is no. Senator Lewis —Mr President, I ask that the Minister table the transcript to which he referred. Senator WALSH —I am quite happy to do so. Senator DEVEREUX —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources. Are reports in today's media correct in stating that the Minister is favourably considering proposals for excise reductions on Bass Strait oil production put to him yesterday at his meeting with Bass Strait producers Esso-BHP? Senator COOK —It is true that I had a meeting yesterday with Esso-BHP, the partners that operate the platforms that exploit the oil reserves of Bass Strait. The meeting had been organised some time ago. One of the two main issues that we discussed-there were several others of a minor character compared with these-was the Piper Alpha tragedy in the North Sea and the remedial steps being taken in Australia to make sure that there is not a revisitation of those events on our 13 offshore platforms operating in Bass Strait. I appreciate the work that the partners have been putting into that matter, which is of considerable concern. The other thing that we discussed was the highly volatile fluctuations in oil prices on the world market and the effect that has on the costs of production out of Bass Strait. I do not need to go into a long dissertation about the volatility of oil prices, but there has been a number of speculations about where the price will rest. The benchmark crudes are trading between about $11.35 and $13.40 at present, but there are overnight alterations in those prices. The Government is concerned not to respond to short term fluctuations but to observe the longer term trends in those prices and the longer term aspects of those price changes, if there are any, on production in Australia. Esso-BHP put to me a position concerning reductions in excise that it wants the Government to consider. It is not appropriate-and, indeed, it is not Esso-BHP's wish-that I canvass in public the details of the position that was put, but I notice that the observation has been made in the press that any further shuttings in Bass Strait production would have a consequential effect on our balance of payments because of the importation of replacement oil from overseas, albeit at lower prices. I notice the speculation of what the revenue implications might be for Budget if we were to respond by reducing excise to keep production going. In view of that speculation, the words `favourable consideration' that appear in the press are a misreporting. I did not indicate what degree of consideration I would give and I certainly did not indicate favourable consideration to the submissions made on that occasion. I said that the Government's position was to consider soberly and carefully the implications of all these things and that it was not a decision I would take in isolation; it was obviously a decision that would be taken in consultation with the Cabinet. I also said that, in general terms, given the attention that has been paid by Senators Walsh and Evans-my predecessors with responsibility in this portfolio-to the tax regime on crude oil production in Australia, I believed that we, as a government, had got our tax regime right. It is important, from the point of view of industry, to send long and strong signals to industry as to the framework for a tax regime. Overnight alterations or chopping and changing alterations to a tax structure such as that are not appropriate. With recognition of the volatility of prices we will consider the representations made. It is an absolute misstatement to say that that is favourable to the particular representations in this case. There is no doubt that the Government is concerned about the price and will consider those overtures in a proper, rational and logical manner. Senator HAINES —I refer the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to the Prime Minister's speech at the lunch for the President of the Republic of Italy on Tuesday in which he referred to the possibility of a Fortress Europe developing from the economic harmonisation anticipated by 1992. Does the Minister believe that Australia is likely to suffer export and hence economic consequences as a result of the full establishment of a European Community (EC) by 1992, or whatever date it finally turns out to be? If he does, what steps is the Government taking to offset these adverse consequences? In particular, what is the Government doing to follow Japan's example of setting up joint ventures with some of the 12 countries currently belonging to the European Community? Further, what capacity does Australia's rural sector have to benefit from increased meat exports to European countries, following the European Parliament's recent decision to ban United States beef containing hormone residues, and from the sale of other primary products following increasing problems with polluted foodstuffs in Europe? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not a top gun on hormones in beef. I will take the latter part of the question on notice. Senator Chaney —You are well briefed on hormones in ham, are you? Senator GARETH EVANS —I can see that Senator Chaney is back too. I will have a further look at the latter part of the question about implications of the 1992 single market for rural producers and seek to give Senator Haines a better general answer. As to the general question, obviously the developments in Europe have potentially quite profound implications-positive as well as potentially adverse-for Australia after 1992. The European Single Act of 1987 commits the European Community to the aim of establishing a single market progressively over a period expiring on 31 December. It is important to appreciate the progressive character of these moves. It will not happen overnight in 1992. It is beginning to happen right now, and we have to formulate responses to it right now. The European Economic Community (EEC) was formed in 1958. The single market does not represent the creation of a new free trade area or customs union. What it does entail is a program for the adoption of a whole number of measures, some 300 in fact, for the removal of non-tariff barriers to trade in goods and services between the member states within the EEC. Certainly the Commission and many member states have declared that they do not intend to create a Fortress Europe, and that very strong assertion was made to me just an hour ago this morning by the EC Commissioner, Peter Sutherland, who is specifically responsible for competition policy and who is in Australia at the moment. What the EC is saying is that that is not its intention but that reciprocity may be sought, where appropriate, from third countries for any trade liberalisation. The Community is yet to define reciprocity, which would, of course, need to be consistent with its existing and future international commitments, including those which we hope would be negotiated in the services area in the Uruguay Round. As to the question of what we are doing about exploring possible implications of all this for Australia, all I can really say at this stage is that officials are currently undertaking detailed assessments of the bilateral and multilateral trade and economic implications for Australia, not only of the impending events in Europe but also, of course, in the context of the issues that are now very much on the table about the relationship between all three major economic powers-the EC, North America and Japan-and the reactions that the rest of the world may need to develop in response to that emerging situation. Specifically on the subject of joint ventures, about which the honourable senator asked, there is at least one such area that I am able to advise that progress is being made on, and that is in the context of Italy. An Australia-Italy joint working group mandate exists, which includes exploration between business counterparts of the possibility of joint ventures. The next meeting of that group is expected to be held early next year in Italy. It will include investment and marketing seminars, and discussions are currently being held with Italian officials on the timing and scope of the next meeting. If I am able to add anything further to that part of the question, after having had a further look at it and a bit more notice, I will be happy to do so. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister for Local Government. I refer to the Burke Shire Council, which until recently was responsible for a large area of north-west Queensland. Have any Commonwealth funds been paid to the Burke Shire Council in the past and will any funds be payable now that the council has been dismissed by the Queensland Government? Was the Federal Government satisfied that the council, with normal Commonwealth assistance, would be able to work its way out of its financial difficulties, or was dismissal of the council necessary? Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. There has obviously been some care to try to bring this question within the Standing Orders, but the basis of the question is whether there were grounds for dismissal of a local government authority. We have just gone through a referendum about this, and I think it is quite understood, even in this chamber, that local government is not a matter of Commonwealth responsibility. Local government works within the States and it is a State matter that this question fundamentally relates to. The mere attachment of some reference to the fact that some Commonwealth funds are paid to the shire council certainly does not bring it within the province, the obligations or the duty of this Minister to pass judgments on the fitness of the council to carry on under Queensland law. I would respectfully submit that this question is clearly out of order. The honourable senator has used a subterfuge to try to bring it within order, and in the interests of a proper consideration of questions in this place it should be ruled out of order. Senator Robert Ray —Mr President, on the point of order: I submit to you that the question is entirely in order. It relates to the expenditure of government money. Senator Chaney may be anticipating an answer that may not be in order, but you have to start to hear the answer before you can possibly rule. I do point out that this concern did not stop those opposite asking questions about the dismissal of the Sydney City Council. They cannot have it both ways. They have asked those questions. Even if Senator Chaney's presumption is right, I think he has a fair bit of gall to oppose this question when the same questions were bowled up from the other side. Senator Puplick —Mr President, on the point of order: the latter part of Senator Colston's question was: does the Minister believe that the dismissal of the council was necessary? Standing Order 99 provides: Questions shall not ask- (a) for an expression of opinion; That part is clearly, therefore, not in order. The PRESIDENT —Order! I think the question is in order. However, I ask the Minister to confine her answer to her areas of responsibility only, and I will listen to the answer. Senator REYNOLDS —I must say that I am interested in Senator Chaney's comments about local government being a State matter and I am wondering whether that foreshadows a particular attitude in the Opposition in relation to funding of local government. Nevertheless, the question which Senator Colston asks me certainly does fall into my area of responsibility, so much so that the State Minister, Jim Randell, wrote to me recently about precisely this matter. He has made the decision to sack the Burke Shire Council on the grounds that it was not able to manage its deficit and he then asked me, as Minister at the Federal level, to provide additional revenue as a rescue operation for that particular council. I can see Senator Walsh looking extremely concerned about that as a precedent, and I am sure Senator Stone on a rare occasion would agree with me that there is absolutely no way that the Federal Government can be in the business of providing rescue funds to councils that have got themselves into difficulty. It is a State responsibility to have seen that this council received assistance, not last year or the year before, but right back in 1981 when a deficit was first exhibited in the council's budget. That is when the State Government should have taken action. Nevertheless, I come to the point of Senator Colston's question: will the Federal Government continue to provide financial assistance grants to the Burke Shire? Yes, we will continue to provide those grants because they are to the people of that area. I certainly will make a comment, if I may, about my attitude to the sacking of democratically elected councils. I have no doubt at all that the Burke Shire Council needs some administrative assistance and that an administrator could have worked with the elected council to resolve the problem of this deficit, but the Federal Government will continue to support the people of Burke Shire. We have recently approved $330,660 to the shire and it is rather surprising that the amount that we provided is actually more than $30,000 in excess of that recommended by the Queensland Grants Commission. So there is obviously some conflict in Queensland Government circles as to the degree of concern about this deficit. On the one hand, the deficit is of such concern that the Government can sack a council without trying to put an administrator in to work with that council, while on the other hand it is prepared to recommend a cutback in funds for that particular council. I hope that the administrator, who unfortunately has chosen to live in Cairns and not move to the shire he is trying to work with, will sort out the problems very speedily and that Minister Randell will re-call an early election for a democratically elected council. Senator STONE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. Does the Minister still agree that, as he stated on the Face to Face television program last Sunday, one more bad monthly balance of payments figure-that is, of course, coming on top of the $2.9 billion balance of payments deficit already recorded for July and August-will require the Government to review the economic strategy announced in the August Budget Papers? In particular, does the Minister still agree that, as he stated on that program, under those circumstances there is likely to be a need-if only because of international perceptions, as he said-for the Government to review its spending programs with an eye to making cuts in them? In passing, I congratulate the Minister for speaking so effectively outside his portfolio. Against that background, how high will the balance of payments figure for September have to be for the Minister to consider it to be bad? Senator McKiernan —You cannot give an opinion. Senator WALSH —That is right. Senator McKiernan has just reminded me that, under the Standing Orders, I am not allowed to give an opinion. Clearly it could be nothing more than an opinion as to what constituted a bad or a good current account figure for September or for any other month. The program to which Senator Stone referred was reported with varying degrees of accuracy and comprehensiveness in various newspapers. I am not sure whether he was relying on the program itself or some of the newspaper reports. I think at one stage-and I must confess that I have not checked the transcript myself in detail-I referred to one month and at another point I referred to at least one additional month. Again I think it is a matter of judgment as to whether one needs one month or more than one month. Certainly some of the newspaper reports-indeed, all the newspaper reports that I saw-omitted this very important qualification. What I described as the worst case scenario depicted, which I explicitly stated that I did not expect to happen, a statement which was not to my knowledge reported elsewhere, comprised much more than one or even more than one bad-however one cares to define that-set of monthly balance of payments figures. It included, in addition to that, a consequential substantial devaluation of the Australian dollar and the consequences that that would have for interest rates and so on. I do not know what else I can say other than that I put the view last Thursday-the program was actually recorded on Thursday-that it was too early to make those sorts of judgments. I still believe it is too early. Senator JONES —I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I refer to the alleged murder of David Blenkinsop and the illegal wounding of Joanne Mist by local Indonesian authorities. Is it true that an Indonesian policeman has been suspended and charged under military code and that a civilian has been arrested in regard to the Blenkinsop affair? Has the information been confirmed by the Indonesian Government to the Australian Government? If not, what is the source of this information? