SENATOR DURACK -I want to ask some questions about the deployment at Stirling. The HMAS Stuart is being decommissioned in July, I understand. Has there been any decision at all about a replacement for the Stuart?

REAR ADM. WALLS -If I might add some information to the question before I answer your point. We expect HMAS Stuart to pay off at HMAS Stirling on 30 May this year and go through the final process into July, before all the stores and so on are taken off the vessel together with the equipment which we can use for other purposes. You may be aware that HMAS Torrens is currently undergoing a refit on the east coast. She is expected to finish that in June of this year and she is currently earmarked to replace Stuart in Western Australia as part of the home porting arrangements for the two-ocean-basing policy.

SENATOR DURACK -When will that occur?

REAR ADM. WALLS -It will be some time after the ship has completed its process of trials following its refit and has worked up, principally, on the east coast. I do not have a definite date for you at this stage but I would think it would be within some three months.

SENATOR DURACK -Three months from now or three months from when the steering--

REAR ADM. WALLS -Three months from completion of its refitting.

SENATOR DURACK -But when is that?

...Major-Gen. Grey-It is before June--

SENATOR DURACK -I am asking whether there is a replacement for the Stuart when it is decommissioned, which is going to occur in May.

REAR ADM. WALLS -Yes. It is the Torrens.

SENATOR DURACK -And when will it be on station?

REAR ADM. WALLS -I cannot give you a precise answer on that at the moment because I do not know it; it is not available. The ship has been in refit for an extended period as a result of repairs to its main turbines. The results of those repairs will depend upon the trials that the vessel undergoes after it completes the repair process and the refit which is expected to occur in June. Following those trials and presuming successful outcome of those and then presuming a satisfactory completion of its shakedown and work-up process, I would expect the vessel to deploy to Western Australia about September, but I certainly would not want to be precise about it at this stage.

SENATOR DURACK -And how much longer life has the Torrens got after that?

REAR ADM. WALLS -From memory, I think Torrens runs through until about 1999, but if you give me a moment I will get you a more precise answer. It is 1998. She is scheduled to pay off at that particular time as part of the replacement program for the Anzacs.

SENATOR DURACK -And both the Derwent, which I understand is there, and the Torrens are having anti-submarine missile launchers and anti-air-missile equipment removed from them. Is that right?

REAR ADM. WALLS -There has been some discussion on that in terms of the portfolio and it is also a matter that has been under consideration in the force structure review.

SENATOR DURACK -You say there is no decision made on that?

MAJOR-GEN. GREY -Admiral Walls may not be aware of that. Decisions on those two matters have been made but not announced because people were trying to get full financial year benefits from it, I think. It is probably the only matter to do with the force structure review that has been brought to me for absolute early decision. So, having been asked that very question, I think we can now say that that is right, the two are coming off it.

SENATOR DURACK -So there has been a decision.

MAJOR-GEN. GREY -Yes, but it has not been announced. It was going to be announced in the force structure review but I am happy to give that preliminary scoop to everyone.

SENATOR DURACK -We might try our luck with a few more questions to you.

MAJOR-GEN. GREY -You might.

SENATOR DURACK -So the end result will be that there will be the Derwent and the Torrens based at Stirling.

MAJOR-GEN. GREY -And the Swan, and the Westralia, and the Moresby, and the Fremantle class.

SENATOR DURACK -Yes. Are they all going to stay there until the Anzac frigates come on?

REAR ADM. WALLS -They are all expected to remain there, currently planned to remain there, until the Anzacs replace them. There is no reason that I can think of for that to change.

SENATOR DURACK -There is no reason you can see why they should be decommissioned early or--

REAR ADM. WALLS -No. I can see many reasons why we should sustain them in the course of their operations for as long as we can, noting that at some point in time we do have to cut them off because we need the manpower from those vessels to be trained to commission the Anzac ships.

SENATOR DURACK -What will their capability be like with the removal of this weaponry which you have just learnt is going to be removed from them?

REAR ADM. WALLS -It is a judgment that has been made in the light of the strategic circumstances that we have and the potential threat that we might face. The utility of the weapons systems in those circumstances is a judgment which has been put forward by Navy through the Defence processes and has been approved by the Minister.

