SENATOR DURACK -Apparently, there is joint revenue for Commonwealth-State sharing programs for interpreting and translating services. Is that still in existence or has it been completed?

MR LYNCH -Yes, that review is still under way, but is very close to completion . We hope to get a draft report for distribution to State governments during October.

SENATOR DURACK -In the 1986 census, you gave a figure on page 85 regarding non -English speaking migrants. Have you an up-to-date figure for that, or any other sort of estimate?

MR LYNCH -I do not have one offhand. If you added the estimates of non-English speaking migrants coming in since then and subtracted estimates of non- English speaking migrants leaving you could come up with a figure, but I do not have a figure. The census figure is a self-proclaimed figure, in that people state what they regard themselves to be in terms of their English speaking ability.

SENATOR DURACK -It is not a test of the extent to which they can speak English , is it? It is just that they use a foreign language for normal purposes. Can you conclude that we have 300,000 more people in the country who cannot speak English?

MR LYNCH -That figure is cited as comprising those who have never learned English, cannot learn, or have lost their ability in old age. That is not an unusual occurrence. It also comprises newly arrived non-English speaking migrants.

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -There is a large backlog of people who were never given the opportunity to learn English when they arrived in this country. Our current programs were not replicated in the 1950s and 1960s. We still have people applying to do these courses who came here in that time. One of the things we have had to do is to marshal our resources mostly to people who have arrived in the last five years, so that the same problem is not replicated in another 30 years.

SENATOR DURACK -On page 37 you report that one third of each year's adult migrant intake is made up of persons with poor or no English. That is not the same concept, I take it. You have just described the test for the non-English speaking migrants. Is that the test that the census adopts, or is that your test?

MR LYNCH -I guess it would be fairly similar to the census test.

SENATOR DURACK -It is much the same concept, is it?

MR LYNCH -It is based on a similar concept. You have people coming in as migrants with some English who, in old age, lose that ability to speak English , for example.

SENATOR DURACK -You report here that the average number of those entering Australia is 24,000, with the number expected to increase to 39,000 in the current year.

MR LYNCH -I would like to bring to the Committee's attention a correction that should have been incorporated in the earlier corrigenda. There are three pages on which a figure is given for non-English speaking persons. The correct figure that should appear in all cases is 34,500 for 1989-90, and not 39,420. That would also involve some adjustments to the graph which appears below that figure.

SENATOR DURACK -It is still an increase, is it not?

MR LYNCH -It is an increase, yes.

SENATOR DURACK -What is the reason for that?

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -The decision by the Government was not to apply an English language test for extended family, and that almost certainly would constitute the difference. There was a de facto English language test in the previous points system, but we regarded it as making a too uneven playing field if we wanted to run a non-discriminatory policy. Those regions of the world that were specifically favoured if there were an English language test, or a de facto one, of course would be Ireland and Great Britain, the Commonwealth countries and most of Asia. Southern European or Middle Eastern countries, or others including South America, would be highly disadvantaged. It does mean an increase in cost for the Government. That was taken into account at the time. There is, of course, full provision for language tests in the independent area. We believe that if we had an English language test in the extended family area, it would be too biasedtowards some relatives in Australia and not others. I would stress that there is a cost to that decision in terms of English language training on arrival.

SENATOR DURACK -It is a new policy, so I do not know whether you can answer this question: Is there any indication of what extent these people are going to want to learn English? Does it add to the costs of the program?

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -I think at least 85 per cent of arrivals enrol in the course. I stand to be corrected on that. That is the normal take-up rate.

MR LYNCH -We have objectives in terms of the number that do take up English. We would hope that they would all want to learn English if they do not have it on arrival.

SENATOR DURACK -I am sure we do, but I am wondering whether that is justified. Have we any indication as to the extent that--

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -I have no indication of the opposite. At virtually every function I go to, and every time I meet various ethnic communities I stress the need to learn English-it is always the centre point of any speech-and so does the Government, because without it the correlation between unemployment and lack of English is enormous. You just have to see the census material on that. We are trying to make sure that everyone that comes here learns English, but at the same time we have a backlog of previous neglect of many governments.