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am able to confirm to the Senate what has been the subject of some press reports, but largely incomplete reports, this morning. Yesterday, Australian Ambassador Morrison called on the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Ali Alatas, and on the Director-General for Protocol and Consular Affairs in the Indonesian Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr Kadarisman, in the course of which discussion Mr Alatas made the following points and gave the following information: first of all, the two people alleged to be involved in the incident were being held in custody and had been questioned. Secondly, investigations were continuing and he was not yet in a position to give a definitive account of the incident or of the results of the investigation. He was awaiting a full report from the investigating authorities in Biak. Thirdly, every effort would be made to make all the facts about the incident available. Fourthly, he assured our ambassador that there would be an open inquiry at which Australian consular officials were welcome to attend. Finally, and I think very importantly, he expressed regret at the loss of life and hoped that the incident would not affect relations between Australia and Indonesia. Senator NEWMAN —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. Is it a fact that the Government is critical of industry and therefore is putting pressure on industry to provide work-based child-care on the grounds that it will improve the productivity and morale of the work force? Why has the Government failed to provide work-based child-care for its own service men and women who are sent to remote parts of Australia to work long and irregular hours without the support of their extended families? Is the Government not aware that these personnel are always at the bottom of the waiting lists for child-care wherever they are posted? Is the Government not as concerned about the productivity and morale of the Defence Force as it says it is for workers in industry? Senator RICHARDSON —The Government is concerned with all aspects of the welfare of the people to whom Senator Newman has referred. That being the case, I shall contact the Minister as soon as possible and get an answer to all parts of Senator Newman's question. Senator COATES —I ask the Minister Assisting the Treasurer for Prices a question about the announcement by Telecom Australia that it proposes to increase certain charges to consumers. In view of Telecom's improving financial position, while acknow- ledging that its profits provide funds to improve its services, I ask: What action will the Minister take to ensure proper scrutiny of these proposals? Senator BOLKUS —I also heard the reports on radio this morning about Telecom's proposals in two areas in particular. One was the area of local calls, where it is proposed that charges will rise from 20c to 21c; and the second was the area of directory assistance charges, where, it was reported, Telecom proposes to increase charges for information on numbers already listed from 21c to approximately 60c. In respect of numbers not listed, the reports were unclear as to whether such a charge would be imposed. My understanding is that for those numbers not already listed there is no charge at the moment. The Government's basic position is that public authorities, in common with the private sector, should have to justify their price increases in the same way as does the private sector. The two items which were the subject of the report this morning are specifically notifiable under the Prices Surveillance Act and as a consequence proposed increases need to be notified within 21 days. In respect of the charges for local calls, I understand that on 26 August this year the Prices Surveillance Authority (PSA) considered Telecom's application and had no objection to changes on this item as proposed. The Authority recognised that the proposed increase reflected the withdrawal of the exemption from payroll tax previously allowed to Telecom. The second item, as I have already mentioned, is also notifiable to the Prices Surveillance Authority. In fact, it was most recently classified as such in March this year when I issued a direction to Telecom to that effect. I have already had discussions with the Chairperson of the Prices Surveillance Authority, Mrs Hilda Rolfe, and it is anticipated that once this increase is notified to the Authority I will be able to direct the PSA to conduct a specific inquiry into this service. Honourable senators should realise that Telecom, in its relationship with the Prices Surveillance Authority, has an arrangement whereby it has been reporting its details on revenue, expenditure, capital and investment to the Authority on a quarterly basis. As a consequence, the Prices Surveillance Authority is in a much better position to give greater scrutiny to the proposals of this public authority. I am sure that, given that sort of relationship and information flow to the Prices Surveillance Authority, the utmost scrutiny will be given to the items proposed. Senator PUPLICK —Has the attention of the Minister for Resources been drawn to the remarks made by the Chairman of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and former Australian Labor Party (ALP) Federal President, Neville Wran, that Australia's response to the increasing problems arising from the greenhouse effect may need to involve an increase in the use of nuclear power for energy production? Does the Minister give credence to Mr Wran's remarks? Does he accept that they were well founded, or does he reject the views of the Chairman of the CSIRO as being `scientifically and medically illiterate,' as claimed by prominent ALP member Dr Helen Caldicott? Senator COOK —The answer to the first part of the question is yes, the answer to the second part is yes, and the answer to the third part is that I certainly do respect Neville Wran's views on this, but it is a matter of some judgment as to whether uranium is a sensible substitute or whether or not coal can be used as a fuel in this context in a way which does not contribute to the greenhouse effect. I did not quite get down the fourth part of the question. If Senator Puplick reiterates it I will answer it. Senator PUPLICK —Mr President, I asked the Minister whether he agreed or disagreed with the characterisation of Mr Wran's comments as being `scientifically and medically illiterate' as claimed by prominent ALP member Dr Helen Caldicott. Senator COOK —No. Senator DUNN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. In the event of HMS Edinburgh seeking dry-docking facilities in Australia, does the Minister for Defence intend to provide the facility without first asking the British Government whether the ship is carrying nuclear weapons? If so, will the Minister explain what the Minister for Defence meant by `normal safety requirements' in the phrase he used in the lower House two days ago, the phrase being, `The Australian Government will make docking facilities available subject to the normal safety requirements'? Does the Minister think that normal safety requirements apply to nuclear weapons? Senator RICHARDSON —I think that Minister Beazley said in the House the other day in answer to a question that the repairs that were carried out to the propeller of the Edinburgh were such that the Royal Navy has advised that at present it does not believe there is a requirement for docking. That should be noted. The principle of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons aboard visiting warships would be maintained if any docking were to occur. Docking safety requirements are determined by the Navy in the light of the specific circumstances of the docking. Nuclear weapons, were any present on the ship, would not be transferred from ship to shore for any docking. Senator DUNN —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I take it that the Minister's answer to the first question is no. My supplementary question is: are any accident plans in place or being prepared by the Government to deal with the de-ammunitioning of ships and the transfer of nuclear weapons from ship to shore or ship to ship? Given that the Government has not released its accident plan dealing with an accident on board a nuclear-armed vessel in an Australian port, even to the Senate committee which has been examining such plans for the last two years, how does the Government propose to deal with the very special conditions that apply in the transfer of nuclear weapons from ship to shore or ship to ship where this might be necessary? The PRESIDENT —Order! That is hardly a supplementary question: it is another question. If the Minister does not wish to answer it he need not do so. Senator Richardson —No, Mr President. Senator BOSWELL —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice and Acting Attorney-General and Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The Minister will recall earlier questions relating to the purported removal from office of the General Manager of the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) and his replacement by a colleague of the Secretary to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Perkins. Was the Attorney-General's Department approached for, and did it provide, legal advice as to the purported removal of the General Manager? Is