MAJOR-GEN. GREY -Again, while the force structure review had considered this and made a decision on it, if we had not acted on it at the time then, as I understand it, there would have been a fair degree of reinstallation of these things and then having to drag them off a few months later.

SENATOR DURACK -The submarine Oxley is to be retired, is it not? When?

REAR ADM. WALLS -Yes, it is, in 1992.

SENATOR DURACK -What about the replacement for it?

REAR ADM. WALLS -We run into a similar sort of program here in talking about the Oberon class submarines and the Collins class submarines to the one that we have been talking about with the DEs and the Anzac frigates. Oxley is the first Oberon class submarine expected to pay off, and manpower from her crew is earmarked to provide the crew for the first of the Collins class to commission. As you will be aware, the Collins class will be based in Western Australia at Stirling. The facilities are now being built there for them.

SENATOR DURACK -That will mean that there will be a gap between the retirement of the Oxley next year and the first of the Collins class. When is the first Collins class likely to be? Is it not 1995 or something?

REAR ADM. WALLS -The operational period will be longer than that. She will begin her trials program in 1994, and it extends over an extensive period of time.

SENATOR DURACK -Before it has finished its trialing it will likely be 1995, will it not?

REAR ADM. WALLS -Yes, indeed.

SENATOR DURACK -So that means that there will be no submarine in Cockburn Sound from 1992 to 1995?

REAR ADM. WALLS -No, it does not. We have a further program. Basically what we are looking at is the number of operational vessels that we have, and particularly we are driven by the manpower training commitments that we have to bring the new class of submarines into service. As the Oxley is retired from service she will be replaced by another Oberon, so we will maintain the presence.

SENATOR DURACK -I see. Which one will that be?

REAR ADM. WALLS -I believe that will be the Otway. I am not certain of that, though. I will have to check that.

SENATOR DURACK -Perhaps I am anticipating the questions a little bit, but it would be helpful if you could give me an answer which took in the operational availability of the Oberons over this period that we are talking about: which ones will be available and which ones will be refitted. No, there will not be any refits, will there? We are on the last of the refits now, are we not?

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -The second last. The Otama has yet to enter refit.

REAR ADM. WALLS -I can give you a quick round-up on where submarines are, if you wish.

SENATOR DURACK -I do not know that I want to take up time here. I would like you to give us a round-up in writing in answer. I want a round-up on the Oberons up until the time that the new Collins submarines start to come on stream. I take it from what you have said that there is only going to be one of them available to be based in Stirling. Is that right?

REAR ADM. WALLS -It would be a pleasure to do that for you, Senator.

SENATOR MACGIBBON -This Committee has been told in the past that Navy had difficulty with manpower for the submarine fleet. Has that matter been resolved now?

REAR ADM. WALLS -No, it has not.

SENATOR MACGIBBON -How many crews do you have?

REAR ADM. WALLS -We currently have five crews for submarines. In terms of the manpower problem being resolved, it will not be resolved quickly. I predict it will be with us for some many years. We currently have a shortfall. Using the numbers of operational boats that we have and using the principle of double crewing, which I believe you may have been briefed about before, we are attempting to telescope the shortage problem as much as we can. We have also looked at the manpower structure of the submarine arm, and we have implemented the category changes to structure that were suggested as a result of a review we did last year.

We have also developed and are now using to its maximum extent a computer modelling program on how we might employ people, train them, categorise them and put them through the processes of developing for the Collins class. Having said that, it is a long haul process for us. Currently we have a double crewing arrangement for Otway; Oxley is in the process of completing work-up, trials, and so on, in Western Australia; and Ovens is deployed.

SENATOR DURACK -Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the savings are going to be on the removal of the weapons systems? What is going to be done with the weapons?

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -I was shown the figures at the time and, from memory, they are not enormous. We will get them for you.

SENATOR MACGIBBON -Where does the saving come from? Just maintenance?

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -Manpower.

SENATOR MACGIBBON -How much money has Navy spent on customs duty since the Treasury imposed customs duty?

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -We will get that for you. I will just point out before we supplement it--

SENATOR MACGIBBON -Has Navy made an estimate of what the increased administrative costs are?

MR DAWES -Provision for payments of customs duty is on page 71 of subprogram 2 .3. It is some $7m.