MR LYNCH -There are individuals within the program for whom learning English may not be a high priority upon arrival. For example in the case of some refugees who have come out of situations where they have been badly tortured or traumatised, their concerns might be more about immediate family members back home and other concerns and they are not really sometimes psychologically prepared to go into an English language program. But as soon as they are we would hope that they would be able to take advantage of the programs. So there are some variations but by and large we would expect to be able to provide programs for the bulk of new arrivals soon after their arrival.

SENATOR DURACK -Under this adult migrant education program you mentioned cost recovery measures. Could we have some detail as to just what is the extent of the cost recovery in this area? You can supply that in writing for me.

MR LYNCH -We have a target of achieving 5 per cent cost recovery by 1990. We are still examining how that might be achieved. At the moment the levels of cost recovery are quite low. There is a small fee charged for correspondence courses to cover part of the costs of transmission of materials. There are some returns from the curriculum development activities from the AMES funded centre in Sydney. There are some small returns of that nature. The English in the workplace program is receiving a number of contributions from employers to meet part of the cost there and there is scope for improving cost recovery in that area. We are examining at the moment what options there might be for reaching that target of 5 per cent.

SENATOR DURACK -Is there a basic fee charged for courses?

MR LYNCH -No.

SENATOR DURACK -I suppose you do not want to discourage people. Is that the idea? You are trying to persuade them to take it on and you think this will discourage them, do you?

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -No, we do not want to discourage people, but it is an item which involves a $70m budget outlay. For instance, one would wonder whether cost recovery should apply to spouses of business migrants who quite clearly use the course and who are quite clearly well-off. We will have to think about that. It is possible-I am not saying we are considering it-to say to those who are willing to undertake the full cost of their own English course that they may get five bonus points in a points system. All those things, I think, have to be canvassed.

SENATOR DURACK -That would be a good approach, yes.

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -It is a big outlay. If you did not outlay it, you would pay the cost in social security fivefold. Nevertheless, it is one that should be targeted for some cost recovery.

SENATOR BISHOP -I wanted to ask the Minister, if I could, a question relating to the Auditor-General's report.

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -What date is that report?

SENATOR BISHOP -It is report No. 13 of 1989-90.

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -This is the one I read, I think.

SENATOR BISHOP -It is the very latest one. This is the brand new format, so it has to be the latest one. We have not seen any like that before.

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -We had a confusion earlier on. That is why we were determining which one.

SENATOR BISHOP -I am sorry; it is dated 6 September 1989.

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -Fine.

SENATOR DURACK -Is this on business migration?

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -No. It is about AMEP costs-another matter of settlement costs for services elsewhere.

SENATOR DURACK -We still have not identified my document.

SENATOR BISHOP -It is the AMEP that I want to ask the question about. It is about the difficulty that is encountered in other departments of Commonwealth payments being made to State authorities, and the problem of having that properly dealt with. I note on pages 5 and 6 of the report that, again, the Victorian Department of Education has failed to comply with section 34 of the Audit Act. My recollection is-and I am going on recollection-that this matter has been outstanding for some years. The Victorian Department has not complied with the requisite terms and conditions of dealing with the money. If I am wrong in saying that this has been continuing for years-which I do not think I am--

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -We can check with an officer.

SENATOR BISHOP -Yes. The Department in response advised that, although appointment of an authorising officer has not yet been made, a certifying officer has been appointed with delegation covering large payments made to AMEP service providers. I wanted to know whether you thought that was satisfactory, and whether you would be pressing the Victorian Government to do better.

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -I am not sure that I can give you a direct answer on that because whilst I have read that thing I have not yet followed it up. I will give you an answer as quickly as possible.

SENATOR BISHOP -The other question that I wanted to ask was with regard to the asset register. The answer was that the Department advised that remedial measures were in course to establish appropriate registers. That sort of answer does not wash with me and I would be surprised if it did with you.

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -You are asking what the remedial measures are?

SENATOR BISHOP -Yes.

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -I apologise. I will have to take that on notice, too. We will endeavour to get answers to those quickly.