the Minister satisfied that the purported removal was lawful? Was the Public Service Commission consulted, and did it give its approval to the proposed appointment of Mr Cedric Wyatt as General Manager of the ADC, as required by section 33 (2) of the Aboriginal Development Commission Act? Can the Minister reaffirm confidence in Mrs Shirley McPherson, who has been so wrongfully maligned by Mr Hand's hand-picked commissioners, except for two who showed a great display of courage? Senator TATE —I am asked whether the Attorney-General's Department gave any advice, I take it to the Commission, as to the legality of any steps it wished to take in relation to a possible vote of no confidence, or the dismissal of the executive manager of the ADC. I know of no such advice. However, I will attempt to check that out and provide an answer as soon as possible. I am asked for an opinion as to whether the purported removal of Mr O'Brien was lawful. Of course, I will give no opinion on that. I am asked whether the Public Service Commission was consulted as to these matters. I do not know whether it was consulted or whether it needed to be consulted. Once again, I will have to seek information on that aspect of the honourable senator's question. I think that I was then asked whether I would reaffirm confidence in Mrs Shirley McPherson as the chairperson of the Aboriginal Development Commission. The Government and, I am sure, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Hand, are always prepared to work with a properly constituted chairperson of the Aboriginal Development Commission. The vote of no confidence which has been spoken about and about which there has been no formal conveyance of that resolution from the Commission to the Minister was a vote of the Commission and not of the Minister. The Commission has made that decision, if it turns out to be as reported. As I have said, I am sure that the Minister will continue to work with those properly constituted persons on the Commission and the officers of the Commission. Until we get the exact details from the Commission as to what resolutions it has passed, the basis on which they were passed and the consequences of the passage of those resolutions, I think it is premature to go any further. Senator BOSWELL —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I understand that the Minister is not au fait with some of the answers that I sought in this question, but I ask that he check with the responsible Minister and report back to the Senate on the information sought in this question, preferably before Question Time is over. Senator TATE —I cannot give an undertaking to provide the answers within 13 minutes, but I will certainly attempt to get the answers for Senator Boswell and the Senate as soon as possible. Senator MACKLIN —I refer the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to a newspaper article in the Canberra Times on 11 October about the plight of 19 Irian Jayan refugees presently being held in Vanuatu who have applied for refugee status in Australia. I point out that five of those people have been in prison for some 120 days without charge. Does the Minister agree that this detention represents a major denial of human rights? If so, what representations has the Government made to Vanuatu along those lines? Does the Minister think that, because members of this group have previously expressed support for Irian Jayan independence, they face personal danger if they are returned to Indonesia by Vanuatu? When will the Government make a final determination on the application for refugee status by these 19 Irian Jayans? Why has it taken the Government so long to process their applications? Senator GARETH EVANS —The continuing detention in Vanuatu of five members of the group in question is a manifestly unsatisfactory state of affairs and it has been acknowledged frankly to be such by the Vanuatu Government in discussions that I have had with it. Everyone is trying to find a way through the situation at the moment. We have been working very closely with the Vanuatu Government to try to find a satisfactory and workable solution, including making contacts with the Netherlands and a number of other governments in recent days. That process is continuing. It is one in which I have been personally very actively involved, including during my most recent overseas visit. Beyond that I cannot say any more at this stage. As to the second aspect, I do not make any judgment about whether the people in question would face danger or disadvantage if they were to be returned to Indonesia. What I can say is that, to my knowledge, the option of possible return to Indonesia is not one that is being contemplated by the Vanuatu authorities. As to the last part of the question, the processing of applications for refugee status is very much a matter for my colleague the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, Senator Robert Ray, who has, however, given me, just a few moments ago, the following advice: in July 1988 members of the group in question did request resettlement in Australia as refugees. One of the group, who happens to be a Dutch national, has already been rejected because he does have prior protection in the Netherlands. The spouse of another one holds a Solomon Islands passport and would equally appear to be prima facie ineligible for consideration under this category. In August this year, as is required of all applicants for entry, the group was invited to submit formal application forms and supporting material for consideration of refugee resettlement. As far as we are aware, these papers have not been submitted as yet and the claims of the group will be considered in detail by Senator Ray and his Department when those papers are received. Senator COLLINS —Has the Minister for Finance seen a press statement released by the shadow Minister for business and consumer affairs, Mr John Moore, yesterday criticising the terms of the Government's sale of the defence service homes mortgage portfolio? Has the Government considered the implications of undertaking the sale in the manner proposed by Mr Moore? Will the Government proceed with the sale on the terms which it announced yesterday? Senator WALSH —The answer to the last part of the question is yes, as it is to the first part of the question which asked whether I had seen Mr Moore's press statement. It is a most extraordinary document, riddled with factual error and sloppy thinking. As someone who has had some contact with Mr Moore on a parliamentary committee I am surprised that he has had put out in his name a document which is so riddled with factual error and sloppy thinking. Mr Moore said that the Government has relied upon `naive officials of the Attorney-General's Department to negotiate with specialists in private enterprise possessing far greater commercial nous'. There are many errors in that statement but I will go through some of them. Firstly, the Government obtained the services of Mr Uhrig as a consultant for this exercise. Secondly, the involvement of the Public Service was through the task force on asset sales, which is chaired by an officer of the Department of Finance and has a representative from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Administrative Services. It relies upon legal advice tendered to it by the Attorney-General's Department. To the best of my knowledge the legal advice given by the Attorney-General's Department to that committee has been very sound. It is, however, not an Attorney-General's Department exercise. We had a very prominent and well respected former businessman, Mr Uhrig, as a consultant to the task force. However, I object to the implication that Commonwealth officials are naive. I have already given my opinion and the opinion of the public servants on the task force that Mr Uhrig's services to that Committee were very valuable in this instance. Mr Moore made the assertion in his press statement that public servants are incapable and incompetent of doing this sort of job. I have not published this before but in relation to another major assets sale, that of surplus land at the Tokyo embassy, the Government had also retained a private sector adviser. Had the advice at one point of that private sector adviser been taken by the public servants the Commonwealth taxpayers would have finished up with a considerably smaller return for that property-in the order of $60m to $80m. So it is not only unfair of Mr Moore to charge the Public Service, and more specifically the naive officials of the Attorney-General's Department, as he puts it, with incompetence but it is also in conflict with the record on the second largest asset disposal that this Government has conducted. I do not know what Mr Moore would like to