Tuesday, 23 August 1983 AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Hansard 1983 FIRST SESSION OF THE THIRTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT (SECOND PERIOD) Pursuant to the Resolution of the House of Representatives passed on 26 May 1983, the House of Representatives met on Tuesday, 23 August 1983, at 2.15 p.m. Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers. Return to Writ Mr SPEAKER —I have received a return to the writ which I issued on 13 May 1983 for the election of a member to serve the electoral division of Bruce in the State of Victoria to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of the Rt Hon. Sir Billy Mackie Snedden, KCMG, QC. By the endorsement on the writ it is certified that Kenneth James Aldred has been elected. New Member Sworn Mr Kenneth James Aldred made and subscribed the oath of allegiance as member for the Division of Bruce. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House that on 15 August I received a letter from the Hon. Sir James Killen, KCMG, resigning his seat as member for the electoral division of Moreton. I will give consideration to the date of the by-election as soon as practicable. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House of the death on 7 June of Mr Ewen Daniel Mackinnon, CBE, a former member of this House for the division of Wannon from 1949 to 1951 and the division of Corangamite from 1953 to 1966. As a mark of respect to the memory of Mr Mackinnon, I invite honourable members to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places- Mr SPEAKER —I thank the House. Mr SPEAKER —On 24 June 1983, I approved a request from the then Leader of the House to allow certain Hansard reports of the proceedings of this House to be adduced into evidence and referred to by the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies-the Hope Royal Commission. Before giving that approval, I satisfied myself that it was in accordance with a similar decision made on 20 July 1982 by my predecessor, Sir Billy Snedden, in respect of the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry and that to refuse the request could cause a delay in the work of the Royal Commission. In my absence overseas, my decision was conveyed by the Deputy Speaker on my behalf to the Leader of the House (Mr Lionel Bowen), the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Manager of the Opposition Business in this House, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). In doing so, it was made clear that my approval was given on the understanding that the Royal Commissioner and counsel assisting the Royal Commission were aware of, and would have proper regard to, the limitations imposed by article 9 of the Bill of Rights as applied by section 49 of the Constitution. On 25 July 1983, I approved a request that certain additional Hansard reports could be adduced into evidence before the Royal Commission and advised the Attorney-General and Manager of Opposition Business in this House of this further approval. A statement of issues to be resolved in respect of paragraph (c) of the Commission's terms of reference was published on 11 July 1983. When informed of this statement, it appeared to me that certain of those issues posed a potential threat to the privileges of the Parliament in that they purported to question the actions of certain persons in this House which would be an infringement of article 9 of the Bill of Rights. My concern was conveyed to the Royal Commission and on 28 July I was informed that it was proposed to omit one of the issues and to amend others. Nevertheless, the Royal Commissioner was still facing a difficult area in respect of the issue of parliamentary privilege and I considered it prudent that I should engage a solicitor to brief counsel to represent me, as the custodian of the rights of this House, when the question of parliamentary privilege was argued before the Commission. The firm of Stephen Jaques Stone James was engaged and Mr I. M. Wales briefed as junior counsel and the Hon. T. E. F. Hughes, QC, as senior counsel. Having briefed counsel, I informed the staff of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Attorney-General and the Manager of Opposition Business in this House of my action. The question of parliamentary privilege was argued before the Royal Commission on 1 August and my decision to seek representation was vindicated when counsel representing one of the parties before the Commission stated that: . . . we want to question ministers about statements made by them in the house . . . Whilst His Honour immediately indicated that this prima facie would be within the scope of privilege, it was clear that my representation before the Commission and argument put by Mr Hughes on my behalf served to assist in clarification of the application of the law of parliamentary privilege in respect of the matters before the Royal Commission. I continued to have representation before the Royal Commission through Mr S. L. Walmsley, instructed by Stephen Jaques Stone James, during the examination of the Prime Minister, the former Leader of the House, Mr Young, the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). Subsequently , the President of the Senate engaged the same firm of solicitors and counsel to represent him on behalf of the Senate during the hearing of evidence by the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans. I should say that the somewhat unique action I took was designed to help ensure that no action was taken or decisions made before the Royal Commission which would have the effect of eroding the privileges of this House. Freedom of speech is an essential of a free parliament in a democratic society. To allow any action which would result in members of this House being questioned by outside authorities in respect of statements made by them in this House or their motives in making those statements would amount to a serious weakening of that privilege . Such action is reserved for the House itself. Finally, it must be remembered that the privilege is that of the Parliament as a whole and not that of an individual member or of the collection of members who, for the time being, constitute the membership of the Parliament. For me to have ignored the potential threat to the privilege of this institution would have been a very serious dereliction of my duties and my responsibilities to this House as its Speaker. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek your indulgence, Mr Speaker , to address briefly the matters which you raised in your statement. Mr SPEAKER —You have the indulgence of the Chair. Mr PEACOCK —Thank you, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Opposition I wish to compliment you, to agree with the statement that you have made today and to endorse the actions you have taken and which you addressed in this statement before the House today. As you have indicated, Mr Speaker, this unique action had as its root the essence of free speech in a democratic society. It is a reminder that what transpires in this House is distinct and separate from what transpires elsewhere. This distinction is historic and fundamental to our freedoms. It is also a reminder of the way this Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has sought to blur these distinctions, to denigrate the institution of Parliament even to the point of having explained to the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies the reasons for the resignation of a Minister , a matter which properly should be put before this Parliament. But no, counsel for the Government did this before the Royal Commission. If that was not bad enough, Mr Speaker, this Prime Minister has sought to bludgeon and muzzle not just members of the media but also members of the Opposition in the most outrageous manner, even to the point of threatening me with being charged with contempt of the Royal Commission. He is in fact the first-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr PEACOCK —I am bringing my remarks to a close. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Leader of the Opposition that it is not a debate . He is making a statement on the statement I put before the House. I ask him to conclude his remarks. Mr PEACOCK —I will conclude, Mr Speaker, by indicating to the House and by reminding the nation that he is the first Prime Minister in the long and great history of this country who has sought to have a Leader of the Opposition gaoled for political comment. Mr Beazley —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition quite clearly is not adhering to your directive. Mr SPEAKER —I thank the Minister for Aviation. I was just about to remind the Leader of the Opposition that while he is allowed a great deal of tolerance he is certainly defying a request that I have just made of him. Mr PEACOCK —I regard what transpired in the statement made by the Prime Minister in seeking to have me charged as outrageous. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr PEACOCK —As I say, in the history of this country he is the first Prime Minister to seek to have a Leader of the Opposition gaoled. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition should return to the statement dealing with the matter of privilege. It is not for him to debate the actions of the Prime Minister. Mr PEACOCK —In conclusion, I reiterate that the Opposition commends your statement, Mr Speaker, and commends the actions you have taken. They relate at their root to the essence of free speech in a democratic society. We are pleased that you, Mr Speaker, are here to preserve the rights of members of Parliament. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Leader of the House) —May I have your indulgence , Mr Speaker, to say a few words on this matter? Mr SPEAKER —Yes. I will allow the Deputy Prime Minister to proceed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I would like to congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your statement . I note that my predecessor agreed that the Hansard report should be made available to the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. At the same time you have appropriately set out the balance that has to be maintained between what are the privileges of a house of parliament as against the rights of any royal commission or judicial authority. Mr Ewen Cameron —What are you preparing for, Lionel? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am preparing to answer any remarks the honourable member wants to make. The question at the moment is that something improper was done by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I think that was quite out of character. I think we ought to await with interest the findings of the Royal Commission in respect of all matters which may well include the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). However, the point that is of interest in your statement is that there always has to be vigilance by Parliament in respect of what can happen. This is not the first time that an attempt has been made to make statements given in this House the subject of cross-examination in a court of law. Such an attempt was made in respect of my colleague the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). It has happened in the past. Whilst we fully appreciate what has happened, Mr Speaker, we applaud the action you took, with the safeguards you have indicated. We thank you for your statement. The Government supports the action that you took. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Discrimination against Women To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State' and whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time. (2) 'The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann,Mr Aldred,Mr Anthony,Mr Braithwaite,Mr Brumby,Mr Cadman,Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Carlton,Mr Hawker,Mr Les Johnson,Mrs Kelly,Mr Lloyd,Mr Millar,Mr Moore,Mr Ian Robinson and Mr Scholes. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows : That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. by Mr Adermann,Dr Blewett,Mr Drummond,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Free,Mr Les Johnson,Mr Lindsay,Mr McVeigh,Mr Millar,Mr Milton,Mr Moore,Mr Mountford,Mr Ruddock and Mr Saunderson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia, believing that men and women are equal but different, convinced that Australia can provide equal opportunity for all citizens without foreign treaties, concerned that ratifying the UN Discrimination Convention would give a Communist-dominated international committee the power to judge Australia's laws, humbly petition that your Honourable House will not support the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and we will always thus petition. by Mr Andrew,Dr Blewett,Mr Fisher,Mr Hurford,Mr Jacobi,Mr O'Neil and Mr Porter. The Honourable the Speaker and Member of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind including distinction based on sex. However extensive discrimination against women continues to exist. It is an obstacle to the participation of women on equal terms with men, in the political , social, economic and cultural life of this country. It hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of this country and of humanity. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act to ratify the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. by Mr Charles,Dr Everingham,Mr Fisher,Mr Humphreys,Mrs Kelly,Mr Macphee and Mr Moore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a ''first strike'' attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne . 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped, if we are to survive. Your petitioners pray that members and the house assembled will close Omega. by Mr Charles,Mr Holding,Mr Barry Jones,Mr Kent,Ms Mayer and Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. The concerns which people around the World have for the increasing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction; 2. The global concern that any nuclear exchange will inflict on humanity unimaginable death and suffering; 3. The vulnerability that Australians will face in any nuclear conflict between the major powers; 4. The public concern that Government should explore all avenues to ensure that the nuclear threat is eliminated. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Parliament establish a Select Committee on Nuclear Disarmament and Peace to investigate the creation of a Ministry of Peace and Nuclear Disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Robert Brown,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Free,Mr Hunt,Mr Les Johnson,Mr Lusher and Mr Spender. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows: That due to the large number of age pensioners who use the Harold Hawthorn Senior Citizens Centre in Memorial Avenue, Carlisle, Western Australia, there is a need for a post box outside the centre. This would save the pensioners long walks, or transport problems involved in posting mail elsewhere. Your petitioners therefore pray that Australia Post be instructed to provide a post box near the entrance to the Centre in Memorial Avenue. by Mr Beazley. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows-that at present, certain infertility treatments including; Hormonal Drugs, Procedures and Laboratory Services, are not covered by any Health Insurance due to Non-Itemisation on the Commonwealth Rebate List. The psychological and Emotional stress of infertility is therefore increased by the added financial stress. Your Petitioners therefore pray, that the Parliament will view out plight to creat life with sympathy, by recognising our needs, and taking action to include the abovementioned items on the Commonwealth Rebate List. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That the right to work without discrimination on any ground including, inter alia, discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, pregnancy, marital status, sex and/or sexual preference, is a fundamental human right; and That it is both the duty and the responsibility of society to fully support those denied work and therefore those who are unemployed as a result of society' s inability to provide full paid employment should be guaranteed an adequate income without discrimination on any ground, including inter alia discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, sex and/or sexual preference, or pregnancy. Your petitioners therfore humbly pray that appropriate and adequate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of persons by statutorty bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, in employment of individuals under federal awards, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to race, ethnic origin, marital status and/or sex. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the 26th January, 1788, is the date of the first white settlement in Australia, and therefore marks the beginning of modern Australia, and this event marks the most appropriate date on which to celebrate our national day. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will determine that Australia Day is to be celebrated on the twenty-sixth day of January each year, and that a public holiday will be declared on that day, regardless of which day of the week is the 26th. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to RAAF Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable Members of the Australian Federal Parliament. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law. (b) The Southern Cross on a azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth. (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth : That Family Radio Ltd represents the largest single interest group in the community-i.e. Christians-who do not have a voice in public broadcasting commensurate with their representation. That prime time access to existing broadcasts by Christian groups is virtually non-existent, and access at other times is fast disappearing. That, by comparison with other capitals, Brisbane is entitled to at least one more category 'S' FM broadcasting licence. That there appears to be no prospect of the release of further category 'S' FM licences in the near future for Brisbane. That satisfactory fulfilment of the aims of Family Radio and its expansion can only be achieved by broadcasting in its own right under licence. That Family Radio has a responsibility to the large support groups which have contributed substantially to its development, to achieve the aims in broadcasting and community work for which it was established. That there is an urgent need for the kind of service and support that Family Radio can provide to other community groups through the particular type of integrated programming proposed by the company under a full-time licence, and That pruned Government resources are obviously insufficient to advance the development of public broadcasting as originally intended. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will support Family Radio's application for a broadcasting licence and will enable more category 'S' FM licences to be made available in Brisbane. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Whereas space exploration involves the very highest levels of technological expertise and scientific endeavour that has proved beneficial to mankind; and Whereas Australia would face a deterioration of living standards and economy without access to such technologies; The Australian Government should support the worth of peaceful space exploration at an international level, at the United Nations and with individual nations; and The Australian Government should place a far stronger emphasis on the value of the space sciences, and also encourage industrial support for space technology programs; and The Australian Government should undertake to support biomedical space experiments proposed by Australian medical researchers. by Mr Holding. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembed. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we request that the Government take steps to ensure: (1) The construction program of Radford College, Bruce proceeds immediately. (2) Parents freedom of choice in education is fostered by continuing to provide a basic grant for all Australian children. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: (1) That the Macedonian language be used by Government Departments in multi- lingual publications. (2) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language as a Higher School Certificate (H.S.C.) subject in Secondary schools. (3) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language in tertiary institutions and that a course be introduced at Monash University in the Department of Slavic Languages. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly request that Parliament take immediate action to implement the above measures. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia ( electors of the division of Grey) respectfully showeth: That controls preventing Adelaide commercial television stations from extending full-strength coverage to the Iron Triangle cities of Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Pirie are contrary to the concept of free competition which is the basis of our economic system. That such controls prevent citizens of this important and populous group of decentralised industrial cities from enjoying a freedom of choice in television programs which is in any way comparable to that applying in the metropolitan area. That television is the only form of audio-visual entertainment within the financial scope of a large proportion of the population of this area. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: any restrictions limiting television coverage of this area should be removed and market forces be permitted to stimulate a broader program choice and better quality. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the railway crossing situated approximately 5 kilometres east of Port Augusta on Highway One (the main highway between Adelaide and all northern and western centres of South Australia and continuing through to Western Australia) has once again been the sight of an horrendous accident. This accident has caused two, possibly three fatalities. Previous requests have been made by the City Council of Port Augusta for the construction of an overpass, so that this section of the highway no longer presents a danger to the motoring public and those involved in driving trains over this crossing. Permission for construction of this overpass has previously been refused and the situation has now become critical. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will reconsider their previous decision and approve construction of an overpass at this fatally dangerous railway crossing to avoid further loss of life. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of certain citizens of Australia shows: That payments to contract and sub-contract owner-drivers of trucks are likely to be reduced by ten per cent on implementation of the new system of tax deduction at source from payments for work and services; That profit or personal remuneration constitutes a very small part of payments received by owner-drivers, compared with capital and running costs and government charges; and That a deduction of ten per cent of gross payments would not only be much greater than required to protect the revenue, but would also cause hardship to owner-drivers and their families. