Tuesday, 18 October 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable President of the Senate and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are gravely concerned at the Government's proposal to reduce significantly the pension and access to fringe benefits of persons who in good faith bought market linked insurance bonds, friendly society bonds, approved deposit funds, deferred annuities, and unit trusts to protect their savings. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, amend the proposed legislation to ensure that it will not apply retrospectively and that provision be made to protect savings against inflation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 33 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament assembled. The petition of these residents of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Broadcasting Corporation provides the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia with the only nation-wide, independent radio and television service. That the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must be preserved in the interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia. That the introduction of commercial sponsorship or any form of advertising material from commercial sources, would destroy the independence of the Corporation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Senators will oppose the introduction of any form of sponsorship or advertising material from commercial sources into the programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Cook (from 30 citizens). The Honourable, The President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows a request for Medicare benefits for in vitro fertilisation for the medical treatment of infertile couples. Your petitioners pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled grant Medicare benefits for in vitro fertilisation, IVF, for the medical treatment of infertile couples. 1 in 10 Australian couples are infertile and unable to conceive and carry a baby to birth. Having a family is one of the most fundamental and rewarding aspects of life and benefits the community as a whole. IVF is an established and proven treatment for infertility. There are existing mechanisms to regulate and control IVF, including the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee. Currently IVF patients pay up to $1500 per treatment cycle for IVF out of their own pockets. This means that some couples who need IVF to help them establish their own family do not have access. We request that Medicare funding be granted for IVF for the treatment of infertility, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Cook (from 69 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The Petition of certain Citizens of Australia showeth: (1) The adoption of the upgraded Tax-File Number proposal, to compel every Person to quote the number for many ordinary business dealings, would be an intrusion on the traditional liberty we have enjoyed under the Common Law and the Parliamentary Federation in our Constitutional Monarchy. (2) The databanks and surveillance methods that would increase under this proposal would tend to provide a constant unwarranted threat to the privacy of Citizens, Residents, and perhaps Visitors and Tourists. (3) There are other parallel threats to our privacy and liberties, such as the move to give police in Australia and overseas access to our Income Tax File details, and to provide computer-based information to an international bureau in Brussels, plus the proposal that State police be empowered to listen in to private telephone conversations. Therefore your petitioners pray that the Government withdraw any bill, or repeal any Act, to establish the Tax-File Number proposal, and that Members of Parliament, without regard for party, unanimously reject any such moves as being contrary to our personal liberties, our privacy, and the national interest. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Durack (from 13 citizens). Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petition, from 44 citizens, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form and does not contain a prayer at the end thereof, expressing concern at the introduction of a 20 per cent duty on embroidery materials: We, the undersigned, wish to notify the Government of our concern at the introduction of a 20 per cent duty, in addition to the tax currently levied; to be imposed upon most of the items that are purchased for embroidery. We feel that this duty discriminates against a small group of people who can least afford this increase. It is particularly of concern as most of the equipment purchased for embroidery is used to increase skill and to learn new techniques. Yours faithfully, Petitions received. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Sessional Orders, and unless otherwise ordered, the routine of business on Thursday, 20 October 1988, be as follows: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Ministerial Statements, by leave (4) Discovery of Formal Business (5) Placing of Business (6) Questions (7) Adjournment. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following Bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to establish procedures to enable visiting foreign warships to obtain safe and unimpeded access to Australian ports, and for related purposes Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the Federal Government has now had under consideration, since January 1988, the question of whether Australia should accede to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Draft Convention in Mutual Assistance in Tax Matters; (b) notes that, under Article 4 of that Convention, accession by Australia would render it mandatory upon the Australian Taxation Office to supply to the taxation authorities of any other signatory country, on request, full particulars of the taxation and other associated records of any Australian individual or corporate taxpayer; (c) notes the potential relationship of such a development to the public discussion which has been proceeding over the Government's proposed tax file number legislation; (d) notes that, despite the obvious public importance of the proposed Convention, the Government has made no attempt to encourage, or even assist public debate on it, and has not even published the Convention for the purposes of assisting that debate; and (e) condemns the Government for this further instance of its insistent policy of governing by stealth. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that after many public expressions of protest, academic staff throughout Australia are stopping work in the week commencing 17 October 1988 to protest against the Government's White Paper on higher education; (b) deplores the Minister for Employment, Education and (Mr Dawkins) Training in his persistent proposal to establish a highly centralised and intrusive higher education system that undermines the genuine autonomy of universities and colleges; and (c) calls on the Minister to withdraw his bureaucratic plans and centralist objectives and to enter into genuine consultation with higher education representatives to develop an acceptable basis to achieve the expansion and reform of higher education and of provisions for research which the Senate has been calling for throughout the period of office of the Labor Government. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that in the Melbourne Herald 2-part series entitled `The Great Tax Grab', written by Mr Terry McCrann, who has highlighted the massive increase in effective taxation under the Hawke/Keating Government; (b) notes that more than 2 million taxpayers have been dragged into the top 2 tax brackets since the first election of the Hawke/Keating Government; and (c) condemns the Federal Government for its failure to provide genuine tax reductions for lower to middle-income families who have borne the greatest part of the increased tax burden over the past 5 years. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, seven sitting days after today, I shall move: No. 1-That Determination No. 159 of 1988, made under section 82d of the Public Service Act 1922, be disallowed. No. 2-That section 19 of the Interpretation (Amendment) Ordinance 1988, as contained in the Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 36 of 1988 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. No. 3-That section 78 of the Electricity and Water Ordinance 1988, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 30 of 1988 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. No. 4-That the Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rules 1988 No. 161 and made under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, be disallowed. No. 5-That the Civil Aviation Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rules 1988 No. 158 and made under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, be disallowed. No. 6-That the Navigation (Marine Council and Committees of Advice) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1988 No. 155 and made under the Navigation Act 1912, be disallowed. No. 7-That the Air Navigation Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1988 No. 159 and made under the Air Navigation Act 1920, be disallowed. No. 8-That the Air Force Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1988 No. 129 and made under the Air Force Act 1923, be disallowed. No. 9-That the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1988 No. 195 and made under the Customs Act 1901, be disallowed. No. 10-That the Application for Approved Pathology Practitioner Status Form APP3-A made under section 23dc of the Health Insurance Act 1953, and the Application for Approved Pathology Authority Status Form APA3-A made under section 23df of the Health Insurance Act 1953, be disallowed. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —Following the winter recess, the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances considered a large volume of delegated legislation and wrote to various Ministers in relation to a wide range of matters. To protect the Committee's right to seek the disallowance of those matters, I have today given 10 protective notices of motion, as this is the last day on which the Committee can do so. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a brief description of the Committee's concerns in relation to these notices of motion. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Determination No. 159 of 1988 made under section 82d of the Public Service Act 1922 (Made 1.7.88, Tabled 24.8.88, last day 18.10.88) The Committee raised concerns in relation to an apparent discretion that the Chief Executive Officer of the Civil Aviation Authority had to grant retire-ment to certain officers and the failure to provide a sunset clause in the determination which was indicated in the Explanatory Statement. Section 19 of the Interpretation (Amendment) Ordinance 1988, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 36 of 1988 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910 (made 30.6.88, tabled 24.8.88, last day 18.10.88) The purpose of the amending Ordinance is to include in the principal Ordinance the recent amendments made to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. The Committee's concern is that the amendment in section 19 contained wording which the Senate had rejected in the Acts Interpretation Act and which was the subject of the Committee's Eighty-second Report. Section 78 of the Electricity and Water Ordinance 1988 as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 30 of 1988 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910 (Made 30.6.88, tabled 24.8.88, last day 18.10.88) The Committee's concern with section 78 is that it appears to confer on the Authority a wide, and perhaps unreviewable, discretion in connection with the remission and refund of charges. The Committee has also sought undertakings from the Minister in relation to the tabling of documents concerning the limitations placed on the Authority to form Companies, Partnerships and Joint Ventures. Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rules 1988 No. 161 and made under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Made 30.6.88, tabled 24.8.88, last day 18.10.88) The Committee sought an assurance from the Minister in relation to the practical operation of the payment of compensation to individuals who may suffer certain loss, damage or expense and whether an authorised person is required to provide identification when entering a persons property. Civil Aviation Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rules 1988 No. 158 and made under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Made 30.6.88, tabled 24.8.88, last day 18.10.88) The Committee's concerns with these Regulations related to the provisions for the notification of decisions to certain persons; the need for an authorised person to carry and produce appropriate proof of identity; and, whether certain ``approved forms'' are the subject of Parliamentary scrutiny. Navigation (Marine Council and Committees of Advice) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in statutory rules 1988 No. 155 and made under the Navigation Act 1912 (made 30.6.88, tabled 24.8.88, last day 18.10.88) The Regulations provide for the Marine Council to exercise certain discretionary powers concerning seamen. The Committee was concerned that the regulations appeared not to provide for appeal against, or review of, the decisions made by the Marine Council. Air Navigation Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1988 No. 159 and made under the Air Navigation Act 1920 (made 30.6.88, tabled 24.8.88, last day 18.10.88) The Committee's concern with these Regulations related to the apparent non-reviewable discretion given to the Secretary in relation to the matters such as the issue and conditions of holding a licence, the approval of flights and contracts; and the need for authorised persons to wear appropriate identification if required to discharge firearms at airports. Air Force Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1988 No. 129 and made under the Air Force Act 1923 (made 17.6.88, tabled 24.8.88, last day 18.10.88) The Committee's concern relates to the Determination of the criteria and procedures used in the promotion of certain officers. The criteria for promotion are not set out in the regulation but are to be ``determined, by instrument, by the Chief of the Air Staff''. Similarly, in relation to the procedures the Chief of the Air Staff ``may, by instrument, determine the procedures for the selection of officers for promotion''. It would appear that such instruments are not open to Parliamentary scrutiny. Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1988 No. 195 and made under the Customs Act 1901 (made 25.7.88, tabled 24.8.88, last day 18.10.88) The Committee was concerned that a discretion in relation to the prevention of export of ships or aircraft without ministerial consent was not the subject of adequate avenues of review. Application for Approved pathology practitioner status form APP3-A made under section 23DC of the Health Insurance Act 1953 and application for approved pathology authority status form APA3-A made under section 23DF of the Health Insurance Act 1953 (made 27.5.88, tabled 24.8.88, last day 18.10.88) These forms contained a number of questions which required the person filling out the form to undertake detailed inquiries. The Committee was concerned that the amount of detail required was not specifically spelt out and could lead to exhaustive investigations being undertaken by applicants. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) commends the principled stand taken by the Seamen's Union of Australia in Melbourne to prevent the HMS Ark Royal from berthing because it is a nuclear-armed warship; (b) commends the various peace groups which organised the non-violent witness against Australia's nuclear arms involvement against other foreign warships carrying nuclear weapons; (c) regrets the embarrassment and inconvenience caused to invited guests who effectively had the door shut in their face; (d) holds the Federal Government absolutely responsible for that embarrassment when it has had plenty of notice that nuclear warships will not have smooth passage in Australian ports whether they are here for what is euphemistically known as `rest and recreation' or for ceremonial purposes; (e) disagrees that the Defence (Visiting Warships) Bill 1982 be resurrected because it is a draconian denial of citizens' rights. Senator DUNN(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that language is a dynamic entity and changes over time according to custom and usage and that if it did not we would still be speaking in grunts; (b) notes that language reflects the prejudices of the most economically and politically powerful group in society, which throughout history and in all societies has been masculine; (c) notes that even the author of the Senate bible (Australian Senate Practice) Mr J. R. Odgers, has recognised both the linguistic and medical inappropriateness of the term `maiden' speech and has changed it to `first speech'; (d) accepts and promotes the full equality of women in every sphere of Australian society, especially the Senate; and (e) commends the linguist Dr Anne Pauwels for her excellent work on non-sexist terminology in the style manual for public servants, in view of the considerable public criticism directed towards her work, and recognises its contribution towards undermining the considerable bastion of male chauvinism that is to be found in Australian society. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- Requests that the Parliamentary swimming pool be opened for use by workers in this building other than Members, Senators and senior Parliamentary Officers on sitting days, and that, on non-sitting days, it be opened for general use before 10 a.m. Senator DUNN(New South Wales) — I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) having little or nothing to hide, gives consideration to allowing the Parliamentary Press Gallery access to the parliamentary swimming pool during rostered sitting hours in recognition of the critical role of the media in publicising matters senatorial; (b) imposes the proviso that journalists who make use of the newly available recreational facility to publish unflattering, sarcastic or otherwise critical comments on the corporeal condition and shape of senators be banned; and (c) in the true spirit of democracy, institutes the thrust of the petition now circulating Parliament House by giving Senate staff access to the pool during rostered sitting hours. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —Pursuant to standing order 109, I wish to alter the terms of General Business notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for the next day of sitting relating to the establishment of a Standing Committee on Treaties, to be a notice of motion for five sitting days after today. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs) —I table the annual report 1987-88 of the Trade Practices Commission, pursuant to section 171 of the Trades Practices Act 1974. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I ask: Is an increase in real disposable income for wage and salary earners in the next financial year, either through tax cuts or wage rises, or a combination of both, consistent with the Government's economic strategy? Senator BUTTON —I do not have a copy of the Treasurer's Budget Speech here at the moment which I referred to yesterday. But the maintenance of real disposable incomes in the ensuing year is consistent with the Government's economic strategy. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his reply, but I ask: Whilst the maintenance of real disposable incomes might be consistent, is any increase, that is, something more than maintenance, consistent with the Government's economic strategy? Senator BUTTON —The answer to that question depends on a number of issues relating to the Australian economy, particularly the issues which I referred to yesterday in the Treasurer's Budget Speech relating to tax and wage trade-offs. Senator COLLINS —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and it is in a number of parts. The Minister announced today the establishment of a Consultative Committee for the Safety of Offshore Petroleum Platforms. Can the Minister advise the Senate what the purpose of this Committee is, who will be represented on it, what action the Government has already taken in response to the Piper Alpha accident and what action the Committee will be taking in response to the same accident? Senator COOK —Today I announced the formation of a national offshore safety committee to review the effects on Australia's offshore platforms of the findings of the inquiries into the Piper Alpha disaster in the North Sea. I do not have to remind the Senate that 187 workers lost their lives-only 67 workers were saved-when the Piper Alpha platform in the North Sea caught fire due to a gas leak which later consumed in a fireball the whole of the platform. We have over 13 platforms operating in Bass Strait. We have the North Rankin A platform operating on the North West Shelf. Thus Australia has a major presence in terms of offshore oil and gas platforms. It is vitally important that we work with the companies and the State governments that also have some jurisdiction to see that the highest possible standards of offshore safety are observed for Australian workers and for the operators of the platforms. The purpose of the Committee that I announced today is to monitor the proceedings of the special inquiry constituted under Lord Cullen in Great Britain to work its way through the evidence as to exactly what happened, to find the causes and to work out remedial actions. The Committee will comprise representatives of Victoria and Western Australia, both States which have some jurisdiction over offshore platforms, and the Northern Territory where there are offshore exploration and operations. It will also comprise representatives of Esso Australia Ltd and the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, our Bass Strait operators, Woodside, our North West Shelf operators, and the Australian Council of Trade Unions which has, since my taking over this portfolio, consistently raised concerns with me about offshore safety. The Government has already responded. The very day the news of the Piper Alpha disaster was announced I contacted, through my office, the operators of Australia's offshore platforms and asked them to conduct a thorough review of their safety procedures and to inspect all of the critical joints for fatigue or maintenance on all of their pipe work on their offshore platforms. They complied, and I might say they complied of their own initiative, as they did to my request to conduct a thorough review of their safety procedures. We have as well dispatched an officer from the Department of Primary Industries and Energy to London to see the details and confer with the inquirers who compiled the initial report into the activities in the North Sea. The committee's purpose will be, as I have said, to monitor the proceedings, to study the transcripts and to go through the evidence to see what remedial actions can be taken in Australia, if remedial actions need to be taken, to guarantee that our very high standard of offshore safety is preserved. Senator ALSTON —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I refer to recent reports of a string of victories by the mujahedeen rebels inside Afghanistan sufficient to cause a halt in the withdrawal of Soviet troops. Does the Minister agree that it is now clear that there is no early prospect of a return to normalcy which would allow for the return home of any significant proportion of the almost five million Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran? In these circumstances, why does the Government persist in a fiction by setting aside $20m in the Budget for the resettlement of refugees inside Afghanistan? Is it a fact that the Government does not expect to spend any of these funds in the current financial year? If this is so, why does the Government continue to allow only a minuscule number of Afghans to enter this country despite the fact that the fewer than 1,500 who have arrived here since the Soviet invasion in 1979 have proved to be exemplary citizens? Will the Minister further explain why his predecessor in June this year put out a press release announcing that Australia would contribute $20,000 to the Australian Red Cross Society to assist in providing the services of an Australian surgical nurse for a hospital to treat war victims in Kabul? In particular, can the Minister explain on what possible basis Mr Hayden claimed that the hospital would be open without discrimination to all those wounded in the present conflict when it will clearly only assist to get government troops on their feet? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think it is far too early to make the assumption which riddles Senator Alston's question that the withdrawal of Soviet troops will not in fact be accomplished within a reasonable timeframe. We welcome reports that the Soviet Union met its initial target of withdrawing 50 per cent of its troops from Afghanistan by 15 August in line with the Geneva Accords. Under the terms of those accords all Soviet forces are to be withdrawn from Afghanistan by 15 February 1989. We expect the Soviet Union to ensure that its troops are withdrawn on schedule, thus allowing the Afghan people to determine their own future. As to the question of aid and humanitarian assistance, the United Nations special coordinator for Afghanistan, Prince Aga Khan, announced on 12 October that nearly $US800m had been pledged by donor countries for the first phase of an international emergency relief program in Afghanistan. We welcome the contribution that has been made to that by the Soviet Union itself, which has pledged $600m in clothes, medical supplies and construction materials. As Senator Alston has said, Australia has pledged a $20m contribution to that special coordinator's appeal subject to satisfactory international arrangements for the return of Afghan refugees. Again following the first part of my answer, I see no reason to expect, at this stage on all the evidence and the information that is available to us, that there will not be an opportunity to spend that money this year. That contribution is our contribution to the refugee problem arising out of the Afghanistan conflict. I do not think Australia needs to explain in any other way its willingness to accept refugees from strife torn countries around the world. Our contribution to the resettlement of Indo-Chinese refugees has of course been spectacularly disproportionate in terms of our willingness to absorb a flow of refugees well over and above that which our population would suggest was appropriate, given the equal contributions that have been made by other countries. Whether of course under the Howard immigration policy there would be any willingness to accommodate refugees other than white Anglo-Saxon protestants or maybe as a special exemption some other Christian religions from Europe remains to be seen. I will follow up the question about nurses in Kabul. I am aware that a grant of $75,000 was provided to the Australian Red Cross for a surgical team to undertake a six-month mission at the International Red Cross hospital at Peshawar in Pakistan where Afghan war wounded are treated. I do not know whether any other additional pledge has been made in relation to Kabul, in accordance with Senator Alston's question, or whether again, as so often, he has been misinformed. Finally, I want to simply say that Australia hopes that all parties to the Afghan dispute can put an early end to the bloodshed in that country and cooperate peacefully during the post-settlement phases in the national reconstruction effort. Senator AULICH —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen articles appearing in today's and yesterday's Melbourne Herald by Terry McCrann? What are the conceptual deficiencies of Mr McCrann's analysis as a guide to general living standards over the last 5 1/2 years? Senator WALSH —I have seen the articles. About 10 minutes ago Senator McGauran put down a notice of motion on this very subject. I must say that I would love to play full-forward if Senator McGauran were playing full-back because all one would have to do is stand in the square and wait for the free kicks to come. I have had two in the last two weeks. I reckon it would be dead easy to kick 10 goals a match if one were playing full-forward with Senator McGauran at full-back. I have seen the articles. I paid less attention to the second article published today than I did to the article published yesterday. The first article is so littered with errors that it could have come from the office of the shadow Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition, or even the Centre for Policy Studies. The first conceptual error is-- Senator Puplick —Bag the press. Senator WALSH —I am not bagging the press; I am bagging the sloppy thinking that went behind this article by Mr McCrann. I have pointed out to the Senate before the fact that I believe Mr McCrann would be offended if anybody regarded him as a supporter of the Australian Labor Party or of this Government. I believe that is still true. I do not criticise him for that; I criticise him for the intellectual sloth of the work that he has done and the massive errors within it. His methodology is to compare the proportion of taxable income paid in tax in 1982-83 with the estimates for 1988-89. One of the important errors is that he failed to make any allowance for the Medicare levy, for the fact that expenditure on health has been very substantially transferred from premiums on private insurance to the Commonwealth Budget-that is, $2.3 billion, which is the Medicare levy estimate for this year. That is the first error. That beats the double counting error that the Opposition made last year. But it is by no means the only one. He then asserts-I will not quote from the article because it is rather long-that the base broadening measures cannot affect this calculation. That would be true if every dollar of income were taxed at the same rate. It cannot, by definition, be true if we have a progressive rate scale. The base broadening measures of 1986 were quite explicitly aimed in the 1985 White Paper at people on higher incomes who were using a variety of devices to get their taxable income down. Since those reforms, almost all of which were opposed by the Opposition, have come into operation, we have a person-- Opposition senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! There are too many interjections. Senator WALSH —As I have said before, Mr President, this is a deliberate tactic by that spineless and intellectually retarded rabble over there. They cannot stand a bit of stick. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw that remark. Senator WALSH —I withdraw, Mr President. If somebody who had a real income of $100,000, but through a variety of devices-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, did the Minister withdraw his remark? The PRESIDENT —Yes, he did. Senator WALSH —I did. Senator Chaney is deaf as well. If somebody had a real income of $100,000 but, through a variety of devices which had been tolerated by the discredited former Treasurer, was able to get his taxable income down to $20,000, he would have paid a very much lower tax rate than he is now paying when the whole $100,000 is taxable income. So in that article Mr McCrann displayed an inability to accurately conceptualise what the tax base is. The third point I will mention-and there were a couple of others as well-is that there were also quite legitimate factors affecting taxable income that year, principally that farm incomes were low. Farm incomes this year will, of course, be very much higher and, therefore, the average rate of tax paid by farmers, as is necessarily the case as long as there is a progressive income tax system, will go up. Mr McCrann has, of course, a very keen appreciation of some of the finer points of tax evasion which is the reason he once described in print the President of the Liberal Party as `a tax evader of olympian proportions'. He has a very keen appreciation of the finer points of tax evasion, but he ought to go back-- Opposition senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! There are too many interjections coming consistently from the Opposition benches. Senator WALSH —As I said, it is a deliberate tactic to prevent questions being answered in the Senate which are embarrassing to the rabble over there. `A tax evader of olympian proportions' was how Mr McCrann described the President of the Liberal Party. He understands that side of the tax law but he clearly does not understand many of the other or broader questions of the tax base and so on. In a report published in the Melbourne Herald this morning, of yesterday's article it is stated: He- that is, Mr McCrann- conceded that the numbers in the articles might not be accurate. Mr McCrann conceded that the numbers in his article might be wrong. So I welcome the newest graduate to the Andrew Peacock school of accounting. Senator MACKLIN —I refer the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to his speech of early October to the United Nations (UN) calling for an international conference on chemical weapons and the Prime Minister's undertaking in New York on 20 June last to the effect that the Government was exploring the possibility of `a regional effort against chemical weapons proliferation' and that there would be an examination of how this concept could be delivered and pursued in cooperation with regional countries. Has the examination of this regional concept been completed? If not, when will it be completed and what are its findings to date? What has been the reaction of Australia's neighbours in the South Pacific to the concept of a regional effort against chemical weapons production and the proliferation of them in our region? What concrete results have come from the discussions with our neighbours on this matter? Senator GARETH EVANS —The examination and implementation of the Prime Minister's call for a regional effort against chemical weapons is under way, but certainly is not yet fully developed or completed. An integral part of that effort involves a lot of detailed consultation with regional countries. I began that process in New York last week by having preliminary discussions with the foreign Ministers or senior officials, as the case may be, of Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei. I will be continuing these discussions during my visit later this week to the capitals of the Association of South East Asian Nations and Papua New Guinea. Foreign Minister Alatas of Indonesia, I think I can say at this stage, did show some particular interest in working with Australia on this matter, Indonesia and Australia being the two regional members of the Geneva Disarmament Conference. I hope to discuss that aspect of the initiative with him further in a few days time. I further expect that a team of experts in arms control and chemical weapons will be visiting the region to follow up my discussions. So far as the Pacific is concerned, we have had preliminary discussions, more at an official than a ministerial level so far, with some, but not yet all, of the South Pacific states. Of those countries which have given us specific reactions so far, none have been negative and we will certainly be continuing to raise the matters with them. We believe that there is a basis for regional cooperation to strengthen the norms that hopefully exist, but may need to be further encouraged, against chemical weapons proliferation, to increase regional awareness of the dangers of chemical weapons and to enhance awareness of in particular and