have. Perhaps he would like this Government to follow the sort of arrangements that his ideological soulmates in London followed when they started selling assets a few years ago. I will be providing a few more details to the public about that in a week or two. I could go through every paragraph of the press release but I will deal with only one more paragraph. Mr Moore said: While Westpac has purchased the loan portfolio the Government has retained its open-ended subsidy liability to the tune of $145m per annum. Firstly, his figure is too high and, secondly, the Government's subsidy exposure, if you like, is exactly the same as it was before the portfolio was sold. The taxpayers received a premium payment over and above the face value of the debt of $100m which, if adjusted for the actual timing of certain receipts, converts to a value at the time of payment in present value terms equivalent to $85m. I will not say any more other than to express my amazement that Mr Moore, at one stage a prominent businessman and stockbroker, and to the best of my knowledge a reasonably well informed and responsible Opposition spokesman, could have put his name to such a shoddy press release as this one. Senator MESSNER —Does the Minister for Local Government support the Government's decision to steal back 90 per cent of the additional revenue that local government councils are expected to raise from the removal of the exemption applying to Australia Post to pay local government rates and charges next year which will reduce the financial independence and flexibility of local government? Exactly how does the Government's proposal to implement the clawback scheme work? How will it safeguard the relative financial standing of those councils in rural and regional areas given that most Australia Post and Telecom buildings are located in metropolitan centres and that some councils in these areas are guaranteed only a minimum grant allocation out of the total grants available? Can the Minister assure the Senate that local government councils in rural and regional areas of Australia will not be any worse off relative to those councils in metropolitan areas? Does the Minister agree that this is not only another way to further reduce government outlays to local government but also will be an administrative nightmare or at least will be probably quite impossible to administer fairly? Senator REYNOLDS —It will come as no surprise to Senator Messner that I support government policy. I understand Senator Messner's concerns and indeed the concerns of local government but local government has to share the economic restraint that all levels of government and the community have to bear. We cannot make an exception of local government. However, we will be consulting closely with local government. We are planning a major consultation with the Australian Council of Local Government Associations early next February to ensure that a number of its concerns are considered in the context of Budget negotiations for next year. In regard to the Telecom callback issue, we will certainly be protecting the interests of councils. We will be aiming to negotiate in the best and fairest way. It is a complex issue and I can assure Senator Messner that we will be working closely with local government to ensure that we get equity in whatever arrangements are finally agreed upon. Senator MESSNER —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Could the Minister indicate as an addendum to her answer whether that meant from what she said that she or her Department will be dealing directly with individual councils on each grant? Senator REYNOLDS —Senator Messner obviously has not caught up with how many local governments there are throughout Australia. However, perhaps he would like a copy of my recent report in which I list just how many local councils I have visited. Nevertheless, I think that Senator Messner would be aware that the Australian Council of Local Government Associations represents local government throughout Australia. I have every confidence in that organisation. I am sure that local government has every confidence in that organisation. In the meantime, yes, visiting local councils throughout Australia is one of my priorities. I will be discussing it with those that I visit. Senator HARRADINE —My question to the Acting Attorney-General refers to my question to him last week about the reliance of Dr Paul Wilson of the Australian Institute of Criminology on the writings of Nobile and Nadler in an attempt to disparage the work of the United States Attorney-General's Commission on Pornography without footnoting the fact that they were editors of Penthouse Forum. I ask whether the Minister recalls that in his reply he stated: It is not normal practice in academic publications to cite the political or personal characteristics or allegiance of authors. Does he also recall stating that a more appropriate step could have been taken by Dr Wilson in referring to critical commentary contained in the fall 1987 issue of the American Bar Foundation Research Journal? I ask whether the Minister is aware that the very first article in that journal, written by Professor Donald Downs, refers to Nobile and Nadler but in footnotes says: Unfortunately, Nobile and Nadler are absolutist libertarians with axes to grind . . . not only do they reject any restraints on sexual material . . . but they treat all opposing views as presumptively illegitimate and intolerable. Does the Minister still maintain his statement that it is not normal practice in academic publications to make such citations? Does he not agree that it would have been more appropriate for Dr Paul Wilson to have done the same as Professor Donald Downs? Senator TATE —I still maintain that it is not normal practice to append such a footnote to a citation of authorship of an article or monograph cited in an academic article. However, there appears to be an exception to that rule in the particular article by Professor Downs within the fall edition of that research journal. As I say, I think that is an exception which proves the general rule. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 11 October Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications a question without notice about strikes and Ansett Airlines of Australia. The Minister has now provided the following answer to his question: the flight attendant manning levels for Airbus A320 aircraft proposed by Ansett management comply with the safety requirements prescribed by the Civil Aviation Authority. Any manning level in excess of the minimum required for safety purposes is a matter for the commercial judgment of Ansett and it is inappropriate for the Government to intervene. Ansett's management has stated that it will abide by the decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and this is the appropriate mechanism for resolving the matter. Senator REYNOLDS —Yesterday Senator Knowles asked me a supplementary question about the consultancy for the non-sexist language chapter in the recently released fourth edition of the Australian Government Style Manual. I am now able to provide the answer to the honourable senator's question. The Office of Status of Women wrote to five people with known expertise in the area, seeking expressions of interest in researching and writing a chapter on non-sexist language. Finance regulation 51 requires at least three representative quotations. On this occasion, five were sought. The consultant was approved by the then First Assistant Secretary of the Office of Status of Women. The consultant was chosen on the basis of the following criteria: academic background, a good knowledge of gender neutral language, a background in social history, and proven skills in writing and editing. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade) —by leave-I would like to correct for the record an aspect of press reports in the Sydney Morning Herald and Age newspapers today which reported me as saying to Dr Bavadra and his colleagues yesterday in Fiji: Australia will reject any move to readmit Fiji to the Commonwealth unless its proposed new Constitutional is fair and equitable. The Sydney Morning Herald report also says, in reference to the interim Government: . . . members are believed to have made clear to Senator Evans during his two-day visit to Fiji that they are keen to reapply for membership. The question of Fiji's readmission to the Commonwealth was not in fact raised with me by any member of the interim Government during my visit, although it was raised squarely and directly by Mr Somare and one or two other Pacific Island country leaders during my recent South Pacific visit. What I told Mr Somare and the others and what I would expect him to have retailed back to Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara is that Australia would have great difficulty supporting any move for readmission of Fiji to the Commonwealth unless, and until, Fiji adopted a constitution that was broadly acceptable to all the people of Fiji and the internal security decree was lifted. In the course of my discussions with Dr Bavadra and his colleagues, in which I was explaining the kinds of actions which were and were not possible for Australia to take, I repeated the advice that I had given to Mr Somare using exactly those same terms. Although I may have used the phrase `fair and equitable' in discussing other matters, in particular those related to electoral boundaries-although I have no specific recollection of doing so-I did not use that phrase in the context of Fiji's possible readmission to the Commonwealth. What seems to have happened is that the reporters in question have repeated, no doubt in good faith, what was in fact someone's very free translation of what I had said to Dr Bavadra and did not, in fact, report my actual words. Senator DUNN(New South Wales) —by leave-Mr President, I wish to make a personal explanation to correct a number of wild and ill-informed allegations made about me by the New South Wales Premier, Mr Greiner, and his Minister for Health and Minister for Arts, Mr Collins, two days ago. The circumstances of the remarks involved a debate in the New South Wales Parliament on a motion put by Peter Collins about visiting nuclear warships-although it did not mention the word `nuclear'. He commended the Federal Government for the planning and execution of the naval salute and endorsed the commitment of the Federal and State governments to permit warships to undertake basic repairs. There were so many errors made during the course of this debate that I would suggest that Peter Collins or Premier Greiner sack their researchers, or that Special Branch get its facts up to date. One of the comments made during the course of this debate was that my husband was Bob Collins. I am sure that Senator Collins will be very surprised to find that out. He may have to make a personal explanation now too. The remarks that were made were actually referring to my ex-husband, Brett Collins, about whom Senator Evans made a couple of magnificent speeches in the Senate in 1982 when my ex-husband was facing deportation. I am very pleased to be able now to place it on record that it was because of the Federal Government's revocation of that deportation order that Brett was able to stay in Australia. Although we are no longer married, we are the best of friends. However, the Prisoners Action Group was not involved in peace activities on that particular day. My ex-husband is now a printer and works for the progressive movement on a range of causes. He is, I suppose, what one would call a respectable businessman. Another of the groups which were criticised by Mr Collins, amongst many, was the People for Nuclear Disarmament organisation, with which, naturally enough, I have a lot of dealings. It has been said in this House that it is Soviet funded. However, I have before me a very long statement which shows all the funding the organisation has received from the Federal and State governments. The Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association of Australasia was also criticised. I do not say anything about that except to support its activities on behalf of peace. But I must say something about what is called the Intercept Squadron, which is, in fact, the Intercept Foundation. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Dunn, this is a personal explanation and must really refer to how you have been personally misrepresented. Senator DUNN —Certainly, Mr President. I refer to the Intercept Squadron because the former director of it is now on my staff, so it does touch me and my personal matters quite closely. I must defend the Intercept Foundation for the excellent work that is done on warship research. On the personal matter of my election, I am aghast that Peter Collins, who was very polite to me when I was editor of a film industry trade magazine when he needed an interview, now seeks to raise my personal life and bring these matters to the attention of the public. I suppose he is entitled to make some comments on my election but he obviously has a beef not so much with me but with the Electoral Commission. He calls me a would-be senator, but he is obviously ignoring the fact that, inherent in being No. 2 on any ticket, one is deemed eligible to represent one's party or cause if something happens to the person who is No. 1 on the ticket. I take objection to his remarks about my election but I would refer him to the Electoral Commission. I defend myself by saying that I did nothing in this respect to steal the seat from anybody. I was properly elected and my actions have been totally above board. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade)(11.16) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill marks a new stage in Social Security administration in this country. It is a further plank to the Government's social justice priority of achieving equality of legal rights for all. The Bill will establish an informal, accessible, quick and free mechanism for social security claimants to secure their legal entitlements to pensions, benefits and allowances. The Bill is an integral component of developing a more rational and understandable system of decision-making in Social Security. It provides for all levels of administrative review both internal and external. There will be provision for a review to be conducted by the Secretary to the Department of Social Security, by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal as the first tier of external review and then by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as the second tier of external review. The Social Security Appeals Tribunal has been operating since 1975 under ministerial direction. It has had no legislative foundation and has had no power to decide cases. Its function has been to recommend to the Secretary that a decision under review be either affirmed, varied or set aside. This Bill will provide the Social Security Appeals Tribunal with determinative powers and will make it a statutory tribunal with responsibility for the first level of external review. The absence of a legal power in the Social Security Appeals Tribunal to determine appeals has been seen as a deficiency in the social security review system. It has been the subject of comment by many observers, including the Administrative Review Council. The Administrative Review Council reported that the absence of determinative powers has exacerbated the problem of delay in processing appeals and accordingly has undermined the objective of minimising the time taken to finalise appeals. In Report No. 21 on the Structure and Form of Social Security Appeals (April 1984) the Council concluded that conferring a power of determination on the Social Security Appeals Tribunal would enhance its credibility and standing. It would also ensure its independence from the Department and would contribute to a reduction in the time taken to finalise appeals at the first level of the appeals structure. The primary objective of any system of review of administrative decisions should be to provide for the resolution of grievances by correct and authoritative decisions which command general confidence. To achieve this object the Social Security Appeals Tribunal must retain its flexible structure and the informal procedures it has developed in the past 12 years. Otherwise there is a danger that this Tribunal will duplicate the style of hearing now conducted by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This is not a desirable aim for the first tier of external review. This Bill is designed to ensure that the Social Security Appeals Tribunal retains its accessibility and informality while exercising its more extensive powers. The legislation will state the objective of review as being to provide a mechanism for review of decisions under the Social Security Act that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick. The tribunal is specifically directed to have regard to this objective in making hearings as informal as possible. The Tribunal will have the powers of the Secretary to the Department of Social Security to affirm, vary or set aside a decision. The Tribunal will be able to shorten the period during which the Department must make its submission to the Tribunal where there are cases of financial hardship. This will enable determination of the appeal as quickly as possible. As is presently the case, no legal costs will be met or awarded. The Tribunal will be able to meet reasonable travel and accommodation