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will not require tax to be deducted from payments to owner-drivers. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain 77 citizens of Australia shows that public schools in New South Wales, that educate over seventy per cent of school children, are in danger of further and serious deterioration in quality as vital support-staff jobs disappear and many building maintenance works are postponed. Your petitioners therefore pray that: (1) Federal funding for public schools in this State be readjusted to more favourable levels as of pre 1975; and (2) That, as regards basic per capita education funding, no private schools in New South Wales be placed in any better position than any public schools; and that, to the extent that funding in past years has placed any such private school in an advantageous position, the balance be redressed as soon as practicable by progressive reductions in funding. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned citizens of Australia are concerned about the deterioration of human rights and the general harassment and oppression of Church and community workers in the Philippines. The recent cases of Fr Brian Gore and Karl Gasper illustrate this situation. We urge the government to express forcibly this concern. We call on the Australian Government to intercede on behalf of Karl Gasper so that the Presidential Commitment Order, under which he is being detained, be lifted and charges be laid so that a trial may commence. Further we petition the government to reconsider any form of assistance to the Philippine Military Forces whilst these same Forces continue to disregard basic human rights. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth submits: That the mining of uranium in Australia, the proposed development of a uranium enrichment industry in Australia, together with the possibilities of resumed atomic weapons testing in the Pacific and dumping of radioactive waste in this region, constitute a serious threat to the health and well-being of all Australian and Pacific people for many generations to come. Your Petitioners request that your Honourable House will: 1. Stop the mining and export of Australian uranium, except for medical and research purposes. 2. Actively oppose the development of uranium enrichment and nuclear power plants, the testing of nuclear weapons, and the disposal of radioactive waste in the Australian and Pacific region. 3. Significantly increase research into alternative energy sources. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the petition of certain citizens of Australia shows: That Australian servicemen in the Sinai Peace-Keeping Force are seen as an advance guard of a United States Rapid Deployment Force in the Middle East and as an indication of Australian political support for Israeli policies on the West Bank of the Jordan River and in Lebanon. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government will take action to withdraw Australian troops from the Sinai Peace-Keeping Force. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hollis. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: (a) that expenses incurred by disabled people in earning a living are not presently tax deductible. (b) that the full and effective participation of disabled people in all areas of society, especially employment, is inhibited by the extra financial burden of equipment necessary for entry into the workforce, such as motorised wheelchairs. (c) that this disadvantage could be lessened by offering tax concessions on the purchase of these necessary items, thereby releasing the financial pressure on disabled people who desire to work. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Parliament amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, to allow expenses incurred by disabled people in earning a living to be tax deductible. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms McHugh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives Assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The level of per capita funding to non-government schools in NSW is at such a deplorably low level so as to be discriminatory to non-government schoolchildren . Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament will require the NSW Government, as a condition of educational funding, to increase the per capita level of funding in non-government schools to a level of 30 per cent of the cost of educating a child in the New South Wales State government school system at an equivalent level. This increase to be an interim measure towards the ending of discrimination of funding non-government schoolchildren. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Snow. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the members of the Women's Services of the 1939-45 War not at present considered eligible for Defence Service Home Loans should qualify as 'Australian Soldiers' under the Defence Service Homes Act. They volunteered for service with the Naval, Military and Air Forces, serving wherever they were sent in whatever capacity they were required and yet are refused Defence Service Home Loans. They took the oath to resist His Majesty's enemies which meant to fight His Majesty's enemies, and although not used in actual combat in war zones, they were available for that use and had a sufficiently grave need arisen would have been used, to serve with distinction as have women of other lands. In accordance with the Acts and Regulations of the period, the women of the Military Forces had enlisted for service anywhere, some of the Naval women to sail in any waters, others with service on warships optional, while the women of the Airforce could have been sent to Papua New Guinea or other territories under the control or care of Australia. Ex-servicemen of the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Imperial Force and the Royal Australian Air Force who volunteered in the 1939-45 War but were not sent to War Zones are granted home loans. Not to grant eligibility to all Ex- servicewomen of 1939-45 War is unjust and unfair. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you favourably consider amending the Defence Service Homes Act by repealing Sub-section 4 (2A) (b) (c) (d) of the Principal Act as amended by No. 137 of 1978, and grant eligibility to all members of the Women's Royal Australian Naval Service, the Australian Women's Army Service, the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force, the Australian Army Medical Women's Service, and the Voluntary Aid Detachment of 1939-45 War. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Steedman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the present hunt for harp seals in Canada is carried out in a cruel and inhuman manner. That the population of harp seals has not been clearly shown to be increasing. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government formally call on the Canadian Government to end the harp seal hunt and use its constitutional powers to halt the importation into Australia of products derived from the harp seal, Pagophilus groenlandicus. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Theophanous. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the 1978 Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance prohibits abortions from being carried out otherwise than at a hospital conducted by the Capital Territory Health Commission; and that a proposal has been made for the conversion of the North Canberra Health Centre into a Women's Health Centre with an associated abortion clinic. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government, the Minister for Territories and Local Government, and the Minister for Health, will give a categorical assurance that no abortion clinic will be established in the A.C.T. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh,Mr Mountford and Mr Snow. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of New South Wales respectfully shows: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Anthony,Mr Beazley,Dr Charlesworth,Mrs Darling,Mr Les Johnson,Mr Rocher and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the lack of podiatry service for lower fixed income members of the community. Podiatry is an essential health service especially in preventing greater dependency of older people. It would be much more cost effective to maintain the mobility of older people through adequate and effective services than to force them into premature institutional care. The fees for repeated podiatry consultations to provide essential ongoing care are well beyond the means of pensioners. Considering that Department of Veterans Affairs' pensioners are entitled to podiatry care, and this scheme is already operating successfully, we strongly urge that this service be extended to cover all pensioners. We believe this could be best achieved through including podiatry along with the existing concessions on the Health Care cards. This would enable a flexible system of care through private practice, community health or rehabilitation services. It would also be essential in negotiations with the Podiatry Association to ensure assistance would be available to the housebound and those in institutions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Anthony,Mr Baldwin,Mr Simmons and Mr Sinclair. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Northern Territory of Australia shows: 1. That the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of South Australia entered into an agreement of 7th December, 1907 requiring the Commonwealth of Australia to construct the Transcontinental (North-South) Railway from Darwin to South Australia; 2. That the Transcontinental (North-South) Railway has not yet been constructed ; 3. That the construction of the Transcontinental (North-South) Railway is the linchpin for the further development of the Northern Territory of Australia; 4. That the Transcontinental (North-South) Railway will provide employment through construction work, steel production and manufacturing and it will assist in ensuring the defence and security of Northern Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Commonwealth of Australia commence and complete construction of the Transcontinental (North-South) Railway at an early date. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Peter Morris,Mr O'Neil and Mr Reeves. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Mackay respectfully showeth: That the intention of Telecom Australia to close the Mackay Directory Assistance Centre will: downgrade telephone services to Mackay and district. deprive customers of a personalized reliable telephone service. reduce job opportunities in the area. increase the likelihood of the eventual closure of the exchange. We the undersigned believe that Telecom Australia has a social responsibility to provide a sound, reliable, personalised telephone system. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will call on the Government to intervene to stop Telecom's proposed closure of the Mackay Directory Assistance Centre. by Mr Braithwaite and Mr Lindsay. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives here assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Division of Moore respectfully showeth: That there is great need for the establishment of one new Community Youth Support Scheme project in the Subdivisions of Duncraig and Wanneroo, because of the high level of youth unemployment in these subdivisions, in order that the CYSS project can provide a range of activities which develop the skills, abilities, and self reliance of young people resident in the Subdivisions of Duncraig and Wanneroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that proposals for the establishment of one new Community Youth Support Scheme project in the Subdivisions of Duncraig and Wanneroo be granted favourable and prompt attention by this Parliament and its Ministers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Division of Moore respectfully showeth: That there is great need for the establishment of a new Community Youth Support Scheme project in the Subdivision of Girrawheen, because of the high level of youth unemployment in this subdivision, in order that the CYSS project can provide a range of activities which develop the skills, abilities and self reliance of unemployed young people resident in the Subdivision of Girrawheen. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that proposals for the establishment of a new Community Youth Support Scheme project in the Subdivision of Girrawheen be granted favourable and prompt attention by this Parliament and its Ministers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We the Citizens of South Australia and members of the South Australian Branch of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia, being deeply concerned with decisions affecting the future of psychiatric and mental retardation nursing, respectfully show: 1. The direction of psychiatric and mental retardation nursing has been undertaken without consultation with either the F.M.W.U., S.A. Branch or the Federal Council of Psychiatric and Mental Retardation Nurses Unions who represent in excess of 200,000 such nurses throughout Australia. 2. Decisions made, to date, affecting psychiatric and mental retardation will have long term, and damaging effects on our respective union members. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament of Australia, through the Federal Ministers for Health and Education consult immediately with the Federal Council of Psychiatric and Mental Retardation Nurses Unions and urgently receive a deputation from this body. by Dr Blewett. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia in Parliament assembled: The petition of residents of Mount Riverview respectfully showeth that there is a genuine need for a Post Office agency selling stamps, Money Orders, letter and parcels registration and all business of a normal suburban Post Office, to serve the needs of a large and growing area placed approximately three and a half kilometres from such nearest facilities. The area has many aged and invalid people who cannot reach Blaxland to transact business. The local chemist, situated in Mount Riverview shopping centre, is eager to handle such an agency, and is a competent and reliable person to do so. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will give earnest consideration to our request for such an agency at a very early date. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Free. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain undersigned citizens of Townsville, Australia, shows that we deplore the Federal Government's decision to restrict East West Airlines ' realistic price fares to Southern Capitals. Your petitioners therefore pray that immediate approval be granted for the importation of a DC-9 aircraft for East West Airlines to implement their proposed $120 return flight fare between Brisbane and Townsville. by Mr Lindsay. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We the Citizens of the City of Woodville and supported by the citizens of South Australia, being deeply concerned over the threat of closure of the Woodville Plant of General Motors-Holdens, respectfully show: 1. That the management of General Motors-Holdens has failed over a period of more than two (2) years to give any assurances that the Woodville Plant would continue in operation. 2. That a recent statement attributed to the GMH Managing director, quote: 'The overall objective of our South Australian rationalisation plan has been to eliminate all productive activities on the Woodville site' end of quote. This statement has not been refuted. 3. That the elimination of the Woodville Plant will cause enormous social dislocation, hardship and misery to the citizens of Woodville and South Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament of Australia will condemn this callous disregard for the citizens of Woodville and South Australia, and do all in its power to force General Motors-Holdens to retain its operations at the Woodville Plant. by Mr Scott. Petitions received. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Mr Speaker, I inform the House that the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) has been made a member of Cabinet and has been appointed Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has been appointed Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Industrial Matters. I also inform the House that, following the resignation of the Hon. M. J. Young from the Ministry on 14 July 1983, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) was appointed Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the House, and the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) was appointed Special Minister of State. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Speaker-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Is the Leader of the Opposition seeking the indulgence of the Chair? Mr PEACOCK —Yes, Mr Speaker, I ask for your indulgence. Mr SPEAKER —I call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr PEACOCK —As the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) refers to the resignation of the former Special Minister of State and former Vice-President of the Executive Council, as would be expected I request the Prime Minister to explain to the House the circumstances surrounding that resignation and the Prime Minister's subsequent recommendation to the Caucus that the ministerial vacancy created by the resignation of the honourable member for Port Adelaide ( Mr Young) remain open. Mr SPEAKER —Are there any notices? Mr PEACOCK —Mr Speaker, we are prepared to give leave-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Mr PEACOCK —Mr Speaker, we are prepared to give leave to the Prime Minister, if he wishes that. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The matter is not in the hands of the Leader of the Opposition. He asked for my indulgence to address himself to the statement. That period of indulgence has concluded. I now call on notices. Are there any notices ? Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.39) —Mr Speaker-this is not stretching your indulgence-I have to move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent a motion being moved to enable either the Prime Minister or the honourable member for Port Adelaide to make a statement to this House immediately on the circumstances surrounding the resignation of the honourable member for Port Adelaide as Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council and the Prime Minister's subsequent recommendation to the parliamentary Labor Party that the honourable member's ministerial vacancy remain open. Mr SPEAKER —Is the motion in writing and seconded? Mr PEACOCK —Yes, it is in writing and it is seconded by the right honourable member for Richmond (Mr Anthony). The decision by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to leave open the position in Cabinet of the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) is an act of gross impropriety. We move the suspension of Standing Orders for him to explain the reasons behind this and the circumstances surrounding the resignation of the Minister. This is not a royal commission; there is no need for someone to be briefed to explain the circumstances. The Government is answerable to this Parliament. The Prime Minister and all Ministers derive their authority from the people and through this Parliament. On the day the Parliament resumed we are entitled at least to an explanation of why , firstly, this Minister resigned and, secondly, the Prime Minister has subsequently determined to leave the vacancy open. The Parliament-I repeat, the Parliament-has received no explanation whatsoever. By leaving the way open for the return of the honourable member for Port Adelaide, the Prime Minister is unquestionably treating our system of government with contempt. Furthermore, he is treating this Parliament-this House-with contempt. He has a duty to explain his actions to this House. It certainly does appear that the Prime Minister has surrendered to the dictum of the honourable member for Port Adelaide. Honourable members will recall it. During the one-day sitting of the Parliament in April this year the honourable member said: 'If you have the numbers, you might as well use them.' The Prime Minister will seek to hide behind those numbers and debase this Parliament, thereby, I assume, leaving the way open for the honourable member's return to the Ministry. By so doing he downgrades the impropriety of his own very similar actions. Standing Orders should be suspended so that the Prime Minister can explain the conduct of the honourable member for Port Adelaide as, indeed, he ought to as a Minister of the Crown. The honourable member for Port Adelaide abandoned his responsibilities as a Cabinet Minister and as a member of the Cabinet Sub- Committee on National and International Security. The House is entitled to an explanation of why the Prime Minister is anxious to ignore this behaviour. When, on being asked at the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies-- Mr Lionel Bowen —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order in order to help the Leader of the Opposition. This is a matter of the suspension of Standing Orders. We will accept the suspension in order that the Leader of the Opposition can move the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition may now move his motion. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.43) —I move-- Mr Scholes —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I want to return to the original motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. The original motion in fact included the terms of the motion which the Leader of the Opposition is about to move. Rulings have been given in the past that one motion-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. The Minister for Defence is raising a point of order with the Chair. There is so much noise that I am having difficulty in hearing. Mr Scholes —The point of order is that the motion to suspend Standing Orders included the substantive motion. Therefore, both should be carried by the same vote. Mr SPEAKER —No, the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders has been carried. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to move his motion. Mr PEACOCK —In the time remaining to me, I move: That either the Prime Minister or the honourable member for Port Adelaide make a statement to this House immediately on the circumstances surrounding the resignation of the honourable member for Port Adelaide as Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council and the Prime Minister's subsequent recommendation to the parliamentary Labor Party that the honourable member's ministerial vacancy remain open. That motion is seconded by the right honourable member for Richmond (Mr Anthony) . I refer to my remarks on the earlier motion I moved for the suspension of Standing Orders. Mr Lionel Bowen —Mr Speaker, I again raise a point of order to help the Leader of the Opposition. The motion states that he wants the Prime Minister to make a statement. The Prime Minister is prepared to make a statement now. Mr PEACOCK —We are delighted that at last the Prime Minister intends to get on his feet before the Australian people on this issue. It has taken a tortuous course to bring it about. Mr Lionel Bowen —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. We have accepted the motion. There is no need to debate it further. Mr SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member for Denison, who is trying to interject, that the Speaker is in charge of the House, not him. The Leader of the Opposition has moved a motion and, despite the plea of the Leader of the House, he is entitled to speak to that motion. Mr Lionel Bowen —But it is only wasting the time of the House if we debate it. Mr SPEAKER —That is the decision of the Leader of the Opposition; it is not for the Chair. I call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr PEACOCK —Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me go back to the Royal Commission. I was indicating why the House was entitled to an explanation why the Prime Minister is anxious to ignore the behaviour of the former Special Minister of State. On being asked at the Royal Commission whether he thought the honourable member's disclosure to Mr Walsh was 'very serious' and 'bore on matters of national security', the Prime Minister replied-yet again I quote-'Yes'. In other words, he did believe that what the former Special Minister of State had done was very serious and that it also bore on matters of national security. If that is the case, why has the Prime Minister moved in the Caucus that the ministerial position not be declared vacant in circumstances in which somebody could take the stead, the place of, the honourable member for Port Adelaide? The actions of the honourable member for Port Adelaide deserve the strongest censure. Unquestionably he-- Dr Theophanous —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite honourable members on my left to allow me to hear the point of order. Their Leader can continue after the point of order has been ruled on. Dr Theophanous —The Opposition Leader's last remark clearly pre-empts the determinations of the Royal Commission. In that sense it is in contempt of the Royal Commission. He is not entitled to pre-empt the determinations of the Commission in this way. Mr SPEAKER —The question of sub judice is a matter for the discretion of the Chair. If that were offended against I would rule so. Mr PEACOCK —This comes to why we are having this debate. Mr Speaker, I accept your ruling on the point of order but I remind the House that honourable members opposite, through their actions, are accountable to this institution. They cannot hide behind another body in circumstances in which they are answerable to this Parliament. Frankly, the actions of the honourable member for Port Adelaide deserve the strongest censure. By keeping his ministerial seat warm the Prime Minister compounds the disgrace of the actions committed by him. We look forward to the Prime Minister telling us why on 13 May the honourable member for Port Adelaide issued a statement revealing that on 22 April he had told a Mr Cameron that the Government 'was about to kick out a Russian'. In the letter that he wrote to the Prime Minister he said: My brief comment in my office was, during that time, the only reference to the expulsion of Mr Ivanov. As honourable members will recall, at that time the Opposition quite properly demanded the resignation of the honourable member. It was clear that he had breached national security by revealing a matter of the greatest sensitivity. Undoubtedly, by the subsequent actions of the Prime Minister, particularly yesterday, a naive and cavalier approach has been taken to the honourable member 's impropriety. But let us go back further, beyond the Caucus meeting of yesterday. All that the Prime Minister did was tell the honourable member for Port Adelaide that his leak was 'not an appropriate thing for him to say'. The Prime Minister added in Parliament that he accepted the assurances of his Minister about his conduct during that luncheon. Indeed, there were words used to the effect, 'I am not going to question the matter any further'. That relates to the conduct of the Prime Minister himself in not adequately probing, in not adequately questioning, in not adequately analysing what transpired. As I shall develop, as a consequence of the way in which this House was misled by the former Minister, the Prime Minister was associated with misleading this House. The fabrications of his colleague caused the Prime Minister also to mislead the Parliament. I shall be looking forward to the reasons why the Prime Minister does not regard those facts that to date I have briefly outlined as serious enough to keep the honourable member out of the Ministry. Clearly, he wants him back. Let us contemplate the Prime Minister's words to this House on 17 May: While it was not appropriate for the Minister to have made the statement that he did, he has in all other respects acted as we, that is the honourable member and me, would expect him to do-with honour and propriety. The true value of the honour and propriety of the honourable member for Port Adelaide, to use the Prime Minister's own words, was soon to be revealed. But why was it not revealed in this House? Why had it not been probed, and why was the House misled? Of course, on 14 July the Prime Minister announced the honourable member's resignation from the Ministry. There was a four-day interlude before we were told why. We were not told by the Prime Minister, though-by the head of this Government. We were told by the Government's counsel to the Hope Royal Commission. As we know, there was nothing in that statement by counsel on that day that could not have been stated by the man who is answerable to this Parliament and the people. There was no need for him to brief counsel to make that statement. It was sufficient to call a Press conference and cast aspersions on elements of matters before the Royal Commission, but it was not sufficient to call a Press conference or to come before this Parliament, without the urging of the Opposition, to indicate why a Minister had resigned. The man of honour, the man of propriety-again, to use the Prime Minister's words-had evidently, we later discover, told another of his friends-dare I say ' cronies'-this time his old mate Eric Walsh, that Mr Combe was involved with Mr Ivanov, to quote the honourable member, 'in a fairly messy scenario' which the Government had been looking at that day. Was this deliberate premeditated tip- off, this leak which amounted to a breach of national security, to the commercial advantage of Mr Walsh and his client, the reason for the honourable member's resignation? I assume that the Prime Minister will tell us. Was the commercial advantage to Mr Walsh the reason? I trust that the Prime Minister will tell us. Or was it the fact that the leak took place while Mr Combe was still under surveillance and, on the Prime Minister's own admission, was a potential security risk? Was that the reason? Will the Prime Minister tell us? Or was the reason this breach of national security which brought with it the risk that Mr Ivanov could be tipped off well before he was officially informed of his expulsion? I trust that we shall be told. In listening carefully to the first two elements that I have raised, as to whether there was a commercial advantage to Mr Walsh, I ask honourable members to bear in mind that others who were telephoned on a given weekend received a commercial advantage, and to bear in mind that when these others were tipped off , the leak, the tipping off, the leak of the call to Mr Butler and Mr Farmer, took place while Mr Combe was still under surveillance. I trust that we shall be told how the Prime Minister distances himself from the actions of the former Special Minister of State and that he will come clean. We shall be interested in facts, in details, in reasons and, if you like, in the propriety of a mea culpa. So seriously did the Prime Minister view the misdemeanor of the Special Minister of State that the asked the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to advise whether the member had breached the Crime Act. Of course, that investigation is still underway. Are any others to have their actions referred to the Attorney- General for investigation? Are any other telephone calls, cases of wilful or unwilful commercial gain, leaks while people are under surveillance, also to be referred to the Attorney-General? If they are not, I will listen with interest as to why not. The fact is that these matters have to be fully explained to this Parliament by the Prime Minister and, indeed, by the honourable member for Port Adelaide. Observers of the Hope Royal Commission were stunned to learn that the indiscretion of the honourable member for Port Adelaide extended still further. He revealed recently that he had told all the lucky participants at the now famous 22 April luncheon of the expulsion of Mr Ivanov at least half an hour before it was announced. I regret to say again-no one gets any pleasure in these matters-that the honourable member misled the Prime Minister and the Australian people about his actions on 22 April. Honourable members cannot escape from that harsh reality. After all that and after revelations which have shown that the honourable member has behaved regrettably, with a degree of impropriety which to date is unprecedented, the Prime Minister still wants to leave the way open for the return of the honourable member for Port Adelaide to the Ministry. Why? I trust he will tell us why, because the motion he has accepted relates not only, bear in mind, to the Prime Minister's acceptance of the Minister's resignation but also to the reasons for his leaving that position open. We wish to know why the Prime Minister is not filling that vacancy at this moment. Has the Prime Minister warmly embraced, we may ask, the arguments of those members of Caucus who have urged him to forget about 'Westminster purities' and take account 'of political realities' by not filling the portfolio of the honourable member for Port Adelaide with a full time successor? There is one further serious question. Will the honourable member for Port Adelaide not only return to the Cabinet but also very shortly regain his place on the National and International Security Committee? That is a reasonable question to pose when one bears in mind that the Prime Minister said only recently that the disclosure by the honourable member of matters from that Committee was both very serious and bore on matters of national security. How, then, can he return to these positions? Of all the improprieties of the Labor Government-and there have been enough of those in less than six months; it seems interminably longer than that-the decision to leave open the vacancy of a man who is now discredited must be one of the worst. The House looks forward to the reasons why both the resignation occurred and, more particularly, the position is being kept vacant. I hope that honourable members will remember for a lengthy period the words of the honourable member for Port Adelaide to this House on 17 May. The House will remember that on that day he was asked by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) whether he recalled taking his ministerial oath of office and swearing that he would not 'directly or indirectly reveal such matters as shall be debated in Council and committed to his secrecy'. The honourable member for Port Adelaide replied to that question as follows: I was so excited-I had just been shown the salaries of Ministers-that I forgot what really the commitment was when I was sworn in. That pretty slick approach to ministerial responsibility comes home to roost in circumstances such as these. At least we can say on that occasion the honourable member told the truth, and I trust that in that spirit we will get a truthful explanation from the Prime Minister himself, because this matter goes to the heart of ministerial conduct and government in this country. When one bears in mind the remarks that I made earlier, when you, Mr Speaker, properly informed us of the actions that you had taken, that this Prime Minister had not only refused to give an explanation-not only for the Parliament but also for the people-but also had sought to traduce, bludgeon and muzzle members of this Parliament and members of the media should they choose to interpret his action and his words in a manner with which he did not concur, it is now opportune to hear the fullest possible explanation. I have never, in the history of my participation in this Parliament, seen any occupant of the prime ministership seek to take action which could lead to the Leader of the Opposition in this country being thrown in gaol for political comment. If I have to keep referring outside to the actions of this Prime Minister I will, but at least today, by our persistence, we have forced this Prime Minister to his feet and we have forced him to indicate to the Parliament what he has run away from until today; an explanation to the Australian people as to why the Minister resigned and particularly an explanation as to why, in all the circumstances which amount to a gross breach of national security, the honourable member should be considered proper to return to the Ministry in the shortest space of time. At the end of a speech, after this matter was first raised by way of a statement in this House back in May, I said that a judicious Prime Minister would not have handled this matter in this manner and that a judicious Prime Minister would not have embarked on this course of action but would have thought through the consequences of it from the breach of civil liberties to the breaches of national security right from the start. One was forced to say then that the current occupant is not a judicious man. Mr SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr Anthony —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(3.04) —I had prepared a few notes on the basis that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and those behind him would have had the courage to use the forms of this House to move censure against this Government if they had reason to believe that any actions that I or the Government had taken in respect of the matters to which they have now alluded warranted such action. As, Mr Speaker, they have not had that courage I will make use of some of the material that I have briefly prepared in this respect. I commence my remarks by saying something about the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). The House has just listened to this confected indignation of the Leader of the Opposition. In the course of that confected indignation, a very considerable disservice has been done to the honourable member for Port Adelaide. I will have a good deal to say- Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House has unanimously passed a motion that the Prime Minister make a statement. I would have thought that the House, having passed that motion, would wish to hear it; otherwise I will have to take action against offending honourable members. Mr HAWKE —As will become clear, certain actions of the honourable member for Port Adelaide were improper and unauthorised, a fact recognised by the honourable member for Port Adelaide, and certain consequences have flowed from those facts. I am not going to listen to the Leader of the Opposition refer to the honourable member for Port Adelaide as though, in speaking about those matters, he has exhausted all that need properly be said in these circumstances about that honourable member. From the time when this Government was commissioned on 11 March, the honourable member for Port Adelaide assumed the position of Special Minister of State and, during the period when he occupied that portfolio responsibility, he was an excellent Minister. He has in respect of the Australian Labor Party, this Government and this country done many fine things in his very short period of tenure of that office, things which have been carried on by his successor and which will move to bring about, after so many years of neglect by the conservative forces of this country, an electoral system which will be worthy of a democracy. If in these circumstances we will be dealing, as we must to some extent, with the honourable member for Port Adelaide , let fairness be done and let it be acknowledged that, in his brief period in office, he has done many excellent things. It is true that, in respect of certain issues that arose following the meetings of the Cabinet Sub-Committee on National and International Security on 20 and 21 April, the honourable member for Port Adelaide did certain things which, as I say, were improper, but I will come to those in a moment. However, I want it clearly established at the outset that I and those people behind me are not going to allow these proceedings to go apace in terms of a total denigration of this man. Let me come to the circumstances of the matter in my way. But, before I do, let me say this: The Leader of the Opposition, at one point in his parade of, as I say, confected indignation, said: 'Let me go back to the Royal Commission'. Let me at the outset of my remarks warn the Leader of the Opposition that, in the period since 21 April, he has trod a very dangerous path in terms of how he deals with a royal commission. I do not want to go into those details because I and the members of my Government will proceed on the path that we have followed consistently since the time when, with the support of the Opposition, we established the Royal Commission on Australia's security and Intelligence Agencies. In respect of the matters properly before the Royal Commission, we have said that we will deal with them within the Royal Commission and not use the processes outside it to try, in any way, to put an improper pressure upon the Royal Commissioner who has under the letters patent the obligation to deal with those matters. However, to some extent obviously in dealing with this matter in these circumstances I will have to go in some way to some of those issues. I want to make the point-and I ask every honourable member of the Opposition to remember it-that every honourable member on this side of the House is looking forward to the day when the report of the Royal Commission is brought down and this Parliament in this House and in the other place will have a full and unfettered opportunity to deal with every matter that went before the Royal Commission, including the actions of the Leader of the Opposition and other people around him. Having made those preliminary observations, I make the first point-it ought not to have escaped the attention of honourable members opposite but in some way it seems to have escaped them-that as from 14 July the honourable member for Port Adelaide ceased to be a Minister in this Cabinet. He is not now a Minister. Why is he not a Minister? The reason is that he came to me on the morning of 14 July and he resigned. Mr Ruddock —Why did he come to you? Mr HAWKE —The honourable member should wait his time and he will get his answer. The Minister came to me because he recognised that he had breached Cabinet confidentiality and that he had not informed me of that fact. I did not have to seek his resignation; he gave it to me and he gave it to me for those reasons. It is quite clear why the Minister resigned. He came to me and he pointed out that he had breached confidentiality and he had not informed me of it. On the basis of what he put to me, of course the resignation was accepted. It is true-in no way do I try to hide the fact-that there can be legitimate divisions of opinion as to whether, that having happened, there should have been an immediate recourse to fill that vacancy, whether in fact it was an appropriate course of action not to fill the vacancy at that point or whether, as the actions of the Minister were very much an issue before the Royal Commission, it was not inappropriate to allow that vacancy to remain unfilled until such time as the Royal Commissioner dealt with that matter in his report under terms of reference (c). Mr Newman —Bob! He misled you. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have already given one general warning with regard to conduct during this statement. I repeat that warning. If there are further abuses of the House, I will act. Mr HAWKE —I concede that there are differences of opinion and that there have been and can be legitimate differences of opinion as to the appropriate course of action. Mr Howard —And you did not have the numbers. That is the difference. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Bennelong. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, in terms of those differences of view, the position that was adopted after considerable discussion was that it would not be inappropriate -the position in respect of the Special Minister of State having been filled and the responsibilities of government having been carried out by the allocation of responsibilities- to allow the full matter to be considered by the Royal Commissioner and in the light of that report appropriate action would be taken. I repeat that when the Minister came to me and pointed out what he had done action was taken at that point to deal with the matter and it remains in that position. It is entirely inappropriate to suggest and there is no evidence to sustain the proposition, in the language of the Leader of the Opposition, that the ministerial seat is being kept warm. There is nothing whatsoever to sustain that proposition. As distinct from the attitude of the Opposition, it has been decided that all members of this Government will await the report of the Royal Commissioner. In considering the report of the royal commissioner we will attach what weight has to be attached to it in regard to this issue. There is no guarantee at all, nor does the honourable member for Port Adelaide understand that there is any guarantee, that through our delaying the filling of this vacancy until such time as the report of the Royal Commissioner is available he will be returned to the Ministry. Neither I, nor the Cabinet, nor any member of the Caucus nor the honourable member for Port Adelaide believe that there is any such guarantee in the course of action that has been adopted. It is a reasonable course of action in a debate such as this to consider what is the right and the authority of those opposite to deal with these matters. Do they come with clean hands? Mr Speaker, I want to take the House with me through a consideration of the entitlements of those opposite, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, to speak on this matter in any way which will allow members of this House to place any credence at all on the Leader of the Opposition coming into this House and addressing himself to questions of resignation in general and questions of resignation in particular related to the co-existence of royal commissions. Let me address myself to this question of the resignations of Ministers. When the honourable member for Port Adelaide came into my office on 14 July, I did not have to look into his eyes, those misty Irish eyes; nor did I have to examine his visage to see whether he was serious in the proffering of his resignation. When he came to me, he gave me his resignation and said: ' Here it is'. That is quite distinct from what happens when people from the other side of the chamber and their associated parties engage in this question of the submission of resignations. Look not only at what happened in respect of their colleagues but also at the way in which the Leader of the Opposition got involved in this question of resignations. When members of the Leader of the Opposition's own Party went along to the Leader of the National Party in Queensland the other day and said: 'We submit our resignations', what did the Leader of the National Party, the Premier, in that State do? He said: 'I looked into their eyes; I examined their countenances. When I looked into their eyes and I examined their countenances I formed the opinion that they were not really serious about submitting their resignations'. So off he went to the Governor of Queensland and said: 'Your Excellency, some Ministers submitted resignations to me but I looked into their eyes and I examined their countenances and they were not serious. So do not take these resignations of these Liberal Ministers seriously, Your Excellency'. Of course, we were not privy to what happened in the private studies of the Governor, but presumably the Governor smiled back at Mr Bjelke-Petersen, the Leader of the National Party, and he said: 'Of course, yes, we have these resignations. But I accept your word, Mr Premier, that they are not serious resignations. So let us forget those resignations'. Of course, that was not the end of the story. I have been asked a number of questions; I will return the compliment. I ask whether the resignations of those Liberal Ministers were proper. Were they contrived? More importantly as regards the Leader of the Opposition in this House, was any improper pressure put on those Liberal Ministers to get them to withdraw their resignations and, subsequently, was any improper pressure applied by the Leader of the Opposition in this House? Did the Leader of the Opposition in this House seek to exert any improper pressure upon those Ministers to make them resubmit their resignations? If one addresses that set of questions about whether they were real resignations , whether any improper pressure was put upon those Ministers and whether those resignations were contrived, the answers one gets will depend on the side of the House to which one puts the questions. If one were to ask the Leader of the Opposition one would get one set of answers. However, if one asked the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) one would get another set of answers. With what authority does the Leader of the Opposition come in here and talk about resignations when, in the recent past, in Queensland, he has been involved, as has the Leader of the National Party in this House, in a series of sordid machinations to try to conjure up reality, or rather unreality, in regard to the resignations of seven Liberal Party Ministers. Let me be even more direct in regard to the people opposite and the question of resignations associated with royal commissions. We can see what sort of seriousness should be attached to these people who purport to come in here and talk in terms of principle. I remind honourable members that just under 12 months ago we witnessed in this House an exhibition of principle on the part of these people in relation to resignations and royal commissions. Honourable members will remember that on 12 September 1981 letters patent were issued by the previous Government to Mr Justice Woodward. I remind the House that those letters required Mr Justice Woodward to inquire into: (a) Whether administrative arrangements and procedures for the supervision of the handling of meat for export are adequate to ensure that all meat exported from Australia meets the requirements prescribed by law; (b) Whether malpractices are occurring, or have occurred, in the handling of meat for export or the exportation of meat; (c) Allegations made, whether in public or to a Minister, department or authority of the Commonwealth, of malpractices alleged to have occurred during the past ten years, in the handling of meat for export or in the exportation of meat; (d) Whether such allegations were dealt with in a manner that was adequate and effective; (e) Whether in response to such allegations, any illegality or corruption occurred. Those letters patent were issued on 12 September 1981. The matter came on for debate after the handing down of the report of the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry in this House on 21 September 1982. We will see just what were the principles and commitments of honourable members opposite in regard to what should happen with resignations and the relationship of those resignations to a royal commission when they had to deal with such a matter 12 months ago. When honourable members analyse just what they did on 21 September of last year they will see, for what it is worth, that the statement by the Leader of the Opposition is hypocrisy at its worst. When the report of the Royal Commission was tabled in this House the then Minister for Primary Industry, on the basis of the report, offered his resignation to the Prime Minister of the time. But the Prime Minister refused to accept the resignation of the Minister for Primary Industry. The previous Government appointed a royal commissioner to investigate those matters. On the basis of the report of the Royal Commission the Minister for Primary Industry felt compelled to proffer his resignation to the then Prime Minister. All Opposition members who served under that Prime Minister-some, of course, with self-imposed interruptions which were conveniently brought to an end-accepted that the proper course of action and adherence to principle required certain things to happen. Firstly, a royal commission was appointed to examine those matters, secondly, on the basis of the report of the Royal Commission, the Minister who was under investigation felt impelled to tender his resignation, thirdly, the previous Government refused to accept his resignation and the then Prime Minister, with the total support of members of the previous government in this House, set about traducing the Royal Commissioner whom he had appointed. I remind honourable members opposite what the then Leader of the Opposition, the present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), felt properly impelled to say, in terms of the totally unprincipled action followed by the previous Government. Having heard the despicable performance of the then Prime Minister, who was backed entirely by members of his government, the then Leader of the Opposition stated: The behaviour of the Prime Minister today destroys the tradition of independent service on royal commissions. Anyone in this House who had any respect for proper procedures was absolutely appalled by the lack of principle demonstrated by the previous Government. It appointed a royal commissioner who brought down his report. The Minister tendered his resignation, but it was not accepted and the Prime Minister of the day-- Mr Katter —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I refer you to Standing Order 401, which states: The suspension of standing orders is limited in its operation to the particular purpose for which such suspension has been sought. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The suspension of Standing Orders was for the purpose of carrying a certain motion, which requested the Prime Minister to make a statement. That motion was carried and the Prime Minister is making his statement. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, I can understand the concern of honourable members opposite at the exposure of the hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition and all Opposition members who supported him. The present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), in his capacity as the then shadow Minister for Primary Industry, made a very proper observation on 21 September last year, which appears at page 1675 of Hansard. In respect of the proceedings of that day he stated: It shows that the offered resignation of the Minister for Primary Industry was a sham. Obviously when he went to the Prime Minister or discussions were held they said: 'Here is the problem; what is the best way to get out of it? Mr Speaker, let us put interjections to one side and examine how clean are the hands of the Leader of the Opposition and every honourable member opposite in respect of the question of resignations being offered in the context of a royal commission. We can judge the principles which were applied by them less than 12 months ago. In September 1982, they followed principles which were totally unacceptable. I repeat what they said: 'We will appoint a royal commissioner'. Having appointed him, they got a report. In the light of the actions which he had undertaken and which were investigated and reported upon by the Royal Commission, the then Minister for Primary Industry said: 'I must tender my resignation'. He tendered it. And what did members opposite do? They rejected the resignation of the Minister. Not content with rejecting the resignation, they then embarked in this House on a course of action which had never before been embarked upon in the history of this Parliament. The then Prime Minister, supported by each and every honourable member sitting still behind him, attacked the Royal Commissioner whom they had appointed. They appointed him; they established the letters patent. They told him what to investigate. He brought down his report and the report was such a damning indictment that the then Minister for Primary Industry felt impelled to submit his resignation. Members opposite did not accept the resignation which flowed from the report of their own Royal Commission. Not content with that, they then took to Mr Justice Woodward, the Royal Commissioner whom they had appointed, and traduced him and accused him of being selective in regard to the evidence with which he had dealt . They said that he had used half the Kelly report to sustain the conclusions of the Royal Commission. They said that he deliberately left out the other half of the Kelly report. That is what members opposite do in respect of royal commissions. Those are their standards in respect of resignations. Less than 12 months ago they followed a course of action unprecedented in the history of this Parliament by which they made a mockery of the concept of ministerial responsibility. Their own Minister felt impelled to resign as a result of their own Royal Commission. They would not accept that and they then set about attacking the Royal Commissioner. Mr Speaker, I ask you to contrast what happened then with what happened on this occasion. On this occasion the Royal Commission was not finished. The honourable member for Port Adelaide did not say : 'I am going to wait now until the report of the Royal Commission'. He came to me and he submitted his resignation; and it was accepted. Mr Groom —What if he had not come to you? Mr HAWKE —There is no point in honourable members opposite, in their desperation , asking: 'What if he had not come to you?' The fact is that the honourable member for Port Adelaide did come to me. He came to me and submitted his resignation, and it was accepted. Mr Lusher —He misled you! He misled the House! Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Hume. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —It obviously hurts because the contrast is absolutely stark. As distinct from the then Government's miserable performance in September 1982, this Minister did not go to his Prime Minister and say: 'Let us see how we can get out of this. I will put in a sham resignation'. He did not do anything of the sort. Without even waiting until the Royal Commission finished, he said: 'I put my resignation in now'; and it was accepted. In that context, and because his action is involved in the consideration of the Royal Commission, it was regarded as reasonable for this Party and this Government to decide that no further action would be taken in regard to filling that vacancy until the report of the Royal Commission came down. But I tell honourable members opposite this: The course of action followed by this Government and by the honourable member for Port Adelaide is the opposite of what they did less than 12 months ago when they concocted a sham resignation, accepted the rejection of that resignation by the Prime Minister and then embarked upon a totally unprincipled attack upon the Royal Commissioner whom they had appointed. Our course of action was principled. The honourable member for Adelaide had acted improperly. He had acted without authorisation. He recognised that and he came to the Prime Minister. We did not confect some sham resignation. The resignation was put clearly and it was accepted. He is not a Minister now. As distinct from what honourable members opposite did less than 12 months ago, we will wait until the report of the Royal Commission comes down. This matter will then be dealt with in the light of that report. But honourable members opposite will not find this Prime Minister acting as their Prime Minister acted less than 12 months ago when he attacked in this House the royal commissioner that his Government had appointed. That has never happened before in the history of this country. That instance was the exception. It happened under the previous Prime Minister whom the Leader of the Opposition does not now exactly regard as a helpmate in his present crisis. Nevertheless, the course of action that was followed by the honourable member for Port Adelaide can be distinctly contrasted with the action of the previous Minister for Primary Industry. My action as Prime Minister can be contrasted with the action of the previous Prime Minister when, with the total support of honourable members opposite, he rejected the resignation of the then Minister for Primary Industry, submitted on the basis of the Royal Commissioner's report about the matters involving whether that Minister should retain his portfolio. I repeat that the honourable member for Port Adelaide has made no attempt to disguise the fact that he acted improperly in this matter. He told me that and he has given evidence on oath to the Royal Commission in respect of what happened. He recognised on 14 July that the action he had taken in April warranted his resignation and, manfully, he submitted that resignation. It was accepted and he does not now occupy a position in the Ministry. The position that he occupied is now being filled by the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley). Honourable members opposite know that under the requirements of the relevant legislation there do not have to be more than 27 Ministers. When they were in office they had a Minister occupying and discharging the duties of more than one portfolio. There is not the beginning of a suggestion that the responsibilities of government are not being properly discharged by the Minister for Aviation in his dual capacity of Minister for Aviation and Special Minister of State. The needs of this country and the responsibility of government are being properly discharged. The actions of the honourable member for Port Adelaide are a subject of investigation by the Royal Commissioner. We understand that he will be reporting within a relatively short time. When the report of the Royal Commissioner is brought down it will be examined by me, by members of the Cabinet and by all members of Caucus. The former Minister has clearly indicated that he acted improperly. He is already serving punishment by not being a Minister. He is serving his punishment . The question of how long that has to go on, particularly in the light of what the Royal Commissioner has to say, will be properly considered by the Government and by all members of Caucus. I ask you, Mr Speaker, and all honourable members to contrast the action of this Minister with that of the Minister in the previous Government, the action of this Prime Minister with the action of the previous Prime Minister, and the treatment of the present Royal Commissioner by this Government with the treatment of the Royal Commissioner appointed by the previous Government. Honourable members opposite traduced him in this House. On all bases of comparison the honourable member for Port Adelaide has acted infinitely more honourably than did the other Minister concerned. I as Prime Minister have acted infinitely more properly than did the previous Prime Minister who refused, with the support of all honourable members opposite, to accept his Minister's resignation and who then attacked the Royal Commissioner. At each point of comparison the actions of the ex-Minister, of me as Prime Minister and of this Government show out in stark contrast against the total impropriety of what was done by the previous Government. I conclude my remarks in respect of this temporary Leader of the Opposition by suggesting that what happened yesterday was indicative of the sort of thing that will happen to him. So desperate is he to get some recognition that he and the Leader of the National Party were observed bobbing around on camels opposite Parliament House. The Leader of the Opposition is really battling when he needs publicity so badly that he is seen bobbing on the back of a camel. I understand that when he descended from the back of the camel the lovely Gucci shoes descended into something less salubrious. What we have witnessed today from the Leader of the Opposition and those who sit behind him in this House demonstrates why they are destined to sit for such a long period on that side of the House. For the last decade they have debased the coinage of Australian politics. They have mouthed piously their adherence to the concepts of law and order and of principle. Every action they have undertaken in the last decade has made a mockery of standards of decency and of principle. On every occasion they have been hypocritical in respect of this so- called adherence to law and order. They were hypocritical during the period from 1972 to 1975 and when they were in office from 1976 to 1983. While they mouthed adherence to law and order, every relevant action made a mockery of it. As I have said, they were in respect of the situation with the Royal Commission last year. They were in respect of the so-called resignation of their Minister. They were in respect of the so-called independent Royal Commission they established. When this matter comes to its finality when the report of the Royal Commissioner is brought down, including his recommendation on the matter of the honourable member for Port Adelaide, for the first time this House will have a full opportunity of examining every aspect of this whole issue of the Royal Commission, including the actions of the honourable member for Port Adelaide, the actions of the Leader of the Opposition and the actions of the Leader of the National Party. I indicate to this House that at that time-when that report is considered-the fullest opportunity will be provided to the House for the fullest debate on every aspect of this matter. In the light of that report this Government will also take final action in respect of the matters concerning the honourable member for Port Adelaide. I conclude, as I began, by saying that I will not stand idly by and see the honourable member for Port Adelaide traduced in this debate as though he has not made a fine contribution to the Government of this country, the business of this country and the welfare of the people of Australia. He has made such a contribution. He made a grievous mistake for which he resigned and for which I accepted his resignation. I believe that it is the hope not only of the people on this side of the House but the majority of the people of Australia that when he has served an appropriate period of penance-or whatever one wants to call it- for the inappropriate action that he followed, at some later appropriate stage the people of Australia will once again be able to have the value of his services in government. Mr SPEAKER —I have to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Tyronne Fernando, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. On behalf of the House, I extend to Mr Fernando a warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr Anthony-Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement. Mr Lionel Bowen-Leave is refused. Mr SPEAKER —Leave is refused. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) Expresses its deep concern and sympathy following the tragic assassination of former Senator Benigno Aquino of the Philippines, and (2) Requests that this expression of concern and sympathy be conveyed to the President, the Government and the people of the Philippines. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates Robert de Castella for his magnificent win in the marathon at the Helsinki World Athletics Championship and (2) notes that Mr de Castella, a product of the Australian Institute of Sport, is now recognised as the greatest marathon runner the world has ever produced, and (3) notes with gratitude the sterling service that Mr Don Talbot the retiring Director of the Australian Institute of Sport has given to that organisation since its inception. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Government for- (1) its divisive action in commencing proceedings in the High Court of Australia against the State of Tasmania; (2) the serious damage it has caused to the balance of powers in the Federation , and (3) its persistent endeavours to forcibly impose centralism on the people of Australia Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) commends the Government for its initiatives in the housing industry; (2) recognises the role played by industry unions and government in the development of housing policy; (3) takes note of the marked improvements in the housing industry consequent upon announcement of the Minister for Housing and Construction in July 1983; and (4) urges price and wage restraint upon industry and unions in the interests of the whole community. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the- (a) use of cash payments as a method of avoiding the payment of income tax, and (b) hasty introduction of the administrative procedures which are causing disruption in all- Dr Klugman-This was done a year ago. Mr Leo McLeay-This is a terrible attack on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the House to come to order. Dr Klugman-This is utter hypocrisy. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Prospect. There is a requirement that notices of motion do not contain argument. To assess whether that is the case, the Speaker must be able to hear them. So far I have heard very little of the notice of motion of the honourable member for Mitchell. I ask him to repeat his notice of motion. Mr CADMAN —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I give notice that, on the next day of sitting , I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the- (a) use of cash payments as a method of avoiding the payment of income tax, and (b) hasty introduction of the administrative procedures which are causing disruption in all affected industries; (2) states its apprehension that the measures will encourage tax avoidance; (3) expresses its- (a) belief that the withholding tax seriously interferes with normal relationships between contractors and clients, and (b) grave concern regarding the Government's intention to proceed with the withholding tax, and (4) calls on the Government to exercise some restraint and to postpone the commencement date of 1 September. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates the Howard Florey Institute of Experimental Physiology and Medicine for organising a 2 day conference on the development of the biochip; (2) notes that the biochip could revolutionise medicine and computers; and (3) calls on the Federal Government to provide sufficient research funds for continuing Australian development of this exciting and awesome new project. Mr GROOM(Braddon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) notes that- (a) 24 weeks have now passed since the Federal Election, and (b) during that period the Prime Minister has visited the mainland States of Australia and has also toured Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, the United Kingdom, France, the United States, Canada and Honolulu in Hawaii but has so far failed to make even one visit to Tasmania, one of the original States in the Commonwealth of Australia, and (2) condemns the Prime Minister for forgetting Tasmania and for continuing to ignore the feelings and the views of the people of that State. Mr Wells proceeding to give a notice of motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The notice of motion is out of order. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Prime Minister and the Government for (1) their attempts to renege on their commitment to provide just and adequate compensation to the State of Tasmania; and (2) preventing construction of the Gordon below Franklin Power Scheme. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) strongly condemns the brutal killing of Philippines Opposition leader, Benigno Aquino; (2) requests an international inquiry into the circumstances of the assassination of Mr Aquino; and (3) calls for free and democratic elections in the Philippines within 6 months. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Income Tax Regulations (Amendment) as contained in Statutory Rules 1983, No. 111, made under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 be disallowed on the grounds that the problems and equity of implementation should be examined by a committee of the Parliament. Mr SPEAKER —For the information of honourable members, I present the resolutions adopted at the meetings of the Australian Constitutional Convention held in Adelaide from 26 April to 29 April 1983. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 7 of the Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations Act 1976, I present a report prepared by the Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations on the provision of services for the aged: A Report on Relations among Governments in Australia. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, together with the report that Mr Justice Stewart forwarded to the Government of New Zealand. These reports were made available to honourable members during the recess. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 314 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, I present the 1981-82 annual report on the operations of the Act. The report was made available to honourable members during the recess. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 9 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, I present a report prepared by the Human Rights Commission on testamentary guardianship in the Australian Capital Territory. The report was made available to honourable members during the recess . Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report on legal aid cost comparison salaried and private lawyers prepared by the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council. The report was made available to honourable members during the adjournment. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report of the inquiry concerning the Deputy Crown Solicitor's Office, Perth. The report was made available to honourable members during the adjournment. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Commonwealth Schools Commission 1982 annual report. The report was made available to honourable members during the adjournment. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction) —For the information of honourable members, I present volumes 1 and 3 of the proceedings of the National Economic Summit Conference. These volumes were made available to honourable members during the adjournment. Honourable members will recall that volume 2 of the proceedings was tabled on 21 April 1983. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services) —For the information of honourable members, I present Industries Assistance Commission reports on the following matters: The sugar industry; dairy industry-extension of underwriting for 1983-84 season; gelatin (developing country preferences); rural adjustment; power transformers ( developing country preferences); sodium and potassium alkylzanthes (developing country preferences); non-electrical absorption type refrigerators and freezers and parts; certain iron and steel products and certain alloy steel products; and Australian abattoir and meat processing industry. These reports were made available to honourable members during the adjournment. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Service) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Industries Assistance Commission report on grain harvesters. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 30B (2) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973, I present reports on the following matters by the Temporary Assistance Authority: Agricultural wheeled tractors; injection moulding machines and parts; certain ceramic floor and wall tiles; and fluorescent and filament lamps. These reports were also made available to honourable members during the adjourment. Report and Ministerial Statement Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of honourable members, I table a report entitled 'Review of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme'. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Mr DAWKINS —I thank the House. This report was prepared by Mr O. F. Roach, who was then a partner in the firm of consulting actuaries, E. S. Knight & Co. It was provided to the previous Government just before the general election. Mr Roach was asked to compare the advantages and/or disadvantages of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme with those of other schemes available for comparable staff in the private sector and for State public servants. This was a formidable task, because the diversity of arrangements throughout Australia makes it difficult to draw meaningful comparisons between schemes. Moreover, as the report points out, superannuation benefits are part only of the total conditions of employment and the only satisfactory comparison would be one based on the value of all such conditions. This was, of course, beyond Mr Roach's terms of reference. As I mentioned in my Press release on 11 July 1983, when my predecessor, Senator the Hon. Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, brought Mr Roach's report to my attention shortly after the election, she said she had not planned to release the report. Some weeks before my 11 July Press release I passed a copy of the report to the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. During the parliamentary recess, I circulated copies of the report to all members and senators; copies can also be purchased from the Australian Government Publishing Service bookshops. The report complements other information on the Commonwealth superannuation scheme which is available to the Parliament and the community, including a report recently prepared by Mr J. R. Ford, the Australian Government Actuary, on the long term costs of the scheme and the comprehensive annual reports prepared by the Commissioner for Superannuation and the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. The Commonwealth has provided superannuation benefits to its employees since 1922. The present scheme, which was introduced by the previous Government in 1976, is the largest occupational superannuation scheme in Australia. The explanatory memorandum to the Superannuation Bill 1976 contained actuarial estimates showing that the cost of the new arrangements, as measured by the new entrant employer contribution rate, was expected to be similar to that of the previous scheme. This assessment has been confirmed by Mr Ford's report in the light of his review of the overall experience of the early years of the new scheme. In a separate exercise however, Mr Ford has identified substantial differences in the employer contribution rate attributable to individual authorities whose employees are members of the scheme. These differences reflect the particular circumstances of authorities, including substantial variations in their experience in relation to invalidity retirements. The fact that there are large differences between authorities in the assessed cost of providing identical benefits underlines the need for examination of the level and form of benefits provided in any comparison of occupational superannuation schemes. Mr Roach compares the Commonwealth scheme with other schemes from this standpoint. He describes the principal form of benefit provided under the scheme -that is, an indexed pension-as an 'ideal' form of benefit, but notes that the provision of benefits in pension form is a disadvantage when lump sum recipients are able to reduce the income tax payable and maximise their social security benefits. These comments were, of course, made before the Government's announcement of major measures affecting the taxation of lump sum benefits and other initiatives relating to retirement incomes. We are committed to an ongoing program of reform in this area, including ensuring that superannuation benefits in the Commonwealth's own area of employment are consistent with our broader policies, and that greater opportunities are available to private sector employees to gain access to the secure and regular retirement incomes which Australian governments provide to their retired employees. That is the objective of the important changes we have under consideration to enable annuities to be provided on more attractive terms than at present. In developing further initiatives in relation to retirement incomes, the Government will have available to it a wide range of information and advice, including the studies by Mr Roach and Mr Ford, the report of the Commonwealth Task Force on Occupational Superannuation and the advice of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Confederation of Australian Industry and Government officials working group on superannuation matters. Mr MOORE(Ryan) —by leave-The statement just made by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) is extremely general and relates to a report which I believe to be very significant in the area of superannuation. All honourable members would be aware that considerable debate is going on within the community about government proposals in this area. The report commissioned from E. S. Knight and Co., very imminent actuaries, certainly points to a very large area of inquiry. This can only underline to honourable members the concern that the general public would have at the way in which superannuation payments are made by the state as opposed to the private sector. There is no doubt that the large, unfunded commitments of the Public Service superannuation scheme will increasingly place a very significant load on the annual Budget figures. If one looks through the areas that this report covers, one will see, in terms of quantitative issues, coverage employer's contributions, pension or lump sum; on qualitative issues, the benefits derived from that, such as resignation benefits, special arrangements and, most importantly, funding. All of these matters are raised in this report. I can well understand that many people who view this report would seek to push it to one side or certainly not elaborate on it. I hope that those who are concerned will read the report and make inquiries from the private sector as to the comparisons between the two schemes that are offered. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 1982-83 Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 1982-83 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1982-83 Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1983 Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill 1983 Income Tax (Individuals) Amendment Bill 1983 Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill 1983 Income Tax (Payments for Work) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Amendment Bill 1983 Income Tax Assessment Amendment (No. 2) Bill 1983 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1983 Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1983 Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1983 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1983 Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1983 Supply Bill (No. 1) 1983-84 Supply Bill (No. 2) 1983-84 Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1983-84 Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill 1983 Christmas Island Agreement Amendment Bill 1983 National Health Amendment Bill 1983 Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1983 Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1983 Broadcasting and Television Amendment (Election Blackout) Bill 1983 Economic Planning Advisory Council Bill 1983 Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill 1983 Community Employment Bill 1983 Message received from the Senate agreeing to the amendments made by the House of Representatives to the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1983. Assent to the following Bills reported: Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill 1983 Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 1982-83 Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 1982-83 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1982-83 Bounty (Room Air Conditioners) Bill 1983 Bounty (Steel Products) Bill 1983 Taxation (Interest on Overpayments) Bill 1983 Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1983 Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill 1983 Income Tax (Individuals) Amendment Bill 1983 Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill 1983 Income Tax (Payments for Work) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 Customs Amendment Bill 1983 Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1983 Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill 1983 Supply Bill (No. 1) 1983-84 Supply Bill (No. 2) 1983-84 Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1983 Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 Economic Planning Advisory Council Bill 1983 Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1983 Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1983-84 Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1983 Christmas Island Agreement Amendment Bill 1983 States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Amendment Bill 1983 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1983 Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1983 Community Employment Bill 1983 National Health Amendment Bill 1983 Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 Broadcasting and Television Amendment (Election Blackout) Bill 1983 Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill 1983 Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1983 Navigation (Protection of the Sea) Amendment Bill 1983 Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Bill 1983 Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr Deputy SPEAKER (Hon. Les Johnson)-Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: That this House condemns the Government for the uncertainties created in our major international relationships. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr MACKELLAR(Warringah)(4.07) —During the parliamentary recess, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) made a number of major overseas visits. I would have thought that as a courtesy to this House notice would have been given by now by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of his intention to inform the House on the purpose and outcome of these visits. The Prime Minister, in his first major visit overseas, gave a high priority to the importance of Australia's relationship with the United States of America and the central role the ANZUS treaty plays in that relationship. His whole approach seemed both reassuring and positive, but it is clear that the Prime Minister's apparent emphasis was not shared by a major and an influential section of his own party. I need point out only that this section is led by the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party which is dominated by the socialist Left faction for that statement of mine to become apparent. The significant thing about this faction is the prominence it gives to a foreign policy perspective which takes a very friendly view of the Soviet Union and a consequently negative and destructive view of those policies which frustrate Soviet designs. But the fact remains that that faction represents a significant section of the party and a great deal of effort has to be put into satisfying its complaints. Foreign policy formulation of this Labor Government has, therefore, been the victim of this internal dispute. The Foreign Minister has tended to reflect the qualifications in the Government 's internal position. In this process he has given the impression that the Prime Minister's remarks needed to be discounted. The Prime Minister gave unqualified support for ANZUS. The Foreign Minister, on the other hand, set out with a mission to review ANZUS. The Foreign Minister's remarks conjure up a number of anti-United States phobias. He says that we must be wary of over-reliance on the relationship with the United States. These comments and other comments have been accompanied by a whole series of background briefings. Tensions between the Foreign Minister and the Secretary of State for the United States of America, Mr Shultz, were being dramatised in the Press and were said to proceed from Mr Shultz's concern about an apparent downgrading of ANZUS by Australia and this Labor Government. The Australian Foreign Minister is reported to have said that Australian foreign policy tended to rely exclusively on great power relations. That would be a sensible observation if it happened to be true. But the truth is that it is a fiction to describe Australian foreign policy of the 1970s and 1980s in those terms. The Fraser Government's emphasis on relations with the Commonwealth, the Third World and the Pacific give the correction to this proposition. It is blurring a very important issue. The issue of Australia's security is one which has to be defined in the context of great power moves in the Indian Ocean, South East Asia and the Pacific. The Soviet Union, contrary to the view of the socialist Left, is not benign in its foreign policy. It is purposeful and opportunistically aggressive. Its major objective is to embarrass and reduce the strength and capability of the United States, whether the region be Europe, the Middle East, Asia or the Pacific. That is the critical and central fact of foreign affairs. The role of any government interested in the fundamental security of Australia is to ensure that that fact is not obscured. It may sound a truism but it is also a fact that the world is a dangerous place . In the last year we have seen the Soviets insist on the military subjugation of the Polish people, who seek a full expression of an independent, Christian culture. We have seen the Soviets conduct a cruel war against the Moslem people of Afghanistan. In South East Asia, its surrogate, North Vietnam, has continued to suppress the Buddhist peoples of Laos and Cambodia. For what end does the Soviet Union produce these crimes against the legitimate aspirations of people who wish no harm to their neighbours? The simple aim is a strategic one-to control and subjugate territories to which the Soviets have no entitlement. Clearly, Australia cannot afford to take a complacent view of the movement of Soviet power and influence in its region. It is, therefore, mandatory in the face of such dangers to maintain a positive and constructive relationship with the United States. The Prime Minister, for his part, appears to recognise this clearly enough. It is a dubious development to introduce the notion which sees a competition between our relations with the United States and South East Asia. Australian interests in South East Asia are considerably bound up with the success of the Association of South East Asian Nations, which of course is a great force of stability in the region. Our relations with ASEAN and the United States are brought together in the consultations that take place between ASEAN and its dialogue partners. ASEAN has its own active diplomacy with the United States. But it would be most concerned if Australia were to downgrade the role of the United States in world affairs. On this side of the House, we see the continuing need for a mature, sensible and constructive relationship with ASEAN and the United States. But it is not practicable to conduct that relationship in terms which pick up differences and explode them into a prominence which serves only the interests of our enemies. ASEAN countries are frankly disturbed at the current state of relations with Australia. I have that at first hand from my recent visit to one of the ASEAN states. The priority given to Vietnam and the somewhat naive interpretation of Vietnamese intentions implied in this emphasis are extremely worrying to ASEAN. Since ASEAN's interception in 1967 there has not been any shadow of genuine doubt cast over our security relations with ASEAN members. In its early days there was no explicit projection of the common security interests of ASEAN as a group. But Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia has changed things considerably. In addition to defence co-operation arrangements with individual members it was never anticipated that an Australian government would not be supportive of ASEAN strategic priorities. This operative assumption of ASEAN is fundamental for us and for it. Uncertainty, however, now afflicts the ASEAN-Australian relationship . We have to realise that the efforts of the Foreign Minister may not be sufficient to avoid the inherent dangers of these sustained uncertainties which still remain even though the visit to Hanoi is now over. Thus we, as a nation, are faced with a serious diplomatic problem. Let us look more closely at Vietnam's candidature for conciliation. It has one of the largest armies in the world. It is backed by massive Soviet aid. It has a defence treaty with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has access to a major naval facility and airfields. Vietnam insists on dominating Cambodia and