to promote commitment to the negotiations currently being conducted in Geneva for a comprehensive and universal chemical weapons convention. Presidents Reagan and Mitterrand have recently called at the United Nations for an international conference to give a political impetus to these negotiations. In my own speech to the UN last week I supported that initiative, making the point that any such conference must be open to participation by all states, not just the Geneva protocol parties; should be convened as soon as possible-hopefully by the end of this year or very early next year; and should be attended at a high level-hopefully ministerial-in order to give the political momentum that is so obviously needed to this particular cause. We are generally satisfied that the process of improving the quality and the comprehensiveness of our dialogue on chemical issues with our regional neighbours has already led to an increased awareness of the dangers of chemical weapons proliferation and the benefits of the chemical weapons convention being negotiated in Geneva. This dialogue will be an ongoing process, but I repeat that the main thrust of our policy, and what I am certainly interested in pursuing, is a comprehensive and universal chemical weapons convention, and everything we do in the region will be aimed at reinforcing and supplementing that particular effort rather than anything in substitution for that larger goal. Senator DUNN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Will the Minister say whether the Department of Defence has kept or is keeping a statistical register of arms exports by Australian companies? If not, why not? If it is, will the Minister say what details the register provides-such as which company sold what, to whom and when? If there is such a register, will the Minister make it available to the Parliament? Senator RICHARDSON —The Department of Defence does keep a record of applications made by companies to export arms or what are described in the brief as `other warlike goods' controlled by schedule 13 of the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations. Quite separately, statistics of exports actually made are kept by the Commonwealth Statistician as part of the collection of statistics on all exports. The Department's records contain the name of the applicant, the country and name of the proposed recipient of the goods, the value of the goods as quoted by the applicant, a general description of the goods, requirements by the Department for the recipient or the recipient's government to control the end use of the goods, and dates that the application was submitted and either approved or denied. The Department's records, of course, are usually on these things commercially sensitive, to say the least, and are therefore not made available to the Parliament in their present form. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. What action is the Government now taking to ensure that the visit this week of friendly naval vessels to Adelaide-ships of our allies-is not disrupted by treacherous trade union bans? Are not the Adelaide bans in escalation of those in Victoria deplored by so many senators in this chamber yesterday? Is it not the case that these ships are in Australian waters at the invitation of the Government and that the Government has thus far failed to take any action to ensure that their visit proceeds without interruption? Will HMS Edinburgh, on which Prince Andrew serves, now be required to bypass Adelaide on Thursday because of the Seamen's Union tugboat ban, thus destroying the possibility of HMS Edinburgh's visit and, incidentally, of a royal visit to South Australia as well? Does the Government still profess a policy to facilitate allied ship visits to Australia, and what is that policy? Finally, who is running the defence and foreign policies of this country, the Government or extremist unions? Senator RICHARDSON —I will endeavour to answer the thrust of Senator Teague's questions, although I would point out that there were so many it was not possible to attempt to take them all down. I shall go through the thrust of the questions, and if I have missed anything I shall be happy to sort out those matters later. The first point to make as to the visits of these warships is that anyone listening to Senator Teague or a number of Opposition senators who raised this matter yesterday would think that these visits could be described as a failure. That of course is hardly the case. They have been a success all around Australia. Senator Newman —Failure of leadership, your leadership. That's what it is all about. Senator RICHARDSON —I am sorely tempted to say something about that, but I shall resist the temptation to do so. As the Prime Minister said in the House of Representatives yesterday, despite the success of the visit around Australia the Government naturally is disappointed that the visits of two ships to Melbourne were interrupted by strike and protest action. Senator Puplick —Shame! Senator RICHARDSON —Yes, I agree that it is a shame. It is important to understand, however, that what happened in Melbourne with those two warships not only involved strike action but also obviously bad weather. In fact, had Melbourne weather not been true to form, it may well have been the case that the ships concerned could have gone ahead with their visit, as they did in so many other cities. In other ports around the country where similar action was taken, ships were able to berth with Navy help. In Melbourne the USS Ingersoll was able to berth without tugs. Therefore, to attribute these problems to strike action entirely is to ascribe to the anti-nuclear movement a victory which at this stage of the game it certainly does not deserve. Senator Boswell —This is the weakest thing I have ever heard. You get two out of 10. Senator RICHARDSON —I am surprised that Senator Boswell has heard anything I have been saying as he has been making so much noise. The Government does not believe that we shall solve this problem by the introduction of legislation, as Senator Michael Baume suggested yesterday. Senator Teague referred to the visit of the Edinburgh to Adelaide, which will take place hopefully in the next few days. The Government will have talks with the Seamen's Union. We are in the fortunate position of at least being able to talk with trade unions, which those opposite could not even begin to claim. I hope that as a result of those talks we might be in a position to make sure that the berthing goes ahead in Adelaide without a problem. Nonetheless, if we are looking at how the Government will solve the problem over time-- Senator Newman —You can't. Senator RICHARDSON —Well, we can do lots of things that Senator Newman thinks we cannot do, because she knows so little. The Government has decided to bring forward-this probably answers Senator Michael Baume's question, and if he listens and does not continue reading he will get some education-the purchase of naval tugs, which had been planned for the proposed fleet base at Jervis Bay. The Government is to purchase a tug as a trials and recovery ship for the submarine project in South Australia. With this program brought forward, it will ensure that there will be enough tugs of sufficient size to enable the Navy to berth its own and visiting warships anywhere in Australia without drama. Senator TEAGUE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The apology for an answer, that the Minister has given even if it is to the thrust of my question, leads me to the supplementary. Is the visit of the HMS Edinburgh to Adelaide still going to happen this week? Has the Government a policy? What is the policy? I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the editorial in the Adelaide Advertiser this morning said: . . . the community will welcome the ships and all those who sail in them. It also said that the prevention of the visit: is in danger of turning into an international embarrassment . . . What is the Government doing to ensure that the Edinburgh comes to Adelaide this week? Senator RICHARDSON —I thought I had already indicated that the Government will conduct talks with the Seamen's Union of Australia to ensure that the visit scheduled for Adelaide, which I think is on Thursday, will go ahead. As soon as I have an indication of the results of those talks, I will let Senator Teague and the Senate know. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. The Minister recently announced proposals for a new method of assessing overseas technical qualifications. Can he outline what categories of work will be covered and any other details of the assessment changes? What difference will the new method of assessment make to immigration assessments? Will the new method apply to professional categories such as nurses and doctors? Senator ROBERT RAY —I did announce last Wednesday that the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications (COPQ) had initiated work on a new system of assessment of overseas technicians. The new system is intended to take into account overseas work experience. I should emphasise that the proposals for a new method of assessment are at the developmental stage only. The need has resulted from work by COPQ and the Australian Population Council on wasted opportunities caused by successive governments not maximising possible benefits available to Australia. The new method is intended to cover 80 areas of technical operations. Its purpose will be to provide officers of the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs with more accurate information on the relative skills and employability of applicants for immigration. Current procedures place great emphasis on paper qualifications. However, in many countries skills are primarily learnt on the job. In addition, formal training in many countries does not easily equate with the educational structures here in Australia. The Technical and Further Education National Centre for Research and Development has been asked to prepare the new system which will take into account a migrant's knowledge, experience and skills. Currently many professional occupations such as those in the medical profession already take into account on the job experience. The Australian Nursing Assessment Council, which is an autonomous body operating under the umbrella of COPQ, assesses 80 per cent of applicant nurses before immigration. In the bulk of cases the information provided overseas is sufficient for assessment. Otherwise, supervised practice or rare examinations are applied. Immigrant doctors are assessed by the Australian Medical Council, which comes within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Community Services and Health. The main long term significance of the new method of assessing technical skills may be for those classifications in the metal, electrical and boot trade groups currently administered by trade committees. Obviously only about half of their work relates to immigrants. A rational and consistent approach to technical qualifications will require close coordination between the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, the Department of Employment, Education and Training and the Department of Industrial Relations. Senator SHORT —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer refused to allow the Commonwealth Bank to make a formal approach for the acquisition of 87 per cent of the Bank of New Zealand being offered by the New Zealand Government, despite the view of senior Commonwealth Bank executives that the acquisition will be a perfect fit and an independent report that the acquisition could be funded without any government financial injection? If the Treasurer has refused permission for an approach by the Commonwealth Bank, what are the reasons for that decision? Senator WALSH —I have been asked whether the Treasurer has refused to allow the Commonwealth Bank to take an 87 per cent equity in the Bank of New Zealand. I do not know. I will refer that to the Treasurer. Senator FOREMAN —I draw