costs plus the costs of any medical examinations where those examinations are arranged by the Tribunal. The power of the Secretary to the Department of Social Security to reconsider a case at any time will also be retained. The existing informal character of Social Security Appeals Tribunal hearings will not be significantly altered under this restructured scheme. The Tribunal will not be bound by rules of evidence or notions of judicial procedure. Hearings will be conducted in private unless the presiding member at a hearing has decided otherwise after having regard to the need to protect the privacy of the parties and their wishes. Tribunal hearings will retain their existing features: usually they take the form of a discussion between the Tribunal panel and the appellant. Notwithstanding this, an appellant will be able to be represented at a hearing by any person. The Bill provides for the continuation of the current practice of receiving applications for review orally as well as in writing. Where an oral application is received the person who receives the application will be required to record its receipt in writing. Withdrawal of applications can also be made orally or in writing with a similar requirement to make a written record where an application is withdrawn orally. A feature of Australia's administrative review system is that administrative tribunals are called upon to apply Government policy on various matters. This occurs when the legislation that the Tribunal applies does not clearly dictate what decision should be arrived at in the particular case. In such cases Administrative Tribunals have long held that they will have regard to Government policy in deciding the issue. This Bill provides that where the Government desires to require the SSAT to take account of Government policy in this way it will be necessary to table the relevant policy in both Houses-guaranteeing full public accountability in the administration of Social Security. To ensure that the objectives of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal are achieved, the Tribunal will be organised and administered on a national basis. A full time National Convener will be responsible for the administration of the Tribunal and for ensuring uniformity and consistency of decision-making by members. The National Convener will also be responsible for the general management of the Tribunal. There will be a senior member in each State and a mix of full-time and part-time members. The Tribunal often requires background information about the operations of the Department of Social Security. To have a departmental representative appearing before the Tribunal may create an adversarial environment for the hearing of appeals. This is undesirable. Departmental officers will therefore continue to be appointed as members of the Tribunal. However, to ensure their independence from the Department they will be appointed to the statutory position of Member of the Tribunal and will not be departmental officers for their period of appointment to the Tribunal. The Bill prohibits oral submissions by or representation of the Secretary and will thereby prevent the development of adversarial procedures. The current practice of three member panels will continue. The National Convener will have a discretion to add a medical member as required and to authorise panels consisting of fewer than three members in special circumstances. The National Convener and Senior Members will be appointed by the Governor-General. The National Convener will be appointed for up to 5 years and senior members will be appointed for a period of up to 3 years. Other members will be appointed for a period of up to 3 years. Because the SSAT deals with a number of applications in relation to age pensions there will be no bar to members being appointed beyond the age of 65. This Bill will also include provisions regulating the operations of the Tribunal. The Department will be required to provide a statement setting out its findings, evidence and reasons for the decision under review together with supporting documents. This must be provided to the Tribunal within 28 days of receipt of notification of lodgment of an appeal. The National Convener can ask the Secretary to provide the statement and documents earlier than the expiry of the 28-day deadline. The most likely situation where this will arise is where a person could experience financial hardship pending resolution of the appeal. When the Social Security Appeals Tribunal arrives at its decision it will be required to provide a statement setting out the findings referring to the evidence and giving the reasons for its decision. In the event of an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal the Social Security Appeals Tribunal's reasons will become the statement required under section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. The Department of Social Security will still provide the relevant documentation to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. In addition to the above requirements, the Tribunal will be required to act in accordance with substantial justice and merits according to the circumstances of the case and it will be empowered to obtain evidence on oath or to request the Secretary to serve a notice requiring a person to provide such relevant information or documents. This Bill marks an important step in development of the Department of Social Security's own decision making. It codifies and more precisely defines the Department's powers and duties to review decisions and establishes the office of `authorised review officer'. A determinative first tier external review tribunal will provide a greater contribution to administrative efficiency and effectiveness in achieving legislative policy objectives by providing consistent guidance in the proper exercise of statutory powers by departmental decision-makers. To make the Social Security Appeals Tribunal responsible for its own decisions is consistent with this objective. The Social Security Appeals Tribunal currently reviews up to 12,000 cases a year. The first tier of external review is designed, given this caseload, to be informal and quick. There needs to be a mechanism of further administrative review for complex and difficult cases. This will be provided by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Both the Secretary to the Department of Social Security and persons who are affected by decisions of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal may apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. The PRESIDENT —Before the Senate adjourns I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committee B will meet in committee room 14, Estimates Committee E will meet in committee room 10, and Estimates Committee F will meet in committee room 16. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.18 a.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 302) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 26 April 1988: (1) What educational allowances are currently available from the Federal Government for Aboriginal students. (2) What changes have been made to these allowances for 1988. (3) Have any changes been announced for 1989; if so, what are these changes. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment, Education and Training has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Education allowances for Aboriginal students are available from the Federal Government under the Aboriginal Secondary Assistance Scheme (ABSEC) and the Aboriginal Study Assistance Scheme (ABSTUDY). Under ABSEC, students receive Living Allowance, which is age-related and payable at the at-home or away-from-home rate school fees, up to a limit of $3,000 pa for approved boarders and up to $150 pa for under 16 `at-home' students fares between home and school each term for approved boarders Direct Education Assistance, in the form of tutorial support, excursion allowances, and other educational guidance programs. Full-time students in post-secondary courses, under ABSTUDY receive Living Allowance, which is age-related and payable at the at-home or away-from-home rate Higher Education Administration Charge Allowance. Incidentals Allowance, to assist with payment for textbooks, equipment and fees fares for students living away from home Direct Education Assistance, in the form of tutorial support and assistance with compulsory field trips. Full time pensioner students, under ABSTUDY receive Pensioner Education Supplement Higher Education Administration Charge Allowance Direct Education Assistance. Part-time ABSTUDY students receive part-time allowance, dependent on length of course and hours of study Higher Education Administration Charge Allowance Direct Education Assistance. ABSTUDY