Laos. It is run by a small pro-Soviet clique of which one of the great strongmen is Le Duan, the Secretary-General. I think it is worth remembering that Le Duan always advocated the successful military strategy-the regular force strategy-which won the final victory. He seems to be unwaveringly pro-Soviet. One must then ask: What has led the Government to believe that Australians should put any trust in Hanoi to the extent of discounting the views of ASEAN and the United States in particular? What factual assessment is the Government using for a policy which puts at risk the confidence of out friends, our neighbours and our allies? I would like the Foreign Minister in his reply to detail those assessments and, if possible, make them available so that we will see what basis there is for this sudden change in policy which has characterised this new Labor socialist Government. The Foreign Minister paid a visit to Japan. Whilst he was there he chose to raise the spectres of international fears about Japan's defence expenditures. Clearly, this misrepresents what is happening. The Japanese have a vital interest in their self-defence in a region which is under pressure from the Soviet Union directly. The Japanese have undertaken to increase their self- defence capability-I underline the words 'self-defence'-in consultation with the United States. Clearly, the defence of Japan, a prodigious industrial power, is a fundamental and major strategic issue. Japan can greatly assist by maintaining a high quality capability for her self-defence forces. It is unreasonable and dangerous to misrepresent what is being done and to warn Japan in gratuitous terms about its self-defence concerns. The United States fundamentally has to guarantee the security of the region. But it has other major commitments, for example, in the Middle East. Australia and Japan derive a primary benefit from the exercise of American influence and power in the Middle East. Is it reasonable to let fly with remarks which can only be interpreted as questioning publicly the decisions arising from American and Japanese consultations? So far as the public record is concerned, we have a reporting of the Foreign Minister's concerns which are not argued or substantiated, nor are they placed in any context of strategic argument. Here again I ask the Foreign Minister whether in the future he could make available the strategic assessments and foreign policy advice which, hopefully, is the background to these seemingly off the cuff remarks that emanate from him. The headline 'Hayden ''No'' to Japan Forces' has appeared. Are we not obliged to enter such issues with a more careful approach? Is the Parliament not entitled to have the Government's considered views, or are they not considered views? Is Japan not entitled to the consideration that her vital interests are not to be lightly viewed or assessed by an Australian government? When the Prime Minister returned he was faced by rumblings in his own party. Because of the influence of the socialist Left one newspaper predicted that the Prime Minister would not find it easy to still the rumblings in the lower echelons of the party. But the Foreign Minister, for his part, has chosen to offset the strengths of the Prime Minister's statements by a series of statements calculated to depreciate our relations with ASEAN, the United States and even Japan. In all this there is a failure to address the main currents of strategic thought. The factor of the Soviet Union has been obscured by an obsessive concern about the need for adjustments in the policies operating with our friends. I regard it as a strange twist. In this context I should mention that strains have been introduced into our relations with Indonesia over Timor; differences with China over Vietnam; resource diplomacy has been used against France and our Indian Ocean policy is to be subjected to more instant rethink-not a bad record for five and a half months in government, and one of considerable concern not only to the people in Australia but also to people overseas. My friend the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) will be detailing more of these arguments. If continued, these policies will lead to a puzzlement about Australia's motives and intentions. This in turn will have a negative international effect. It will in fact produce a cynical view of Australia internationally. The Opposition believes that the Government has a duty to make a more systematic and considered outline of its foreign policy and, in that process, remove the uncertainties which are clearly evident in the current naive, inconsistent and confused presentations made by a number of spokesmen for this Labor socialist Government. MR HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(4.22) —I respond as a dedicated socialist and, of course, a member of this democratic socialist Government; but first some pleasantries. I note that the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) has returned to the Parliament after the recess with an injured arm. I trust that it heals rapidly. I trust also that it is not the only part of his body that became disabled or injured in some way during the recess. I must confess that during the recess something rather strange happened to his capacity to think in a reasoned and consistent fashion, because this is the most extraordinary presentation I have heard for many years in Parliament. We limped through the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), and the ANZUS alliance. We picked up the socialist left of Victoria as we went by. Then we heard some quotations of recent vintage attributed to me which I have never heard before. But why worry about accuracy; a good story is more important. Then somehow we got into Poland with an amazing double backflip, condemning the Soviets. We then fell out of that, perhaps flat on our faces, which a side twist into South East Asia, the Association of South East Asian Nations and competition with the United States of America. As if the vagueness and irrelevancy of this meander were not enough, we suddenly found Vietnam being dragged in along with Japan and the Middle East. This mishmash, presented to the national Parliament, is supposed to represent the distilled wisdom of the Opposition on the issues of foreign affairs. The honourable member for Warringah had all the facilities which I could make available to him as Foreign Minister to support and facilitate a recent extended visit overseas. One rather hoped that as a consequence of that-of those experiences, reflected judgments, weighing up, conversations, the people he met and the points of view put to him-in the context of the national interests of this country, a very mature, measured and reasoned presentation would have been made to this Parliament. But what do we get? We get a sailor's stumble as he goes from one saloon bar door looking for the next. That is not the way to handle foreign policy. It is quite extraordinary for him to try to berate my views as presented recently in association with and at the ANZUS Council meeting and then make some sort of strange, sinister linkage with the socialist left in Victoria-as though it is a sinister body-and to draw from that the massive and heroic conclusion that what I was really aiming at was to discount the role of the Prime Minister and undermine the Americans. All I have to say is that if the honourable member finds that I am on the same platform in terms of values and views expressed on this matter as the socialist left of Victoria let me tell him this: We are on the same platform as George Shultz, Secretary of State of the United States of America. It must be a big platform; to have George Shultz on one end and the socialist left of Victoria on the other in happy harmony. Let me tell honourable members what was decided in the communique in Washington and agreed to by all of us-Mr Cooper, the Foreign Minister of New Zealand, George Shultz and me. The communique states: The Council members affirm that the alliance is firmly based- there is no dispute about it- on the partners' common traditions and concern to protect democratic values. They value highly the co-operative defense arrangements, facilitated by the Treaty since its conclusion, which have served their Government's mutual security interests and promoted a strengthening of each other's defense capabilities. On a much more generous plane than the honourable member is able to muster, let me say that it is my belief that allowing for the edges of disagreement which are justifiable in a society such as ours where there are healthy differences in points of view, there has nonetheless been a fairly substantial amount of bipartisan support for the sorts of views being presented on many of these issues. The honourable member for Warringah sought to convey the impression that I was suggesting that because, allegedly, we cannot count on the United States in all of these matters we should beware of too much dependence on the United States. I think that was roughly the quotation he attributed to me, saying that by implication perhaps there was some lack of patriotism there, if not something downright worse. I remind him of what his former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, said on May 28 last year: You can never automatically anticipate assistance. Nations will always read treaties in terms of the circumstances of the time, in terms of the relationship between the countries at the time; in our case, between the United States, Australia and New Zealand. I do not believe it has ever been the case that anyone-Britain or the United States-would automatically come to Australia's aid, no matter what the circumstances are. I thought at the time that that was a rather sane and balanced statement. I still believe so. But it is obvious that for some purpose of convenience the honourable member for Warringah has another point of view which he seeks to put forward. I do not want to spend any more time on ANZUS, not because it is not important. On the contrary, it is very important. I will be talking about it in the Parliament in a few weeks time when I present a statement on our recent discussions in Washington on this matter. I want to make it unambiguously clear that there is no difference between the Prime Minster and me, or between any members of the Labor Party including me, on this issue. However, we are sensible . We recognise that a statement of fact in a drafted, legal document such as an international treaty must be literally interpreted. What the ANZUS treaty says very simply is that if one of the partners is subjected to threat or attack there will be a response. But, as George Shultz said, in response to a question from me and speaking as Secretary of State at the ANZUS Council meeting in Washington a few weeks ago-I relayed it virtually exactly at the subsequent Press conference in his presence and there was no demur-what ANZUS says is that there will be a response, but it does not necessarily imply that it will be a military response. A range of responses could be forthcoming. In that sense it was highly desirable that I undertook the mission charged of me by the Prime Minister which was to engage in a review of the ANZUS treaty. This review was welcomed by the other signatories. That is clearly and explicitly stated in the communique. Let me move on in this bewildering pilgrimage that the Minister embarked on. Mr MacKellar —Nice to see you anticipating, Bill. Mr HAYDEN —I am sorry. Old habits die hard. I nearly stood to support the honourable member's matter of public importance from force of habit. Mr MacKellar —Did you agree with it? Mr HAYDEN —Not now that we have a good Foreign Minister. The honourable member for Warringah said that he knows unnamed people in South East Asia who whispered to him-goodness knows where because there are some dark places you can get lost in in South East Asia-that the condition of our relationship is not good. I can only tell the honourable member what the record states. He drew the United States and China into this debate. Mr Siddhi, the Foreign Minister for Thailand, stated: As this is an international problem, that is, the matter of initiatives we are taking in relation to the Vietnamese presence in Kampuchea, which we oppose and which we say is something that must be terminated. We have set down principles on this matter. He continued: we have no reservation as for Mr Hayden's trip to Hanoi because we also told Mr Hayden the purpose that we have made thus far. If he can probe further and get more information for us, it would be very useful to our search for peace and a political solution for Kampuchea. So in that case I will say that Mr Hayden has a role to play for us, so we have no reservation for his trip at all. The role that I have enunciated is a very moderate one in its aspirations, aimed at nothing more than helping to facilitate, if possible, some coming together and dialogue. The likelihood of succeeding is very slim and probably non- existent. But that role has been endorsed by the ASEAN countries and by China. When I spoke to the Chinese Premier, Mr Zhao, in China on 5 August, he said: . . . Australia is conducting a dialogue with Vietnam now and I wish you success . He added: I hope the Lord will bless you and that you can persuade Vietnam to change its mind and to change its policy . . . If you succeed, then you have actually performed a meritorious service. He pointed out that as an atheist there were some qualifications in the strength of his latter observation. The ANZUS Communique, at the suggestion of the United States, includes explicitly a welcoming statement in relation to that initiative . It states: The Council Members reaffirmed their conviction that the conflict in Kampuchea should be settled by peaceful means. They support diplomatic efforts which would lead to a comprehensive political solution to the Kampuchean problem. The Council welcomed the efforts of Australian Foreign Minister Hayden to establish common ground in the search for a negotiated settlement. In all the circumstances, no evidence has been produced by the honourable member to substantiate his florid claims, which were perhaps the product of a rush of blood to the head after passing through the equator recently. I have produced evidence to show that there is substantial endorsement for what we are trying to do. In each case, of course, those sources, like us, recognised the difficulty of making much headway and the very high likelihood of failure because of the complex and varied range of interests which must be addressed. I will quickly discuss the issue of Vietnam. It makes no sense, in my assessment, to continue to isolate and punish Vietnam if all that that achieves is to guarantee that the Soviet presence in South East Asia is expanded and entrenched. It is a matter of some concern to me that the evidence we have available shows that there has been a shift of naval surface and sub-surface vessel deployments from the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea. Cam Ranh Bay is the focal point for supporting this shift. Very simply, I say-I am sure listeners will apprehend-that the longer this isolation and punishment continues , the greater the dependence of Vietnam on the Soviets to sustain itself and the greater that dependence becomes and the more extensive becomes the role and the influence of the Soviets in the South East Asian region and, indeed, in East Asia. We do not want to see that outcome occur in any circumstances. There are enough tensions and instabilities in the world arising from super-power and great power competition without having a new and potentially very nasty dimension injected into our area. We respect the views and principles being put forward by our friends and colleagues in China and the ASEAN countries and by our friend and ally the United States. When I visited Vietnam I told Mr Nguyen Co Thach, the Foreign Minister, that in our endeavours it had to be understood that our powerful and valued friend, the United States of America, represented our most important alliance association; that we would in no way allow our friendly relationships with the ASEAN countries and China to be impaired, that we intended to build upon them, and that they were our highest priorities. So there is no misunderstanding about the basis upon which any consultation takes place in this matter. The honourable member managed to loop his way through the Middle East and end up in Japan. I thought he showed an extraordinary effort of adaptability in linking all those places together in a rather inchoate way. In respect of Japan I have said, very simply, that we can understand Japan improving the capabilities of its self-defence force. Its command controlled communications systems need replacement. Some of its ammunition stocks are dated probably suspect in their effectiveness and of a low quantity. Some of its capital equipment has been superseded. There is no quibble about that. I said that it would cause us and other nations in the region concern if there was a dramatic increase in spending, or if the Japanese defence forces were dramatically restructured so that they projected power with an aggressive capability. Again, if Japan sought to have a militarily strategic role in the region, we and other nations would be concerned. It may come as a surprise to the honourable member to discover that the United States finds absolutely no problems at all with our presentation on this matter. The final thing I want to say to the honourable member is this-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(4.37) —It is obvious that very few matters can have as important an influence on the Australian Government's international standing as the decisions and pronouncements of its leaders on foreign policy, on the issues troubling the world. It is these pronouncements that lead other governments to decide whether the Australian Government is responsible or reliable, one with which they can make agreements which will stick and one that can be counted on as an ally in a crisis. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) recognised that when, during his visit to the United States of America, he made what must in fairness be called one of his better speeches on foreign affairs. He stressed his determination that Australia would continue the foreign policy of the previous Liberal-National Party Government; that our alliance with the United States was fundamental; that United States bases in Australia were safe; and that Australia was not, and could not be, a non-aligned nation. The Prime Minister realised the importance of all these statements to Australia's standing and reputation in the United States and the world. But what has happened since is not bipartisan clarity and certainty, but a bewildering confusion which must make foreign governments believe we have one of the more ridiculous, even clownish, governments in the world. I refer, for example, to the Japanese. They witnessed the spectacle earlier this year of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) announcing his extraordinarily inept idea of a joint Australian-Japanese peace keeping force in Kampuchea, despite the fact that it would be against the Japanese Constitution and despite fresh memories of Australia's recent involvement in Indo-China. Not only did the Deputy Prime Minister not bother to consult the Japanese; he did not even consult the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). Headlines in newspapers across the country read: 'Hayden denies knowledge of the Bowen peace plan'. The Deputy Prime Minister was so discomfited by the amazed reaction to his harebrained idea that he stood up in this Parliament and poked out his tongue at the Opposition! To complete his discomfiture, the Foreign Minister, when he was in Japan, took the opportunity not to ask the Japanese army to return to Indo-China, but to criticise moves to increase Japan's extremely low investment in self-defence. The point is that the Japanese must regard the Government as incompetent and will act accordingly in its dealings with us. The Foreign Minister, however, even outdid the Deputy Prime Minister in fantastic unthought-through ideas. He recently pronounced that Australia should have a naval task force patrolling the Indian Ocean which was independent of the United States Navy. Of course, he had not bothered to discuss this idea with the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes), who was plainly embarrassed. The absurdity or , rather, the irony of it is that the Foreign Minister's inspiration followed closely on complaints by the Fleet Commander, Rear-Admiral Michael Hudson, that the Royal Australian Navy would have to consider mothballing some of its ships if its fuel stocks were diminished further in the Budget. Already the RAN had planned a 20 per cent cut in fuel allocation this financial year, which has caused the RAN to scale down its participation in next month's Kangaroo 83 exercises in the north-west. Consideration is being given, the Rear-Admiral said , even to paying off our minesweepers to conserve fuel. He said: 'We have just about reached our bottom line'. Yet the Foreign Minister was about to send a naval task force to Africa, without United States support and without helicopters for anti-submarine patrolling or for over-the-horizon surveillance and missile targeting since none of the RAN's destroyers is fitted with these helicopters. Needless to say, the lack of an aircraft carrier-one of this Government's first decisions was to scrap plans for a carrier-makes any real naval presence in the Indian Ocean ridiculously unsafe. Again the point is that this sort of posturing proposal by the Foreign Minister makes the Australian Government seem irresponsible, even absurd, in the eyes of our neighbours and allies. Let us take another example of the Governments bewildering uncertainty, one to which the Labor Party gives a lot of attention-Central America. The Prime Minister in Washington substantially supported the Reagan policy in Central America. Of course, everyone in this chamber is concerned about violations of human rights in Central America but the fact is that all international observers who were on the spot said that the elections last year in El Salvador were fair and democratic. Let me just refer to the universally-respected Freedom House in New York which sent five observers to the election. Sixty-two per cent of those entitled to vote voted despite threats of murder and mutilation by the guerrillas, and the Christian Democrats, who are well to the left of some members of the Australian Labor Party, got 40 per cent of the vote. This drive to democracy is supplemented by an American-inspired land reform and land redistribution program which so far has been carried out so thoroughly that it is causing reduced agricultural production. So, of course, people concerned to support democracy have to support the Reagan policy and the Prime Minister, to his credit, did so. But what of the other Ministers? The Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) chose a meeting of the Australia-Cuba Friendship Society, of all things, to attack American policy in El Salvador and to urge the Government to extend economic aid to Marxist Nicaragua which is a militarised dictatorship with the largest army in the whole