SENATOR MACGIBBON -How much do you reckon the book work for all that is costing you?

MR DAWES -I could not provide you with an answer for that at this stage.

SENATOR MACGIBBON -Have you had a look at the costs?

MR DAWES -No, we have not done an analysis on that.

SENATOR MACGIBBON -Do you employ Customs agents?

MR DAWES -We do in some parts, yes.

SENATOR MACGIBBON -Later on in the year, when we come to the main Estimates, I would like the figure on Customs agents' fees and an estimate of what your administrative costs were on paying customs duty.

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -On the administrative costs, it will be our best endeavours to get a figure for you.

SENATOR DURACK -While we are talking about submarines, I will just finish some questions on that subject. Is the Orion still in the process of being refitted?

REAR ADM. WALLS -Yes.

SENATOR DURACK -How long is that--

REAR ADM. WALLS - It is expected to be completed in June of this year.

SENATOR DURACK -There is an estimate here of $3.63m for additional costs for the refit of that. Does that cover everything or are there going to be further costs for the refit still to come?

REAR ADM. WALLS -That is the cost associated with winding up the company. The inclusions in it are the payment of accrued long service leave and recreation leave for staff to be retrenched. In essence, I would sum it up by saying that it is the winding up costs associated with the overheads for closing down Cockatoo on the completion of the refit.

SENATOR DURACK -The item in your estimates, on page 71, mentions provision to cover additional overhead costs for refit of Orion.

MR JONES -The principal reason is that we had been running a two-stream refitting operation at Cockatoo Island until that last submarine and, naturally, when we reduced the workload the overheads cannot be reduced proportionally so there is an overall increase in the overheads. Navy therefore has to make provision for that. There are some other costs associated with the cessation of activities at Co-Dock that appear in program 6.

SENATOR NEWMAN -Could I ask here whether any payments to unions are included in this figure?

MR JONES -No, they are essentially company overheads. The costs for termination payments, I believe, are covered in program 6, which we could discuss later when we get to it, if you like.

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -Are there any direct payments to unions rather than unionists?

MR JONES -No, not that I am aware of, Senator.

SENATOR NEWMAN -So payments to unionists are in 6. There are no fees for unions of any kind in this figure here?

MR JONES -Not that I am aware of. I do not understand why you would--

SENATOR NEWMAN -I understood that there were some union fees included in these overhead costs. I wondered whether it appears here or further along. Perhaps by the time we get to the next figure you might have double checked.

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -We will, but we do not know anything about that at this stage.

CHAIRMAN -Would it be normal policy for the Department to pay union fees at any time?

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -No.

SENATOR DURACK -I am still on the question about refitting submarines. The Onslow took a great deal of time to commence the refit, even on top of the lengthy period which occurred in the question of who was going to do it, where it was going to be done and so on, but even after that seemed to be resolved there was a big delay before it actually started refitting. Can you explain that?

MR DAWES -No, I cannot explain it to you precisely. I do not wish to sound ignorant or as though I am ducking the question, but in effect most of those circumstances you are talking about took place before I became familiar with the process. As I understand it, there was about a 10-month delay in the process in the sense that delay as far as Navy is concerned was in terms of its planning for when the refit should have commenced.

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -I will get Admiral Hunt to answer that because he has had a more continuous involvement with the project.

REAR ADM. HUNT -As the Senator's question implies, the proportion of that 10- to 11-month delay visible with that refit was in fact due to the protracted tender and evaluation process. The contract with ADI was signed on 18 September 1990 and the work commenced on 19 November. Two months was, if you like, the dead time between contract and work commencing and we consider that for a yard taking that job on for the first time, that was not an unusual period. The time, of course, was not idle time to the contractor. He was busy setting up his processes and planning the work.

SENATOR DURACK -Was that because they had not done much of that sort of work before?

REAR ADM. HUNT -Nobody in Australia had refitted an Oberon before, other than Co-Dock.

SENATOR DURACK -So the answer is yes?

REAR ADM. HUNT -Yes, the answer is that they had not done that work before.

SENATOR DURACK -I understand that the contract price for the work has two components, namely that there was the tender that was the subject of a lengthy debate, and then there was an allowance for what they call emergent work. Could those two figures be supplied?