also provides assistance for participation in Testing and Assessment Awards education conferences study tours short courses. (2) For ABSEC students, the major changes in 1988 have been single age-related Living Allowance to replace three allowances previously paid separately (Living Allowance, Book and Clothing Allowance, Personal Allowance) on a grade-related basis Living Allowance is now paid over 52 weeks of the year rather than 44 Living Allowance for students under 16 has been reduced (but the total Commonwealth payment for these students should remain the same because most ABSEC families will receive assistance under the Family Allowance Supplement in 1988) introduction of the limits on school fees noted above assistance for excursions is restricted to excursions involving at least one overnight stay; previously ABSEC paid for all excursions For ABSTUDY students, the major changes in 1988 have been Living Allowances are now age-related, and more consistent with AUSTUDY rates introduction of a $30 pw supplement to Living Allowance for students 21 years and over studying in courses leading to awards or direct employment outcomes hobby and personal development courses are no longer supported the Incidentals Allowance has replaced fee payment, Book and Clothing Allowance and Establishment Allowance pensioner students are no longer eligible to receive ABSTUDY Living Allowance while receiving certain pensions; the Education Supplement replaces the ABSTUDY Living Allowance. (3) From 1989 the current ABSEC and ABSTUDY schemes will be combined into a single scheme to be known as ABSTUDY. The scheme will have Schools and Post School/Tertiary elements. Earlier proposals to make payments through AUSTUDY and the Department of Social Security (DSS) will not be pursued. The major changes for 1989 are as follows an income test will be introduced for the Living Allowance for students 16 years and over and for boarders. The test will be based on the AUSTUDY income test, but modified in recognition of the needs of Aboriginal families and students students under 16 years living at home will receive an Education Supplement paid in four instalments rather than fortnightly payments. The Education Supplement will be income tested on the basis of entitlement to Family Allowance Supplement or a Social Security pension or benefit all other benefits currently paid under ABSEC and AUSTUDY will continue to be paid free of income test the limits on school fees for boarders, Excursion Allowance and Incidentals Allowance will be indexed the limit on excursions attracting assistance will be changed from an overnight excursion to one costing $10 or more the expenses payable under school fees for approved boarders will include boarding fees above the level of Living Allowance payable and not simply tuition fees the rate of Living Allowance will be increased for most students and will now be more consistent with the rate of unemployment benefit in order to maximise the incentive for Aboriginal people to enter education. (Question No. 312) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, 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 substantive 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 the 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 Walsh —The Minister for Employment, Education and Training has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) 15 (a) 2 (b) Nil (c) 5 (d) $60132 (severance payment only-does not include recreation or long service leave in lieu) (e) 47 to 57 (2) 67 (a) 46 (b) 1 (at officer's request) (c) Nil (d) Not applicable (e) Not applicable (3) Displaced senior executive staff are counselled regarding their options including gainful employment available in the Department. They are then referred to the Public Service Commission where the Senior Executive Staffing Unit has a responsibility to assist with redeployment/retraining. In relation to displaced staff other than SES the Department has developed, in consultation with relevant staff associations, a set of guidelines on the handling of potentially surplus and excess staff. These guidelines have been published and include strategies for retraining/redeployment. In essence these are: an identified officer in each office is responsible for co-ordinating the redeployment process including the facilitation of training and counselling of affected staff; potentially surplus staff are maintained in gainful employment until substantive placement is effected; potentially surplus staff are given priority access for transfer to vacancies at their substantive level; (4) Net saving, across the portfolio, expressed in terms of positions staffed: SES ... 14 Other ... 265 Total ... 279 (Question No. 451) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 24 August 1988: (1) Can the Minister advise how many promotional brochures for Expo 88 marked ``Official money-saving information from Australia Post'' have been delivered by Australia Post. (2) What has been the cost of producing and delivering the brochures. (3) Can the Minister advise what other organisations, Government or private, have distributed similar promotional material and in what quantities such material has been distributed. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Approximately 3.1 million brochures were delivered by Australia Post. (2) The production costs of the brochure were borne by World Expo 88. Deliveries were undertaken by Australia Post subject to the availability of spare network capacity. (3) In June 1984, Australia Post and the Department of Foreign Affairs combined to arrange a national distribution of approximately 5 million brochures to inform Australian residents of changes in passport application procedures, including lodgment at post offices. (Question No. 464) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 24 August 1988: (1) In view of continuing reports concerning the so-called `Sick Building' syndrome, and increasing evidence that faulty air conditioning units are responsible for the ill-health of employees, what action has been taken or is contemplated between the Commonwealth and States for a uniform improvement of (a) manufacturing and installation standards; and (b) enforcement of any present or future legislation or regulation in this area. (2) Are any statistics available to the Federal Government on the estimated numbers of blue and white collar employees who have become sick directly through air conditioning faults in their work environment. (3) Are there any break-down statistics available on the types of illnesses caused by faulty air conditioning. Senator Cook —The Minister for Community Services and Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) and (b) The Department of Community Services and Health is preparing national indoor air quality guidelines. Once these have been approved by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the States will use them either as guidelines for action, or in air quality legislation for regulation and enforcement. Standards Association of Australia committees will also pick up these guidelines for the development of manufacturing and installation standards. (2) No. Because of the generally diffuse signs and symptoms of the `Sick Building Syndrome', it is unknown how many workers have been affected by this or other causes of illness at work. (3) No. Faulty air conditioning has been blamed for many types of illnesses, but only a few specific ones have actually been pinpointed. Badly designed or maintained air conditioning has been linked with Legionnaires Disease, Pontiac Fever and Humidifier Fever. Viral infections are reported to have been spread by air conditioning, and asthma and allergies triggered off, exacerbated or prolonged through the entrapment and entrainment of allergens in air conditioning systems. Moulds and bacteria have also been spread through poorly maintained air conditioning. (Question No. 552) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health, 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 each Department. Senator Cook —The Minister for Community Services and Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: September December March June $ $ $ $ 1986-87 Quarter ... 2,012,301 1,842,753 1,618,216 2,316,597 Total ... 2,012,301 3,855,054 5,473,270 7,789,867 1987-88 Quarter ... 1,833,468 1,256,030 826,994 1,953,789 Total ... 1,833,468 3,089,498 3,916,492 5,870,281 The expenditure figures prior to the creation of the Department of Community Services and Health on 24 July 1987, are the aggregate of expenditure in the three elements (Department of Health, Department of Community Services and the Housing Division of the Department of Housing and Construction), which were amalgamated to form the current Department.