the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to comments in the media by the South African Ambassador about sanctions imposed on South Africa. In particular I refer to a front-page article entitled `Envoy hits at Australia' in the Canberra Times of 17 October. The Ambassador was quoted as saying: Australian sanctions are merely sending an unfavourable message about Australian interest. This is a pity because in unofficial circles in Australia there is a wide measure of understanding and sympathy for the South African predicament. Will the Minister tell the Senate how the Government views the current regime of sanctions against South Africa and what message the Government wishes to communicate to South Africa through them? Senator GARETH EVANS —The forum chosen by the South African Ambassador for his comments, namely, the Young Nationals conference at the Gold Coast, was not exactly calculated to appeal to the mainstream of Australian political opinion. Certainly, the Ambassador will not be surprised to hear that the Government remains unmoved by his reported comments. Certainly, we cannot accept his assertion that Australian sanctions against South Africa are ineffective. Australian sanctions are, of course, part of a larger international effort to promote change and dialogue in South Africa. While sanctions can never be completely effective until all countries embrace them-and there are many standing outside that embrace at the moment-there is mounting evidence of the effect of sanctions on the South African economy, especially in the financial field. The increasing stridency of the noises being made by South African Government spokesmen is, in itself, evidence of that fact. Certainly, South Africa's lack of access to medium and long term credits has had a significant effect on its economy, including the value of the rand, the level of inflation and interest rates. Over time this will have even more of an impact and it should have an impact because it is only in that way, it seems, that the present South African Government and the mainstream currents of opinion in the white South African community will be forced to realise that they just must embark upon a process of change, dialogue and civilising of that, at the moment, very uncivilised country. The Ambassador made a couple of assertions to the Young Nationals conference which perhaps justify a specific response. In the first place let me make it absolutely clear, as I have on numerous occasions and as have other Australian Government spokesmen, that Australian sanctions are not being imposed-and never will be imposed-in order to drive South African exports out of world markets so that we can maximise our own. That canard has been repeated on innumerable occasions by South African spokesmen and their apologists in this country. It is absolutely at odds with our motivation in this instance. The other point to which I wish to respond specifically is the claim that the Australian Government's position somehow represents a lack of understanding on the part of the Government of the situation in South Africa. I do not know what the Ambassador means by `lack of understanding', unless it is acquiescence in injustice. Certainly, we have not understood and never will understand the legitimacy of a political and social system which systematically discriminates against and maltreats human beings for no other reason than the colour of their skins. If that is understanding, that understanding will be a very long time coming from the Australian Government. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources. Has the Premier or Deputy Premier of Western Australia made representations to the Federal Government expressing concern about the proposed corporate tax on gold? If so, what was the substance of those representations? Senator COOK —I believe that the Premier and Deputy Premier of Western Australia have made representations to this Government. I am pleased to hear that Senator Crichton-Browne no longer refers to this matter as the `gold tax' but calls it by its proper title which is the extension of corporate tax to the goldmining sector. I do not know the nature of those representations; they were not made to me but to the appropriate Minister or to the Prime Minister-- Senator Alston —They don't bother keeping you informed? Senator COOK —It is not for me to answer questions relating to other people's portfolios. If the honourable senator wants to know the answer to that question, he might chance his arm with the Minister representing the Treasurer or the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Inasmuch as this matter comes within the Minister's portfolio-he was proud to answer a question about gold yesterday-will he-- Senator Button —What is in your portfolio, Senator? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —The Leader of the Government in the Senate is in my sights. Will the Minister for Resources seek to learn the answer to my question and advise the Senate accordingly? Senator COOK —I do not see why I should bother to learn the basis of those representations, if they were made. As I say, I have a recollection that representations were made to the Treasurer or to the Prime Minister. The fact of the matter is that they are the responsible Ministers, but it is also the fact of the matter that this Government, in its May economic statement, announced its decision to extend corporate tax to the goldmining sector and that is a decision from which this Government will not resile. It is a decision which quite apart from the misleading advertising that elements of the goldmining industry have entered into, in fact has not been a deterrent to goldmining activity in Australia. Indeed, yesterday I answered a question in the Senate and said that in the first half of this year 20 new goldmines were opened in this country, 10 of which were opened after the May economic statement. In the second half of this year another 30 new goldmines will be opened. The fact that goldminers are voting by opening their mines is indicative of the fact that the extension of corporate tax to the goldmining sector is not a deterrent. Senator Crichton-Browne —Tell that to Peter Dowding. Senator COOK —I would hope that one day the honourable senator comes forward in this chamber and tells us how many goldmining shares he has so he can declare his vested interest in this issue. Senator MacGibbon —I rise on a point of order, Mr President. It is not competent for the Minister to reflect on anyone's personal affairs. The PRESIDENT —Senator Cook, will you withdraw that reference? Senator COOK —I withdraw. Senator GILES —Can the Minister for Justice comment on police action in the course of investigations into the destruction of diplomatic vehicles in Canberra, which included searches of premises occupied by the Pan Africanist Congress? Senator TATE —I am able to make some comments, but I will restrict them because certain charges have been laid and obviously it would be no wish on my part to prejudice any trial that might eventuate. Nevertheless, because of the seriousness of the destruction of certain vehicles associated with the South African and United States embassies, I think honourable senators and indeed the Parliament would be interested to know the present state of the matter. I am advised that, following several recent attempts to destroy South African and United States diplomatic vehicles parked at residential premises in Canberra, the Australian Federal Police carried out protracted and intensive investigations. Search warrants issued under section 10 of the Crimes Act 1914 in respect of premises at Ainslie, Griffith and Turner were executed on 14 October and certain articles which it was believed would afford further evidence as to the commission of these offences were seized from each of the premises. On Monday, 17 October-yesterday-police charged a 32-year-old woman with various offences. The woman was in police custody overnight and appeared in the Australian Capital Territory Magistrates Court this morning. She was granted bail of $5,000 self-surety and $5,000 surety, and is due to appear in court again on 1 December 1988. A 30-year-old man was also charged with various offences and he is due to appear in court on Friday, 21 October. Senator BROWNHILL —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications aware of delays at Mascot Airport in Sydney and of the cost to the aviation industry and passengers? I think Qantas Airways Ltd aircraft have to carry some two tonnes of extra fuel to cope with the inevitable delays when they fly into Sydney. Can the Government not be more precise and now tell the Senate of its plan to alleviate this problem, by constructing a second runway, by changing the curfew time or by putting our airport flight control more in line with the rest of the world? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government's response to this has been amply spelt out in a series of statements in recent months, not least in the context of the curfew developments whereby additional landings were authorised between 11 o'clock and 12 o'clock at night and between 5 o'clock and 6 o'clock in the morning, which will have the effect, at least in the morning, of spreading out the peak time congestion and facilitating the flow of passenger processing at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. That same press statement also foreshadowed the accelerated development of Badgerys Creek with an accelerated land acquisition process and the move to the first stage of an airport facility, one capable in the first instance of accepting general aviation, thus enabling a progressive rearrangement of aviation facilities as between Kingsford-Smith, Bankstown and the proposed new airport. The precise way in which that course of events will resolve itself is presently being the subject of intense investigation by the Department of Transport and Communications, the Federal Airports Corporation, the New South Wales State Government and other interested parties. It is also anticipated, as was announced in that decision a couple of months ago, that quite soon restrictions will be introduced on general aviation aircraft at Kingsford-Smith in peak times in order, again, to relieve some of the congestion and the delays that are occurring there. The Government has adopted a quite comprehensive approach to tackling the problems which undoubtedly exist, as they exist in many other airports around the world, as a consequence of the anticipated increase in aviation activity-the increase was anticipated but not the speed with which it occurred or the pace of that growth. I believe that, although not all the details have been fully worked out, the situation will be resolved quite soon in a way that will be quite satisfactory to Australian airline passengers. Senator BROWNHILL —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Will not commuters have to pay a very high price if an extra cost is to apply to commuter airlines flying into Sydney at specific times? That cost is to be put on people just so that this Government can keep the honourable member for Barton, Gary Punch, in parliament-at the expense of commuters. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have long since abandoned the hope that the National Party might show some appreciation of rational pricing strategies and, in particular, peak pricing and all the rest of the regulatory arrangements, whether through the pricing mechanism or otherwise, that are designed to produce particular public policy results. It was too much to hope that that might have been understood in the past. I gave Senator Brownhill some prospect of mastering the intricacies of these matters, but I am afraid that he has failed me badly, as he has demonstrated once again today. Senator BLACK —Can the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories advise the Senate of the significance of the tourism figures just released for August? Do these figures imply an increase in the projection of two million international visitors to Australia this year? Senator RICHARDSON —I thank Senator Black for that particularly incisive question. Answering it gives me the opportunity to refer to the extraordinary growth in tourism which Australia is experiencing once again this year. For the month of August we have once again broken all records, with almost 200,000 visitors coming to Australia in that month. That represents an increase of more than 40 per cent over the same month last year. Senator Alston —They knew you were away. Senator RICHARDSON —I was here in August. That 40 per cent increase highlights the phenomenal growth in tourism. Honourable senators interjecting- Senator RICHARDSON —Senator Ray, in interjecting, referred to Senator Hill's past life as one of the world's great international travellers. Senator Hill would remember those times fondly. Total international arrivals for the calendar year, January to August, are now more than 1.4 million. That is an extraordinary figure. It indicates that Australia will more than exceed its target of two million visitors a year. This bicentennial year we now think that the figure may well be as high as 2.2 million. If one looks at a break-up of those August figures, it gets even more interesting. I know that everyone is fascinated by them. New Zealand-we hear a lot about New Zealand these days-provided the largest ever tourist contingent, with arrivals reaching a new monthly peak of almost 65,000. Senator Messner —Do they go back again? Senator RICHARDSON —We do not know whether they have all gone back again; we hope so. After a slow start early in the year the United States of America has also surged forward again. It must be remembered that earlier in the year we had a fall for a couple of months in the United States figures, which was a worrying factor. Growth now exceeds 24 per cent from the United States and August arrivals totalled 28,000. From Canada, from a small base, the figure is up to almost 5,000, which is a 74 per cent increase. The figure for Japanese tourists has once again gone up to 52 per cent, which is another extraordinary increase. In fact, all our major markets are up by more than 25 per cent. Obviously, the tourist policies of the Government in key areas are hitting home. We are showing that the direction which my predecessor, John Brown, took some years ago after years of Liberal neglect has in fact had its effect and the results are now being seen by all Australians. Senator NEWMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I ask: Is it correct that single servicemen such as those posted to duty with the United Nations in the Middle East or possibly in the future to Namibia are not entitled to a full removal of all their possessions into storage or to a meaningful disturbance allowance as applies to members with families? Does this mean that the possessions and vehicles belonging to those servicemen are liable to damage and loss due to lack of proper storage while they are serving their country? How can the Government justify this discrimination between members with families and members without families? Is this not just another example of the Government's mean and cheeseparing dealings with our service men and women and the lack of political leadership which are leading to the record separation rates we are now facing? Senator RICHARDSON —Senator Newman asked me a question last week on child-care in the Services and at the end of Question Time today I will be in a position to give her an answer. Mrs Kelly checked with three departments to make sure that the answer we would give Senator Newman was comprehensive and correct. I will make sure that this next question is similarly examined, and when I give the honourable senator an answer it will also be comprehensive and correct. Senator NEWMAN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In the light of the Minister's constant failure to answer straightaway, when is he going to get on top of his responsibilities and learn his job? Senator RICHARDSON —If the honourable senator is really stupid enough-I have been told by some people that the honourable senator is not stupid although others tend to disregard that-to ask those sorts of questions with no notice she will get those kinds of answers every other day. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. That is unacceptable language from the Minister and I would suggest that when I rise on a point of order he should sit down. The PRESIDENT —He did not say that the honourable senator was stupid. Therefore it is not unparliamentary. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to reports that a request has been made by Fretilin to Portugal to take Australia to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over Timor? What is the Government's reaction to these reports and what will the Government do in relation to the claims by Fretilin? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen some suggestions that Fretilin is trying to encourage Portugal to take Australia to the International Court of Justice over the recent Timor Gap negotiations. The Australian Government has no information to suggest that Portugal would so react and seek to take Australia to the court. In fact, as the Portuguese Foreign Minister said, I understand, in the United Nation General Assembly just a few days ago on 3 October, Portugal no longer has any territorial claims over East Timor and is not involved in any dispute over sovereignty of the Territory. It is therefore difficult to imagine on what conceivable basis Portugal, which has accepted the ICJ's jurisdiction, might accede to any request to try to take Australia to the court. The Australian Government's view on the recognition of Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor was set out in this Parliament on 22 August 1985 by both the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives and by me representing the Foreign Minister in this place. That statement made it clear that Australia's de jure recognition of Indonesian sovereignty had taken effect in February 1979 when negotiations were opened with Indonesia on the seabed boundary in the Timor Gap. Although Australia recognised Indonesia's sovereignty over East Timor, it did not condone the manner in which the province was incorporated. Finally, the seabed boundary negotiations can in practice only be conducted with the Indonesian Government. I dealt more fully with the international law dimensions and implications of these negotiations in the adjournment debate on 20 March 1986. I would refer anyone interested to the Hansard report of that debate. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. What economic conditions would preclude the Government making significant tax cuts next year? Senator BUTTON —There are a number of factors which will be taken into account in assessing the quantum of the tax cuts. Some of those factors were referred to by the Treasurer in the Budget Speech. To those I wish to add nothing, except to say that the quantum of tax cuts will depend on economic circumstances at the time and, of course, on the wage trade-off which can be obtained. All of those things have been there since the Budget was announced. There is nothing new to add to that. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications aware of recent reports to the effect that future proceeds from the payment of departure tax will be paid into Consolidated Revenue instead of being returned to the aviation industry? Can the Minister advise whether the Government intends proceeding with the proposal to deny the aviation industry this vital source of income? Senator GARETH EVANS —It was announced, at the time of the Budget I think, that the intention was to reduce the size of the departure tax from $20 to $10, to remove the immigration clearance fee altogether and to make the total impost accordingly on passengers a mere $10 at the time of departure. As a corollary to that, the aviation industry was no longer to be regarded as the beneficiary for purposes of cost recovery of the amounts in question for the departure tax. I seem to remember at the time doing the calculations as to what was involved in that. A matter of a very few dollars per ticket is involved by way of additional imposts. Certainly, passengers are substantially better off in net terms than was the case under the previous arrangements. So far as the international airlines are concerned, this arrangement means that they will have to seek recovery, through ticket prices, of the slight additional impost upon them flowing from these arrangements. There was some initial complaint, but I think that complaint has subsided subsequently-presumably Senator Bjelke-Petersen is just catching up with this-on the basis that the quantum involved was not really great. When we look at the scale of the operations, the implications for individual ticket prices are really very small indeed. Senator POWELL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Is the Minister acquainted with the family mediation centre operating in Noble Park in Victoria? Is it true that the centre is used to resolve family law disputes at a fraction of the cost of normal litigation, that satisfaction with the centre's process among its participants is extremely high and that a government commissioned evaluation described the centre as `a prototype model for family dispute resolution work' which has `developed an excellence of service and administration which is quite beyond what could reasonably have been expected'? Does the Minister acknowledge, as the Attorney-General did when he visited the centre, that the centre provides an efficient, highly effective and much needed service? Will the Minister give an assurance to continue the centre's funding beyond November 1988 and develop a plan for ongoing and long term funding to ensure the survival of this valuable community service? Senator TATE —I cannot give Senator Powell the assurance that she sought in the last part of her question. Indeed, the Government has decided that the Noble Park family conciliation centre pilot project funding will cease on 30 November 1988. I believe that some considerable funds have been provided for the orderly closure of the pilot project. That centre was established I think in 1985 and has developed a model of family mediation to provide an alternative mechanism for the resolution of matrimonial and family disputes as a means of trying to reduce litigation, legal aid expenditure and the emotional trauma associated with family disputes. In so far as it differs from marriage counselling, it focuses on resolving disputes rather than trying to go beyond the emotional issues underlying disputes. The Government has decided that family mediation should be more widely available and is providing $191,000 to enable marriage counselling organisations to undertake, as a separate function, family mediation work. When one looks at the work of the pilot project at the Noble Park family conciliation centre one will see that compared with other mediation models developed by existing approved marriage counselling services, the centre showed itself to be a high cost operation. While high operational costs can be accepted in a pilot context, I think honourable senators will understand that when establishing services on a permanent and widespread basis, the Government must look at the cost of the ongoing delivery of such services. Therefore, as I have said, the Government has decided that family mediation should be more widely available and is providing money to marriage counselling organisations to undertake as a separate function that family mediation work. Senator RICHARDSON —Last week Senator Newman asked me several questions on the provision of child-care facilities for service families. The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel has informed me that child-care within the general community is not within her portfolio but, as I understand it, under recent government initiatives for industry based child-care, employers who are prepared to provide the capital facilities may be assisted by the Commonwealth with the operating costs of a child-care centre. The assistance will increase as the proportion of lower income users increases. It is not true, as this question suggests, that the Government has done nothing to assist with the provision of child-care for Defence Force families living in service communities. Approval has been given for licensed family day care schemes to operate from married quarters. Surplus defence facilities have been made available as child-care centres. In some cases, service labour has been provided to refurbish the facilities. The Government has given a long term lease to the New South Wales Government of some land at the Holsworthy Army Base to be used for a child-care centre which will be available to Defence Force families. Favourable consideration will be given to similar initiatives in other areas. Some months ago the Minister approved a pilot scheme of funding a position of director of the child-care centre at Enoggera Army Base. The Minister is to receive a report at the end of the 12 months trial on the effectiveness of that approach. The Minister is aware that following posting, service families may be placed on a waiting list for a child-care place. However, under the Commonwealth children's services program there are guidelines on access to child-care places which give priority to working parents rather than to those who have been on the waiting list the longest. The guidelines also take into account the availability of alternative care, income and particularly family circumstances in setting priorities. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Sheil asked me a question yesterday dealing with difficulties his staff had experienced recently with the payment of salary and travelling allowances. He attributed the problems to a computer system recently implemented by the Department of Administrative Services. I am advised that on 1 July 1988 the Department introduced a new system for the computerised processing of accounts and for the payment of travelling allowances. The implementation of the system is consistent with the general approach of Government departments to reduce processing times, thereby leading to cost efficiencies. Initial difficulties were experienced with the computer system in Queensland and some other States. Urgent attention was directed to resolving those problems and in order to minimise adverse impact on staff the following steps were taken: a help desk has been established at Parliament House; special arrangements were made in the Department in August so that staff affected by the teething problems of the new system could obtain immediate payments on requests; and an additional effort was directed to imputing data and improving operating systems. These problems have now been fixed. The new system is working smoothly and senators and members should shortly see the direct benefit of the system in improved management and information available to their offices. Staff and service suppliers are already benefiting by the more speedy processing and payment of accounts directed to the Department of Administrative Services. With regard to Senator Sheil's staff, I should point out that the Department of Administrative Services cannot pay salary or travelling allowance payments unless it is authorised to do so by the employing senator or member. The Department must be advised of the employment of a staff member before payments can be made. Since 1 July 1988 Senator Sheil has notified the Department of two new staff. In respect of the first, the Department made the first salary payment within five days of being notified of her commencement. In respect of the second, the Department was formally advised on 10 August 1988 that some staff member had been employed since 13 April 1987-some 16 months later. Pending further advice from Senator Sheil, the Department commenced salary payments on 1 September with effect from 18 August 1988. Senator Sheil also pointed to delays in the payment of travelling allowances for his staff. As I mentioned, some delays did occur in setting up the new system. As at 17 October, one outstanding travel allowance remained to be paid for the second staff member for travel prior to 18 August. Even though the Department is still awaiting advice about her employment prior to 18 August, the payment is being processed. Senator COOK —Yesterday Senator Haines asked me a question concerning the Office of Disability and the Office for the Aged. I am in a position to answer that question now. The decision to relocate the Office for the Aged and Office of Disability from Sydney to Canberra was made in the context of other developments in these policy areas. There has been a review of consultancy and advisory mechanisms in the Department of Community Services and Health involving a significant strengthening of consumer input to these areas. At the same time, the implementation phase of policies recommended by the handicapped programs review is currently under way. It is considered more appropriate for the offices to be located in Canberra in association with the functional divisions of disability programs and aged care and residential programs at this time. I am aware that some community groups have expressed concern at the decision, but they have received an explanation for the decision in the terms outlined above. The offices still have access to the Minister if they wish. There is no restriction on matters they may comment on, but clearly at present their contribution will be most useful, in relation to the programs already mentioned. It is nonsense to suggest that the relocation of the offices represents a lack of ongoing Government commitment to the needs of people with disabilities and the elderly. This Government has devoted unprecedented attention and funding to both these areas, following intensive reviews of policy and significant new legislation. The result is a constantly improving profile for the disabled and the aged in our society, as evidenced by increased commitment to and expenditure on relevant services in the recent Federal Budget. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented. In this morning's issue of the Australian Financial Review there appears a story by Mr Tim Dodd under the headline `Stone somersaults on FOI attitude'. That headline, for which Mr Dodd himself is doubtless not responsible, totally misrepresents me, as does Mr Dodd's report of my evidence yesterday at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on behalf of Mr Ken Aldred, MHR. Mr Dodd begins his story with the following statement: In the early 1980s, when he was Secretary to the Treasury, Senator (then plain Mr) John Stone conducted a long campaign against the introduction of Freedom of Information legislation. That statement is entirely untrue. At no time in my previous capacity did I conduct a campaign, long or short, against the introduction of freedom of information legislation. I defy Mr Dodd to adduce any evidence to that effect. What I did do at that time was to argue both to my then Minister and before the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs the need to ensure that, among other things, any such legislation should not result in a disclosure of confidential advice passing between Ministers and their senior public servants/advisers. I am aware that in a personal explanation it would be inappropriate for me to speak at more length as to the still well-founded reasons for that view, other than to note that it was a view which, in the face of much press hysteria at the time, found acceptance in the original 1982 Freedom of Information Act and which, subject to one important qualification which I shall refer to later in this statement, is maintained in the Act as amended in 1983. The second paragraph of Mr Dodd's story states: In 1983, when every other department head had turned over responsibility for releasing documents to their senior officers, Mr Stone was the only one to keep a stranglehold on FOI decisions. This statement also misrepresents me. Contrary to its implication, at the time in question my senior Treasury officers had full authority for releasing-I repeat `releasing'-documents in response to freedom of information applications. What I did not then delegate to them was the responsibility for refusing release. In passing, I note that my actions in that area of administration were fully discussed with, and fully approved of by my then Minister, who happens to be the present Treasurer, the Hon. Paul Keating. The third paragraph of Mr Dodd's story states: Yesterday . . . the gamekeeper turned poacher and went before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to argue that the Federal Government should release its internal working documents to the Opposition. Again, this is a total misrepresentation by Mr Dodd of my evidence to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal yesterday. At no time yesterday did I `argue that the Federal Government should release its internal working documents to the Opposition'. What I noted yesterday was that the amended-and I emphasise that word-Freedom of Information Act now contains a public interest test by virtue of which any claim for exemption of internal working documents must also be supported by argument that release of such documents would be against the public interest. I went on to argue that, in the circumstances of this particular application, by an applicant who happens to be a member of the Opposition, there is a strong case for the release of the documents in question. Mr Dodd is, however, not merely guilty of generalising from the particular. He is also guilty, at a later point in his article, of misrepresentation by suppression. As I have already noted, the Freedom of Information Act as amended in 1983 requires that, for a claim for exemption from the release of documents to be upheld in terms of section 36 of the Act, not only should the documents be `internal working documents' but also the respondent Minister, department or agency must show that their release would be against the public interest. In passing, I note that this `public interest test' was inserted into the Freedom of Information Act only shortly before I left the Public Service-a fact which renders Mr Dodd's attempted re-writing of earlier history even more ill-founded. When responding yesterday, before Mr Justice Hartigan, to the question whether `internal working Government documents should be put into the public domain', I first responded by stating-not `admitting', as reported by Mr Dodd-that I had `on several occasions, including before this Tribunal, defended the confidentiality of working documents'. I went on to repeat what I have consistently said about the confidentiality of such documents being `essential to trust between Ministers and officials'. To that point I was reported faithfully by Mr Dodd. I then went on to say, however, that in this particular case we have a matter of the greatest public moment-namely, whether Australia should accede to an Organisation for Economic Cooperation (OECD) and Development draft Convention on Mutual Assistance in Tax Matters. If Australia were to accede to the Convention, one result would be that the taxation authorities of any other signatory country could then demand access to the full personal files held by our own Australian Taxation Office on the affairs of any Australian corporation or individual. Article 4 of the draft Convention renders it mandatory upon our own Taxation Office, in that case, to accede to that request. I pointed out to the Tribunal that the Government is understood-- Senator Button —I raise a point of order, Mr President. Some largess is always allowed in personal explanations, but to put an argument in terms of a personal explanation claiming to be misrepresented is taking it a little far, I submit. Senator STONE —If the Leader of the Government will contain himself, I shall bring to his attention