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -I think the tender price has already been announced but, if not, we can get that to you. On the question of emergent work, of course we will not know until it is completed.

SENATOR DURACK -But there was an estimate made of it, was there not?

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -Yes, there was an estimate made. I would have to take some advice on whether I can release that.

SENATOR DURACK -I would like those two figures supplied. I am not sure whether the total estimated cost was ever on the public record. I may be wrong. We have got Oxley about to be retired and not to be refitted; we have got Orion completing refit; we have got Onslow in refit. How much longer will that refit last?

REAR ADM. HUNT -The estimated time for that refit is 88 weeks. That is the same order of time that has been our experience with all the previous boats in CODOCK-about two years from end to end.

SENATOR DURACK -Two years from 18 September last?

REAR ADM. HUNT -From the letting of the contract to when we would expect to have her back in service.

SENATOR DURACK -Otama is to be given a refit, I understand. Is that right?

REAR ADM. HUNT -Yes.

SENATOR DURACK -Did we get a date for that?

REAR ADM. HUNT -We expect her refit to commence in February of next year and again to take in the order of 88 weeks, or just under two years, to complete.

SENATOR DURACK -At this stage, she is not operational; is that right? She cannot submerge.

REAR ADM. HUNT -Yes, that is correct information. She has run out of time for diving certification.

SENATOR DURACK -The Otway and the Ovens are fully operational, and they are not going to be refitted at any stage, are they?

REAR ADM. HUNT -That is correct.

SENATOR DURACK -I think, actually, I have got all the information that you were going to get for me, unless there is something I have overlooked.

Senator ROBERT RAY-We will get it to you anyway.

SENATOR DURACK -I want to turn to another subject, namely, the agreement between the Navy and ADI with respect to maintenance work on the Navy ships home ported on the east coast of Australia. The statement was issued by public relations on 28 February 1991 and refers to the agreement signed by Rear Admiral Holthouse and Mr Harris. It is said to be an agreement to repair and refit naval ships at Garden Island facility, as I have mentioned. Is this an exclusive arrangement for five years?

REAR ADM. HUNT -The arrangement is exclusive for the classes of ship-that is, our main combatants and our significant auxiliaries-not for small craft, patrol boats and the like. It is exclusive to the extent of the company's capability. That means it gets first offer of such work over this period until 1995. If, as has already occurred in one instance, the company is unable to take that work on, then open tendering processes are planned.

CHAIRMAN -How will the price in each case be determined for this work?

REAR ADM. HUNT -The price will be determined by a statement of work process and negotiation based on our previous experience.

SENATOR MACGIBBON -How do you get competition into that system?

REAR ADM. HUNT -You do not.

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -But you would. The point about ADI is that it was given a transition period from something like milking $250m out of the Budget every year. It was given a five-year transition period or longer-I cannot remember; it could have been seven-of which--

SENATOR MACGIBBON -What you are telling me is that it is a subsidised operation. That is fine.

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -Yes. But that is only for five years and then it has to go to open competition. In other words, it did not go into the competitive world instantly in every respect. That is the same in ammunitioning and in other things.

SENATOR DURACK -There is one other somewhat mystifying aspect of this statement. It is the last paragraph of the statement. Rear Admiral Holthouse said that, under the terms of the agreement, ADI would be responsible for project management, engineering support and procuring some of the equipment and machinery required for ship refits. Is that intended to limit the generality of the exclusive arrangement?

REAR ADM. HUNT -I do not believe so. I think the Naval Support Commander was simply articulating a couple of the factors that we would expect the contractor to perform. It is no different in those factors from equivalent work that we would have placed elsewhere in the country.

SENATOR DURACK -It will be ready. Presumably it will be up to ADI to do as much of the work as it possibly can.

REAR ADM. HUNT -I would not have interpreted the statement to mean that. The quantity of work will be defined at the outset by the customer-the Naval Support Commander-and that will be, in part, functions such as managing the activity of procuring what we would call contractor supply and equipment, et cetera.

SENATOR DURACK -I have one other question in relation to Navy logistics. It refers to facilities in Western Australia, in particular in Fremantle. The ASI company there has a marine support facility which has been provided through both the Western Australian Government and the Commonwealth. I am interested to know to what extent anybody else tendering for work of the same kind would have access to this facility.

REAR ADM. HUNT -The current arrangements bear largely on a tripartite agreement-State, Federal and commercial-made several years ago. That would be, effectively, a commercial issue between another company and Australian Shipbuilding Industries (Western Australia), the current contractor, upon whose facility the ship lift has been installed. The Federal agency-Defence- and the Western Australian Government are presently conducting conversations as to whether there might be opportunities for expanding that agreement.

SENATOR DURACK -The availability of it?

REAR ADM. HUNT -Yes.

SENATOR DURACK -You are not having any discussions similar to those you have had with ADI, which we have just been talking about, with any particular contractor in the Fremantle or Cockburn Sound areas at all?

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -Could you define what you mean by that?

SENATOR DURACK -Are there any discussions taking place with any contractor for some exclusive contractual arrangement in relation to repair work for naval ships in Cockburn Sound?

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -There have been some discussions between my Department and ASI, because ASI is undergoing certain difficulties, as you would be aware. I do not really think, from our perspective, that we have concentrated on exclusive tendering in any sense. Shipbuilders and ship repairers right around Australia have some difficulties at the moment. Carringtons is one example of that, I suppose. I could point to a couple of others but I would rather not do that.

So there have been some discussions between my Department and ASI about its future with regard to naval work. Those discussions have not been completed yet. I intend to take a memorandum on it to Cabinet and seek some guidance before it is taken much further. The basic problem is that they are just not getting the commercial work which they anticipated three or four years ago. At the moment, because of the current timetable of a two-ocean policy, there is insufficient Navy work, and there will be insufficient Navy work for some years because of the lumpiness of the program. The fact is also, because of the way we are now designing Navy ships, that they will be less likely to need the same amount of repair and maintenance than the past ones. So yes, there have been some discussions, and exclusiveness may have been brought up by the other side, but it is certainly not something we have suggested at this stage. Whether these discussions will achieve something, I do not know yet.

SENATOR DURACK -But in the light of the ADI contract that we have been talking about, you would not be surprised that there is a deal of nervousness on the part of the contractors in this area?

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -Nothing in the ADI contract has come as a surprise to any contractor in Western Australia. They know that the eastern seaboard ships will be repaired and maintained on the eastern seaboard-they have known that for a long while.

SENATOR DURACK -I am asking whether, because the Navy has entered into such an arrangement on the east coast, you can say that it is not going to enter into such an arrangement on the west coast.

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -I see. I think it would be very unlikely that we would make such an arrangement. At the same time, we have to be conscious that once a facility is there with a skilled work force, one would not like to see it decline because it is much harder to revive at a later point. There is no doubt that at a later point we will require those sorts of skills. But there is a gap at the moment and that gap is not being filled, as anticipated several years ago, by commercial work.

SENATOR DURACK -Coming back to this question of the access and use of this marine support facility, did I understand you to say that there really are not any agreements in writing between the Commonwealth, the State and ASI in relation to it, and that it is something that just sort of grew up and no formal arrangements been entered into?

REAR ADM. HUNT -I did not mean to suggest that there was no formal arrangement . The legal arrangement is between the Government of the State of Western Australia and ASI as the proprietor or the lessee of that territory. What I was implying before is that to my understanding there is nothing to prevent another contractor in Western Australia from bidding for work that might use that facility, but at the moment that contractor would need to make a commercial arrangement with ASI for any such access.

SENATOR DURACK -To put a sharp point on it, if the Navy decided that it wanted contractor X, who had the lowest and the best tender-if what you were doing was letting some work-and he wanted access as part of the tender to this government supported facility, there is no way the Commonwealth could not insist, having put money into the facility, although I do not know whether it is $5m, $10m or what. There is a fair slab of government, State and Federal, money in it, and there is no lever on access to it.

REAR ADM. HUNT -We might need to take that question on notice to answer it rigorously, but I believe at the moment the Navy, or indeed the Commonwealth, does not have that right. It is worth noting that, to my recollection, when the initial plan to set up this facility was instigated, the Department attempted to gather a whole swag of shipbuilding and ship repair local industry in Cockburn Sound; and players other than the then owner of the company on site were unwilling to participate. Going back to my original answer, we plan to conduct further discussions with the other two parties to see whether we cannot make it what I would call a flatter arrangement, so that it--

SENATOR DURACK -Probably a level playing field, as we know it.