and to that of other senators the reason why I have made those comments. Senator Button —On a further point of order, Mr President: senators are allowed to take points of order without being asked by Senator Stone to contain themselves. With respect, Senator, that is the President's job, not yours. The point of order I was taking is that the explanation has to be relevant to an issue of misrepresentation. I am quite happy to allow largess in terms of what Senator Stone wants to say, but it still has to be somewhat relevant. Senator STONE —Mr President, the point is entirely relevant, as will be clear upon hearing what I have to say. Senator Chaney —On the point of order, Mr President, I have certainly been listening carefully to what Senator Stone has had to say. There was an article which made a point about his involvement in a case yesterday, and it seems to me that so far his explanation has been very squarely explaining why he regards that article as a misstatement of his position. I do not believe he has strayed from that. I agree it is quite a lengthy explanation, but it is a technical matter. I think to properly understand the misrepresentation, so far the information has all been relevant. I therefore ask you to allow Senator Stone to continue. The PRESIDENT —Order! I will allow the personal explanation; but it is very long, Senator Stone, and I ask you to try to contain your comments. Senator STONE —Thank you, Mr President. I pointed out to the Tribunal that the Government is understood to be considering acceding to this Convention. Yet to date it has not seen fit to publish even the draft OECD treaty, still less to initiate any public debate on the matter of accession-whether by way of a Green Paper, a Treasury information paper, or even a substantial address by the Treasurer to an appropriately learned society or appropriately high level business group. My evidence to the Tribunal made it clear that in such circumstances, where the Government has clearly not seen fit to inform the Australian public in any way about this matter of major public moment, I do not consider that it is possible to sustain the view that the non-release of the working documents in question would be against the public interest. Mr Dodd's article does not report this latter-and I submit key-aspect of my evidence to the Tribunal. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I can only assume that this omission arises from the fact that to have reported my evidence in full would have spoiled Mr Dodd's story line. In particular, it would have deprived him, or his sub-editor, of the capacity to write the quite untruthful headline `Stone somersaults on FOI attitude' to which I referred at the outset. No `somersault' was involved. In concluding this personal explanation, I note only one further point. In last Sunday's Sun Herald, the Associate Editor of the Australian Financial Review, Mr Peter Robinson, who also writes in the former newspaper, published an article deploring what he called the persistent trivialisation of public debate-the almost invariable tendency on the part of our media today to turn discussion about issues into various forms of adversarial contests about or between personalities. I entirely agree with Mr Robinson's views as stated in that article. I can only suggest that he provide Mr Dodd with a copy of it for his future guidance. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That the Senate do now adjourn. The PRESIDENT —Before the Senate adjourns I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committee A will meet in committee room 16, Estimates Committee C will meet in committee room 14, and Estimates Committee D will meet in committee room 10. Senate adjourned at 3.28 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 356) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 24 May 1988: (1) What is the government doing to ensure that there are enough scientists over the next generation in the key areas of: (a) biological sciences; (b) physical sciences; and (c) high technology. (2) What strategies are in place to assess the specific nature and extent of future requirements, and to ensure that these requirements are met. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment, Education and Training has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a), (b) and (c) The Government has taken a number of initiatives that will bring about quality improvements in education for all young Australians and ensure improvement in the quality of science education in our schools and post-school institutions. the Government has announced a national review of teacher education in mathematics and science. The review will cover pre-service and post-experience courses in higher education institutions for the teaching of mathematics and science at the early childhood, primary and secondary levels. The Government recognises the important place of teacher education programs in these subjects in the process of preparing young men and women to enter tertiary courses in fields such as science, engineering and technology the Government has nominated science and technology as priority areas for allocation of additional Commonwealth-funded places in higher education. Of the 6,490 additional intakes funded by the Commonwealth in the last two years, more than 3,200 have been allocated to science, computing science and engineering. In 1988, intake increases in these fields represented 55% of the total funded intake increase overall, commencements in higher education science (including both biological and physical sciences) and engineering grew by 18.3% between 1981 and 1987. This compares with commencements in all other fields of study (excluding health) which grew by 11.2% The May Statement called for a national collaborative effort to strengthen Australia's schools including the development of common curriculum frameworks, common approaches to assessment, enhancing teacher training and inservice education, and continuing improvements in post-compulsory school retention rates. In particular, it called for priority to be given to developing a framework for mathematics and science courses relevant to a technologically-oriented society. The Government is also encouraging increased participation and achievement in mathematics and science for all students particularly girls and other disadvantaged groups. in regard to girls, the Government has sponsored a national project, the Education of Girls in Mathematics and Science, at a cost of $1 million, to increase their participation in the study of science the provision of allowances under AUSTUDY reduces the financial barriers faced by the less well off who need financial assistance to gain access to higher education. The degree of the Government's commitment to improving access of financially disadvantaged people to post-compulsory education is evidenced by the level of expenditure on AUSTUDY in 1988 expenditure on the scheme is estimated at $620 million or 130% higher than expenditure on the equivalent forms of assistance for secondary and tertiary students when the present Government came to office in 1983. (2) The specific nature and extent of future requirements in the sciences will, to a large extent, depend on future labour markets and State and Federal Government policies at that time. In recent years both the Federal Government and a number of State Governments have undertaken studies to examine future needs. It will be a priority of this Government to collaborate with the States to continue to monitor needs to encourage appropriate interventions. My Department will continue to monitor relevant labour market developments and to ensure that the pattern of future growth in higher education is consistent as far as possible with expected future labour market needs. A high priority will continue to be given to science and technology courses in the 1989/91 triennium. In addition to domestic training, the number of skilled science and technology workers in Australia is supplemented by permanent and temporary arrivals from international labour markets, and the inflow of overseas skills is important both to compensate for the outflow of qualified Australians and to disseminate new skills within the Australian workforce. The Occupational Share System, the Employer Nomination Scheme and Temporary Residence arrangements are available to facilitate the recruitment of overseas workers for specialised, cyclical or unanticipated requirements. (Question No. 499) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business, upon notice, on 30 August 1988: (1) How many inquiries and similar undertakings have been carried out or instigated on issues involving science and/or research under the Department of Science or the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, for the years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. (2) Who carried out these inquiries. (3) What was the cost. (4) What was the time taken between the instigation of the inquiry and the tabling of the report in each case. Senator Button —The Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) 1985/86-7, 1986/87-11, 1987/88-7, totalling 25. (2) Ten were carried out by the Department of Science, one by the Australian Marine Sciences and Technologies Advisory Committee and 14 by the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. In two cases consultants were used for initial research and provision of analytic comment. (3) For each investigation, a large proportion of the cost was staff hours funded from the respective Department's salary and administration vote. Costs associated with collecting data and printing averaged $5,000-$6,000 per publication totalling approximately $138,000. Where consultants were used the added cost was $15,000 and $45,000 respectively. (4) The Science and Technology Statement was tabled in each of the 3 years, with the first two years taking 6 months and the last year 12 months from instigation to tabling. None of the other publications were tabled but took an average of 6 months from instigation to publication. (Question No. 502) Senator Archer asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 30 August 1988: (1) How many employees under the Public Service Act were encouraged to retire during the months of May and June 1988. (2) How many accepted the proffered packages. (3) How many of those were retired as a result of job abolition. (4) What was the mean age of those officers accepting packages. (5) What was the average cost of each package. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) 7 employees under the Public Service Act were offered early retirement during the months of May and June 1988. (2) 7. (3) 2. (4) 54. (5) $42,716. (Question No. 515) Senator Archer asked the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 30 August 1988: (1) How many employees under the Public Service Act were encouraged to retire during the months of May and June 1988. (2) How many accepted the proffered packages. (3) How many of those were retired as a result of job abolition. (4) What was the mean age of those officers accepting packages. (5) What was the average cost of each package. Senator Robert Ray —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Four employees under the Public Service Act were offered early retirement during the months of May and June 1988. (2) Four officers accepted the proffered packages. (3) No officers were retired as a result of job abolition. (4) The mean age of officers accepting packages was 52 years and 9 months. (5) The average cost to the Department of each package was $52,776.75. (Question No. 544) Senator Archer asked the Minister for Finance, 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 Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: For quarter: $ 30 September, 1986... 149,118.61 31 December, 1986... 124,415.43 31 March, 1987... 120,573.26 30 June, 1987... 242,734.40 30 September, 1987... 142,120.22 31 December, 1987... 163,444.81 31 March, 1988... 105,948.90 30 June, 1988... 253,485.37