REAR ADM. HUNT -If we can call ships level playing--

SENATOR NEWMAN -I have a couple of small questions only in this area. On page 70 there are a couple of items I would like some more detail on, please. There is an item of $350,000 for increased overtime associated with the Gulf Task Force-civilian overtime. Could you be a bit more specific about that?

REAR ADM. WALLS -Yes. Basically that was associated with the cover for civilian overtime which was primarily in connection with work undertaken to get the ships under way for the first Gulf deployment. There was a period of some four or five days there which spanned a weekend.

SENATOR NEWMAN -Is that the initial deployment that we are talking about?

REAR ADM. WALLS -Yes.

SENATOR NEWMAN -And then there is an item under administrative costs of $4.1m associated with the Gulf Task Force also.

REAR ADM. WALLS -That is essentially related to the RAN's liaison office in the Gulf-with logistic support arrangements there. If you wanted a break-up by expenditure categories, I could provide it.

SENATOR NEWMAN -That was the establishment in the Gulf on land of the resupply .

REAR ADM. WALLS -And the continuing operation of it. For example, it includes fuel, light and power, freight, port handling, incidentals, medical, computer services, postage, office requisites, travel, and so on.

SENATOR NEWMAN -So these all got in there together. Those two items I just picked out and one I can see above which is for increase in training days associated with the Gulf Task Force: have these all been picked up and included in that original assessment we were talking about earlier tonight as the Gulf funding?

REAR ADM. WALLS - Yes.

SENATOR NEWMAN -Is there included anywhere in this the medals for the men on the ships?

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -The cost of them?

SENATOR NEWMAN -Yes. I do not particularly want to have it identified now. But there seems to be some confusion as to whether the men coming back on the two ships that are arriving on Friday are going to be entitled to one medal or two.

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -Two.

SENATOR NEWMAN -Or, as I understand, Westralia--

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -There has never been any confusion for me.

SENATOR NEWMAN -There seems to be, amongst some of the sailors.

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -That will be resolved. I do not want to resolve it though before the Governor-General signs something to make it official.

SENATOR NEWMAN -Well, I thought under logistics was as good a place as any to ask about ribbons.

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -These things have a habit of being resolved with a bit of time pressure on us.

VICE-ADM. BEAUMONT -The figure does not include medals. That is picked up under a separate program.

SENATOR NEWMAN -I have got my answer, anyway, thank you. My final question in this section relates to the national training component. I think this is an appropriate spot. I wanted to ask whether a decision had been made to proceed with a new course at the Australian Maritime College for junior naval officers on maritime strategy including the law of the sea, shipping and maritime resource issues.

REAR ADM. WALLS -You have me a little confused there when you talk about the Australian Maritime College.

SENATOR NEWMAN -Yes.

REAR ADM. WALLS -At Launceston?

SENATOR NEWMAN -Yes.

REAR ADM. WALLS -We have arrangements in place with the strategic studies project and, together with the Comtrain organisation, we have reviewed, or are in the process of developing, courses associated with strategic studies and those items that you mentioned when you read from your list. The details of finalisation on whether the course will be conducted at the Australian College of Maritime Studies or at some other venue have not been resolved yet.

SENATOR NEWMAN -Can you tell me when such a decision is likely to be made?

REAR ADM. WALLS -No, I could not project that.

SENATOR NEWMAN -Can you tell me what are the issues that are needing to be resolved?

REAR ADM. WALLS -No, I cannot speak on those either. I can only speak to you in general terms about it, I am afraid.

SENATOR NEWMAN -What is the problem?

REAR ADM. WALLS -The problem is my lack of knowledge.

SENATOR NEWMAN -Is there anybody else who has more knowledge?

REAR ADM. WALLS -Not with us, I do not believe so.

SENATOR NEWMAN -Not here?

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -We will try to get you an answer.

SENATOR NEWMAN -If I could have an answer, I would like to know.

SENATOR ROBERT RAY -We will give you as good an answer as we can in terms of where it is at; when we think a decision will be made; and what some of the problems may be with that.

SENATOR NEWMAN -Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN -There are no further questions on subprogram 2.3.

Sitting suspended from 6.33 to 8.30 p.m.