of Central America, which is engaged in genocide against the Miskito Indian population and which fills its gaols with social democrats, dissident communists, Moravian pastors, Jehovah's Witnesses or any opponent of the regime. To round off the tragi-comedy, the Minister for Foreign Affairs used his visit to the United States also to attack the miniscule American military presence in El Salvador which is helping to train the army against the Cuban-backed and Soviet-backed counter-revolutionary guerrillas the Farabundo Marti Front for National Liberation. Again the point is that these public divisions and these uncertainties within the Government's ranks place Australia in an absurd position. Another example is South Africa. Everyone in this Parliament, certainly everyone in the Liberal Party, finds apartheid abhorrent. Now at last the South African Government has taken what must be called a revolutionary move away from apartheid with its proposals for a new constitution replacing the present Parliament by a tricameral legislature, one House elected by the whites, one by the coloureds and one by the Indians. Whatever criticisms we may make of the proposals-and we can make many because, for example, they still exclude the blacks entirely-the fact is that the proposals are truly revolutionary and are obviously a dramatic move away from exclusive white domination. What does the Foreign Minister say of these historic developments? He said in his statement of 5 June that they are 'an exercise in attempted deception'. This is strong and offensive language. The South African proposals are in fact such a 'deception' that they have split the Government and have drastically reduced Government support in three by-elections in South Africa. The world knows this, and the world is watching this development away from apartheid in South Africa. But the Foreign Minister can regard these promising signs of change only as a trick. Once again the point is that the Foreign Minister makes himself look ignorant and foolish and consequently makes Australia look ignorant and foolish in the eyes of the world. There is not time to discuss many other examples such as the Prime Minister's extraordinary new style in foreign policy in France, announcing a major action against France and against French trade just before meeting the French President ; or the Foreign Minister's shuttle diplomacy fiasco in China and Indo-China; or indeed his discourtesy on his visit to South Korea in his attempts to interfere in domestic South Korean politics. There are many other examples. The obvious fact is that far from maintaining a clear, certain and bipartisan foreign policy , as the Prime Minister said his Government would, the Government has created major uncertainties in our international relations and deserves the condemnation contained in this motion. Mr CROSS(Brisbane)(4.46) —It is probably appropriate that very early in this session we should have some mention of foreign affairs because one of the new initiatives of the Hawke Labor Government has been in the area of foreign affairs. This is my first opportunity to acknowledge the very positive role played by the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) when he had this responsibility in the former Fraser coalition Government. I was intrigued by some of the things said in this debate this afternoon. It has been suggested by the Opposition that the foreign policy of the Government, as expressed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and other Ministers , has created uncertainty amongst our friends, in our region, and throughout the world. As a member of the Australian Labor Party, I am very proud of the role which the honourable member for Oxley as Minister for Foreign Affairs has played in developing and explaining foreign policy under the Labor Government. We all understand that a government develops foreign policy not only from decisions made by its party conference but also from an interaction of personalities as Ministers go overseas, study their dispatches and communicate with Ministers and people at all levels in other countries. So foreign policy is determined not only by the written word but also by a real understanding of the problems of the relationships in and the changing spectrum of foreign affairs throughout the world. I am very proud that the honourable member for Oxley has been working so hard at explaining and developing foreign policy for the Labor Government. Officials of his Department and diplomats in Canberra and overseas-I also have recently been overseas-have expressed their appreciation of the energy with which the Minister is carrying out his responsibilities. Mr Hodgman —They like him in Moscow! Mr CROSS —However well-intentioned, hard working, astute or brilliant a person is, he cannot satisfy everybody. I learned a long time ago that in politics if one satisfies somebody occasionally one is doing fairly well. I take up some particular points, some of which were made by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman). They deal with Australian-American relations and a whole range of other areas in which it was suggested that one Minister or another had made a mistake. There are elements in the Labor Party's foreign policy which do not exist in the foreign policies of the coalition. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has made very clear the initiatives he has taken as far as the ANZUS alliance and our relationship with the United States and New Zealand are concerned. Amongst the new initiatives which have been taken and which have been widely welcomed in the Australian community has been the appointment of an Ambassador for Disarmament in order that in the future Australia would not be a mere spectator on the sidelines of the greatest foreign affairs problem that the world faces. Mr Richard Butler has been appointed to that important responsibility. The honourable member for Wentworth criticised, rather carefully I thought, what was allegedly the Minister's interference in the domestic policies of South Korea. He was referring to the Minister's expression of support for the human rights of the Opposition and other people who might be regarded as dissenting groups in South Korea. This is another element of the Labor Party's foreign policy which is at difference with the foreign policy of the coalition. The same problem comes through in our relationship with Indonesia. While I think almost every member of this House-I hope all members of this House-would wish Australia to have a continued firm and friendly relationship with Indonesia, it is obvious that how well that relationship develops in the future depends on the way in which the civil rights of people in East Timor and other places within the Indonesion archipalego develop. That is not something to be sneered at. It is not an interference in the domestic affairs. The people of Australia want to see an Australian government concerned not only with big power relationships but also with very important matters such as disarmament and human rights. I am proud to be a member of a government which once again is making these initiatives. The honourable member for Wentworth said that he was pleased that we had continued to follow the policy-he was referring to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) -of the Liberal and National parties as far as the American alliance was concerned. I wish to go back a little in history to 1942. In February 1942 when John Curtin made that memorable speech in which he called to the people of the United States of America for support in Australia's hour of need he was criticised in this House by members of the coalition because in those days they judged patriotism by the British association and not the American association. It was an Australian labor government that developed the Australian-American alliance. It developed the alliance in a time of war, sought to pursue it in the post-war period when many people felt that America was becoming isolationist again and supported it when the ANZUS treaty was developed. It is interesting that late in 1975 Mr Marshall Green, the most distinguished American Ambassador ever to be appointed to this country, said in the United States to the Foreign Affairs Association that relations between Australia and the United States were better, firmer and more honest under the Australian Labor Government then in office than previously. It is obvious that we are able to explore our own policies in this area and maintain a good relationship with the United States. One would think that the withdrawal of our troops from Vietnam shortly after the election of the Whitlam Government was an outstanding example of that. I wish to take up just a couple of the other points that were made. One related to the expression of concern by the Royal Australian Navy about the cuts in fuel that have reduced its steaming by 20 per cent. I point out that those cuts were made by the previous Fraser coalition Government. The first Budget of the Hawke Labor Government will be introduced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) tonight, so the honourable member for Wentworth was really reflecting on his own Government. I hope that in these difficult times the ambitions of the Foreign Minister for a more active Australian naval presence in the Indian Ocean will be met, but obviously there are serious economic difficulties. I also noticed the comment made on South Africa. In effect, by bringing the Indians and the Cape coloureds into some form of government in South Africa, the South Africans have made very modest progress indeed. They have made progress with every problem apart from the one that counts. That is the significant problem. We wish them well. We are keen, as an Australian Labor Party government, to have a good relationship with every country. But that good relationship is brought about by having clear policies and by personal contact, by giving attention to the wishes of all nations and the particular problems as they arise. I was pleased indeed in my recent very short exercise overseas to learn what I learnt in years gone by-of the great competence of the officials of our Department of Foreign Affairs . I am extremely proud that they are receiving the leadership of the honourable member for Oxley, Bill Hayden, who will go down in history as one of the great Foreign Ministers of this nation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The discussion has concluded. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.56) —I move: Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 3-9 (1983) and Excise Tariff Proposals No. 2 (1983 ). The proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1982 and the Excise Tariff Act 1921. The proposals formally place before Parliament. As required by law. Tariff alterations made by Gazette during the recent recess. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 2 increases the rate of excise duty on motor spirit and diesel fuel by 1c per litre from 1 July 1983 in compliance with section 8 of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act 1983. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 3 operative on and from 17 June 1983 implements the decision taken following a report by the Industries Assistance Commission that gelatin from Brazil be excluded from developing country preference. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 4 contains tariff alterations arising from the Government's decision on recommendations contained in the Industries Assistance Commission report on the Australian tobacco industry. The decision involved the introduction of composite rates of duty, comprising ad valorem and specific duty elements, for certain manufactured tobacco. Proposals No. 4 is operative on and from 24 June 1983. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 5 operates on and from 1 January 1983 and contains two tariff changes. The first change amends the relevant reference in the New Zealand rate Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act to reflect the intention of the superseded New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement that certain leather jackets from New Zealand be granted duty free entry. The second change inserts item 49 in Part I of Schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act. This new item implements the Government's decision to provide duty free entry of certain imports required for approved Australian industry participation programs including defence offsets programs. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 6 operates on and from 1 July 1983 and contains a variety of tariff alterations, the main ones being: The creation of five new tariff items in Part I of Schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act. New items 50 to 54 are necessary for the operation of the Government 's decision to introduce the commercial tariff concession system. An increase of 1c per litre in the surcharge on imported motor spirit and diesel fuel. This change is complementary to the increase proposed in the Excise Tariff Act and is in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act. An amendment of section 27 of the Customs Tariff Act and deletion of section 28 of that Act. Various changes have also been made to items 5 to 10 and item 15 in Part I of Schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act. These measures follow a review of the concessional tariff treatment available to goods imported by non- diplomatic trade commissioners, by international organisations and by visiting servicemen of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada. Proposals No. 6 also contains a number of miscellaneous amendments to specify correctly the duty treatment, the wording or the coverage of various tariff items. Customs Tariff proposals No. 7 contains tariff changes to bring under quota certain footwear having a value of less than $1 per pair. These changes arise from the Government's acceptance of a recommendation by the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Advisory Committee. Proposals No. 7 will operate on and from 1 September 1983 but were gazetted earlier to enable the preparation of tender quota arrangements. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 8 contains tariff changes following the Government 's decision on a Temporary Assistance Authority report on fluorescent and filament lamps. The decision imposes an additional temporary duty of 10 per cent on certain filament lamps. The proposals also incorporates decisions relating to developing county preference for filament and fluorescent lamps and the continued exclusion of Taiwan Province from developing country preference on fluorescent lamps. These changes became operative on and from 13 July 1983. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 9 contains tariff changes relating to the Government's decision in respect of recommendations contained in an IAC report on non-electrical absorption-type refrigerators and freezers and parts. The decision broadens the terms of a tariff sub-item to incorporate non-electrical domestic refrigerators and freezers and parts therefor. The decision makes these goods subject to the rates of duty applicable to electrical refrigerators and freezers and parts therefor. In accordance with arrangements under the closer economic relations agreement the New Zealand rates on non-electrical goods will phase to free on 1 July 1987. Proposals No. 9 also covers decisions taken in relation to IAC reports on sodium and potassium alkylxanthates-developing country preference; and power transformers-developing country preference. The decisions exclude from developing country preference sodium and potassium alkylxanthates from the People's Republic of China and Yugoslavia; and certain power transformers from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan Province. The changes in Proposals No. 9 have operated on and from 5 August 1983. A summary of alterations contained in these proposals has been circulated for the information of honourable members. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Debate resumed from 26 May, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Ombudsman (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1983 as they are related measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these two measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(5.03) —The Ombudsman Amendment Bill 1983 and the Ombudsman ( Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1983 are both supported by the Opposition. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), the then Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, in his second reading speech introduced the first of these two Bills, graciously acknowledged the bipartisan support for the original Ombudsman Act 1976. Further, he acknowledged that the present Bill is substantially the same amendment Bill introduced in September by my colleague the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) on behalf of the former Government. He noted that each Bill largely implemented the recommendations of the Administrative Review Council, a statutory advisory council to government. The Council's views were developed in its working party report 'Jurisdiction of Ombudsman' of 1980. That report was tabled in the Parliament by the honourable member for Farrer on 4 July 1981. The Ombudsman Amendment Bill has two purposes. The first is to create a statutory office of Defence Force Ombudsman to replace the previously non- statutory office and to create and confer that office on the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The second purpose is to make various other amendments to the Act in the light of what is now called operational experience to date. The Ombudsman ( Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill is complementary and makes similar operational amendments to the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981, which Act provided a role for the Ombudsman to investigate complaints made against the Australian Federal Police. It is now six years since the Commonwealth Ombudsman commenced operations. Professor J. E. Richardson has admirably fulfilled that role. In his 1981-82 report he gave details of the way in which members of the public are becoming increasingly aware of the way in which the Ombudsman may be of assistance and have made larger numbers of complaints to him, both written and oral. In addition to public awareness he noted that the increasing involvement of government in people's lives was a contributing factor to his increasing work load. Professor Richardson did not see that growth as an index of dissatisfaction with Commonwealth administration. In fact, the Ombudsman commented favourably on the high level of co-operation received from government departments and authorities, notwithstanding the particular complaints on which he was required to report to Parliament. It is interesting to note at this time and in this debate the willingness of members of parliament to have resort to the Ombudsman in particular cases. The honourable member for Farrer stated last year that on 300 occasions in the five years of operations members had referred complaints to the Ombudsman on behalf of constituents. I well recall participating in debates before entering this House on whether the Scandanavian Ombudsman could fulfil a useful role in our parliamentary and responsible system of government. Like many students of government at that time, I saw this European model as alien to our system in which members should be responsible an accountable to Parliament for all actions of their departments and officials. I can well recall hearing the view that such an intrusion into our system would prejudice the role of members of parliament. The acceptance of the Ombudsman in six short years is best reflected by the statements of the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, in his address of October last year to the Australian Conference of Ombudsmen. He noted that the institution helps government administration to be adaptive, responsible and sensitive to the needs of average Australians. He noted that in his experience he sometimes used the Ombudsman to check the Ombudsman's efficiency against normal departmental inquiries. I am sure that, to officials, that was an interesting race. It is in this context of six years practical experience that these amendments-these reforms-are being proposed in order that the Ombudsman might work more efficiently. I turn now to the Defence Force Ombudsman. The Bill proposes to vest in the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman a statutory office of Defence Force Ombudsman. While the powers are the same, the Defence Force Ombudsman will have jurisdiction to investigate actions arising out of service in the Defence Force. A special office of Deputy Ombudsman (Defence Force) is to be created. This proposal avoids the existence of two ombudsmen with overlapping jurisdiction and should ensure savings in cost. I note from the Minister's address that the only anticipated extra cost is the extra salary of the Deputy Ombudsman of $50,350 per annum. I simply would like to reiterate that servicemen and women do not enjoy complaints mechanisms that other Australians, particularly those in civilian employment, enjoy. It is envisaged that not only current and former servicemen but also their dependants will, if within jurisdiction, be able to lodge complaints under this amending legislation. As the Minister notes, there are some matters which, as with the Commonwealth Ombudsman, are excluded from review . In particular, the conduct of disciplinary proceedings and action relating to the granting or refusal of honours and awards are exempted. For completeness I observe that the Ombudsman's jurisdiction does not lie in the case of a service member unless he has first availed himself of existing internal redress procedures. I would like to note one matter arising from a recent report of the Ombudsman, the report of 1980-81. It is one matter which concerned me and, I have no doubt, other honourable members, and which, I understand, these provisions will have now remedied. I certainly hope that that is so. In that report it was recalled that thieves tampered with naval station mail. The recovered mail was matched with envelopes and later delivered to those personnel to whom it was believed it had been addressed. In one case, naval personnel read a personal letter to one former serviceman and thereby ascertained that he was homosexual. Following a report to officers, the man was called before officers and later resigned from the Service. In reviewing the complaint which the Ombudsman received, the Navy accepted that the mail should not have been handled by Defence personnel but should have been handled by personnel of Australia Post alone, particularly in sorting and addressing it to addressees. However, the substance of the lack of jurisdiction arose when it was ruled that the Ombudsman could not review the later action taken by the Navy leading to the man's resignation, and it also excluded the possibility of the Ombudsman ordering reinstatement. Other provisions in this legislation include those that were developed in the light of operational experience to date. The explanatory memorandum puts them as follows: To provide a statutory basis for the Ombudsman's practice of resolving most complaints with a minimum of formality and resources; to furnish the Ombudsman with additional discretion in taking action after an investigation, and to clarify that he may publish information on a current investigation in some circumstances; to facilitate co-operative investigatory activities involving the Commonwealth Ombudsman and other Australian ombudsmen; to provide for determination by the Federal Court of issues arising concerning the Ombudsman's jurisdiction; and finally, to clarify that the Ombudsman may investigate official actions preceding and succeeding Ministers' actions, and may make informal inquiries to establish his jurisdiction. There are some matters of topical interest which I should like to draw to the attention of honourable members, and they relate to the question of jurisdiction . Firstly, while the Ombudsman's role is extended to the administrations of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island, on one of our other external territories, Norfolk Island, his jurisdiction is removed because of the degree of self-government which has now been granted to that particular territory. Secondly, royal commissions are now to be excluded from the Ombudsman's review. No doubt that will be a matter of topical interest to members on the Government side of the House, in view of suggestions that the Ombudsman might be used in relation to some inquiries of late. The Bill now provides for questions of jurisdiction to be determined by reference to the Federal Court. The Ombudsman's report of 1981-82 noted that in 1981 the Ombudsman experienced two challenges to his jurisdiction, one from the Secretary to the Treasury and the other from the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. The former matter, whilst topical, was resolved after the Ombudsman was able to complete his inquiries on information supplied by the Treasury. The latter case, it was reported, was not resolved but related to the question whether the Ombudsman could investigate what the Australian Broadcasting Commission asserted to be programming autonomy. The difference emerges not from the Ombudsman's right to investigate programming matters but, rather, his claim to investigate complaints about false or misleading information. One would, of course, hope that such matters could be resolved by officials without cost or, if they were not able to do it, with the assistance of Ministers mindful of public expenditure. But now one hopes that, as a last resort, this matter and other like matters will be able to be determined by the Federal Court if required. There are other new provisions in this legislation that differ somewhat from the Bill introduced by the honourable member for Farrer in 1982, and they differ in two respects. I want to make it clear that the amendments to which I am about to refer are acceptable to the Opposition, although I note that the Minister did not draw these matters to the attention of honourable members in the way of a bipartisan approach, which he asserted in his address was to be the case in relation to matters dealing with the Ombudsman. The first amendment is to clause 12, which is altered by the addition of a paragraph (B). It amends section 9 (3) of the principal Act, so that when the Attorney exercises his discretion to furnish a certificate that the disclosure of certain information is against the public interest by reason, for example, of it being that it would prejudice security, defence, or international relations of the Commonwealth-and there are three other reasons also enumerated in that paragraph, which I shall not enumerate-that certificate of the Attorney relates only to information disclosed to the Ombudsman. As I mentioned, that amendment was acceptable to the Opposition, although the matter was not outlined by the Minister. The second matter relates to clause 19, which amends section 19 of the principal Act. It adds additional sub-sections (6), (7), (7A) and (7B). These provisions allow for an extension of time for presenting the Ombudsman's annual reports to Parliament. The Act now provides that the Ombudsman shall submit his report as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year. The 1982 Bill provided that he should lodge his report 'as soon as practicable and in any event within six months after each 30th June'. The new amendment provides that if the Ombudsman is of the opinion that he cannot comply with that six-month time frame , he may apply to the Minister for an extension of time, giving reasons. The Minister may grant an extension, but he is required within three sitting days to inform the House of the extension and his reasons for granting same. Procedures are then laid down for tabling the report if within the extended time or, alternatively, for lodging a further explanation if the report is not completed within time. While these procedures are cumbersome, the Opposition finds them acceptable in the context of this legislation. The second Bill that we are discussing is the Ombudsman (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. As I mentioned earlier, this Bill makes amendments, primarily to the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981, which complement the Ombudsman Amendment Bill. Honourable members will be aware that the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to undertake in certain cases independent investigations of complaints against the Australian Federal Police. The amendments are parallel so as to ensure basic uniformity in the Ombudsman's powers, duties and procedures in relation to complaints, be they complaints of a general nature or those relating to the Australian Federal Police. This Bill develops the informal procedures for deciding which complaints will be investigated, clarifies jurisdiction in certain territories, provides for reference to the Federal Court in appropriate situations to clarify questions of jurisdiction and the like, and assists in obtaining documents and authorises the disclosure of information by the Ombudsman in certain circumstances. It also meets with the Opposition's approval, and therefore will not be the subject of any objection from the Opposition on this occasion. From time to time a number of people have written about the role of the Ombudsman, and a number of matters have been brought to attention either in reports of the Ombudsman or by independent commentators. While this legislation does not pick up all of the matters that have been the subject of comment, I should like to note some of them, because it may well be that the Government would like to look at those matters at some future time. I am not suggesting that, by examining them, whatever proposals the Government might bring forward would necessarily meet with the Opposition's approval, but some of the matters that have been noted include the fact that there is no power over Commonwealth employment matters for inquiry by the Ombudsman. From time to time, some people have suggested that the question of de facto relationships and what is in the nature of a de facto relationship might be the subject of some legislative treatment. In fact, different approaches have been taken in treating de facto relationships by the Australian Taxation Office and the Department of Social Security. There is no change, for instance, in relation to that matter in this Bill. In relation to Telecom Australia, for instance, section 101 of the Telecommunications Act has not been amended but it has been the subject of some comment by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has drawn attention to situations in which quite properly, in his view, Telecom ought to be responsible for its actions causing loss to be suffered by telephone consumers or others. Very often the Ombudsman has drawn attention to the question of default, delay, error or omission. Telecom is given immunity under the Telecommunications Act for actions which cause loss by such reasons as default, delay, error or omission, and that has been the subject of comment on a number of occasions. There is still no power, as I understand it, in the hands of the Ombudsman to investigate private bodies, incorporated bodies or associations which have not been established pursuant to enactment. Whilst the definition of enactment has been widened in this Bill there are a number of bodies, private companies and the like which perhaps ought to be the subject of inquiry. I know the working party looked at the question of which private companies owned by the Commonwealth ought to be the subject of investigations. I simply note that there is still no power to investigate the whole range of private bodies, incorporated bodies or associations which people see as Commonwealth authorities. Finally, I note that the Ombudsman can still investigate only matters of administration. There are other areas which commentators from time to time have suggested may be the subject of review and advice by the Ombudsman. There have been suggestions that his jurisdiction in that area ought to be widened. I draw those matters to the attention of the Government not because the Opposition necessarily believes that there is a need for legislation in each of those areas but because they are areas which, because they have been commented on, ought to be examined closely by the government of the day. As I said, I indicate on behalf of the Opposition our concurrence with these Bills. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(5.23) —I also rise to speak in support of the two Bills before the House, the Ombudsman Amendment Bill and the Ombudsman (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill of 1983. As has been noted the major Bill has two main purposes : First, to create within the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman a statutory office of Defence Force Ombudsman and, secondly, to make certain other amendments to the Ombudsman Act of 1976 in the light of the review by the Administrative Review Council. The minor Bill makes certain amendments to the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 and also, of course, complements the provisions of the major Act. Originally, legislation to establish the office of Ombudsman was an initiative of the Whitlam Labor Government, carried forward by the succeeding government and finally coming into operation in 1977. That bipartisan approach to ombudsman legislation is obviously essential, and that same approach is evident in the current amendments. A very significant aspect of the legislation before the House is the insertion of a new Part IIA under clause 20 of the amendment Bill which deals with the establishment, functions, powers and duties of the Defence Force Ombudsman, and it is that aspect of the legislation before us on which I propose to concentrate my remarks. A Bill providing for the appointment of the Defence Force Ombudsman was first passed in the House of Representatives in 1975. It was introduced into the Senate but lapsed on the dissolution of Parliament in November 1975. Legislation to amend the Act was again introduced into Parliament in September last year but also lapsed with the dissolution of Parliament in February of this year. Between 1976 and the present the office of Defence Force Ombudsman has operated on an interim basis under an executive director authorised by the Minister for Defence . The creation of the Office of Defence Force Ombudsman will significantly improve the conditions of employment of members of the Services and their families. Members of the defence services do not have the opportunity of utilising the normal external grievance mechanisms which are found in civilian employment, and their relationships with their employer often extend into many aspects of their working and private lives. With certain reasonable exclusions, particularly those relating to disciplinary procedures and the granting or refusal of honours and awards, as outlined in section 19 (c) of the principal Act, the Defence Force Ombudsman will provide an independent statutory avenue for the consideration and review of all service related grievances. There are two significant defence service establishments operating within my electorate of Bendigo: Puckapunyal, near Seymour, is the base for Australia's major armoured and transport corps. The Army base makes not only a substantial contribution to Australia's defence requirements but also a notable contribution to the economy and community of Seymour. More than 2,000 personnel are directly employed at Puckapunyal, with some 800 families living in married quarters at or around the base. Honourable members would also be pleased to hear that work on the $14m armoured centre redevelopment project, which was commenced early this financial year, is progressing very smoothly and is creating very valauable work opportunities for local contractors in the Seymour area. Bendigo is home to the Army survey regiment unit based at the historic Fortuna site. Some 300 Service personnel are directly employed at Fortuna, and when families are taken into account more than 500 people in Bendigo are directly or indirectly dependent on the regiment for their livelihood. It goes without saying that the survey regiment unit also makes a very sigificant contribution to the economy and the community of Bendigo and its surrounds. Given that the Defence Force Ombudsman's function will be to investigate, either on the basis of a complaint being made or on his own initiative, administrative actions related to or arising from a person's service in the defence forces, it is clear that this initiative will have significant benefits for people within my electorate. Importantly, also in this legislation, other persons such as the dependants of Service personnel will also be able to lodge complaints if they are affected by actions within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. So within my electorate of Bendigo some 2,300 service personnel and their dependants will now have access to an independent and statutory Defence Force Ombudsman. I should add that review by the Ombudsman will complement rather than compete with the existing internal redress procedures. The Bill requires that serving members will normally have to exhaust the redress system before taking a matter to the Defence Force Ombudsman. This is a very sensible approach which will allow commanders to learn of grievances of servicemen and women and to have the first opportunity to remedy them. Additionally, making a complaint to the Defence Force Ombudsman after exhausting the usual internal procedures will not be seen as undermining the normal command structure. During 1982 the interim office of the Defence Force Ombudsman received 122 new complaints compared with 165 in the same period in 1981. An analysis of the complaints received during 1982 shows that administrative decisions concerning pay, allowances and conditions of service were the major source of concern closely followed by complaints related to discharge from the defence forces. Other significant sources of complaints related to transfers, postings and promotions and to the other area of compensation. The following three cases are typical of complaints which presently fall and will fall within the jurisdiction of the new office of Defence Force Ombudsman. Case one, as an example, concerns a soldier who is discharged on medical grounds and complains to the DFO's Office. The DFO examines the administrative procedures adopted by the Army to determine whether the discharge was lawful and in accordance with policy. Case two is the matter of an airman who is discharged following conviction in a civil court for a serious offence and complains about that discharge. The Defence Force Ombudsman examines relative files, obtains a report from the Royal Australian Air Force officer and determines whether the discharge was administratively in order. In case three a sailor complains that he was not paid temporary accommodation allowance when he was posted. The DFO would examine his file and determine whether there was an entitlement to that allowance. As I have indicated earlier in my remarks, the creation of this statutory office of Defence Force Ombudsman will provide a very important advance in the conditions of employment for Service members. Amendments within the Bill strengthen and widen the Ombudsman's role in line with developing practice and provide for greater discretion and flexibility by modifying formal, procedural requirements in the Act. There is no question that this initiative is a genuine advance in the conditions of service for members of the defence forces. The establishment of this office does not mean that the Services are badly administered but rather, there will now be a process for a completely independent and statutory investigation of complaints. I know that the initiative will be welcomed by Service personnel throughout my electorate and, in terms of this specific initiative to establish the office of Defence Force Ombudsman, it is fitting that this provision, first introduced by the Whitlam Labor Government, will now finally be implemented by the Hawke Labor Government. I commend both Bills to the House. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(5.32) —The main reason I wish to participate briefly in this debate relates to the inclusion within the first Bill-the Ombudsman Amendment Bill-of clause 20 which inserts Part IIA relating to the establishment , functions, powers and duties of the Defence Force Ombudsman into the original Act. I do not want to go down the track too far for an explanation as everybody is now aware that essentially there will be a new deputy ombudsman who will be responsible for this part of the Act as it applies to the defence forces. His office will be responsible for investigating administrative actions concerning matters related to or arising in consequence of a person's service in the Defence Force. I think we are all very aware that the nature of a serviceman's commitment is such that he does have a far more total involvement than a person in civilian employ. Therefore, it is necessary that there be open to members of the Services to the maximum ways by which either perceived or real wrongs can be redressed. I believe this Act extends quite properly the responsibilities of the Ombudsman in relation to the defence forces. Several aspects of that are worthy of comment. I am sure that it is necessary as specified in proposed new sub-section 19C. (5) ( d) of the Bill that the proper disciplinary provisions need to be maintained. Indeed they are excluded by that sub-section from inquiry by the Defence Force Ombudsman as is 'action taken in relation to the grant or refusal of an honour or award to a particular member of the Defence Force' under paragraph (e) of the same sub-section. Those two areas are matters which concern me in other ways and it is because of my concern that I thought it worth mentioning in this place. With respect to discipline in the forces, I have long felt that it is unfortunate that we still have significant differences between the three uniformed Services. The Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Army and the Royal Australian Air Force do have differences in the application of the respective defence Acts as they pertain to each Service. There are elements in the exercise of discipline and in the administration of the Services which I think through their difference do not enhance the efficiency of the Services but detract from them. It is one of the areas that, had we stayed in government, I would have asked the Utz Defence Review Committee to look into. There are a number of matters in that field that, if simplified, would be of benefit to each of the Services, they would certainly be a lot more effective. While the processes of discipline are excluded from the responsibilities of the Defence Force Ombudsman , I think it right that I ask the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes), who is not in the House at the moment, to look very closely at those differences and give consideration to ways by which similar Acts could be introduced to a greater degree than now applies to the three Services. I will identify that process in its ultimate point of appeal as one of those areas which certainly needs to be further examined. When Sir Zelman Cowen was Governor-General, he and I had some discussions about the redress of wrongs procedure as it applies through the Executive Council. I share his worries that, at the moment, the process does not properly allow for a serviceman to have an independent and valid assessment made in the same way that those who are in the Army and Air Force have that procedure available to them and which in most instances, I believe, they expect. It is in part, without going down the track too far in explanation, because the Minister for Defence is responsible for making submissions to the Executive Council through the Governor-General. He is virtually forced to reach an opinion on any matter that goes by way of redress of wrongs to him. I believe that it would be better if a procedure could be devised whereby when a redress of wrongs is submitted to the Executive Council it has some chance to hear both sides of the argument so that the person within the Defence Force who is complaining could be certain that there is an independent appraisal of the matters. I certainly think it quite anomalous that at the moment at least this procedure is not available to members of the Royal Australian Navy. That is an area that does need correction. The other area in this Bill that I want to refer to briefly is again of exclusion rather than inclusion; that is action which is taken in relation to the grant or refusal of honours or awards. Proposed new sub-section (8) states: The reference in paragraph (5) (e) to action taken in relation to the grant or refusal of an honour or award to a particular member of the Defence Force does not include a reference to action taken in relation to the grant or refusal of honours or awards to members of the Defence Force generally . . . I have been most concerned that with the granting of awards we still have some difficulty in providing adequate recognition for members of the armed forces who serve in particular units around the world. I instance to honourable members the members of the Army who today are serving in Uganda. This is only a small troop. It is there under one of our aid programs and its members are doing a very fine job in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. We badly need to have an award which notes the fact that Australian servicemen are serving outside Australia. We should provide some sort of a clip to designate where that area is. As I read this Bill, I believe that the Ombudsman can make recommendations in this area but it is something that perhaps we do not take sufficiently to heart. We can probably do something more to give due recognition to those members of our forces who work under very arduous conditions, often far more so than their civilian counterparts, but who receive too little recognition for that service which they perform on the nation's behalf. One need only see members of the American forces who have served abroad to recognise how generously they are endowed with ribbons and awards. One perhaps feels that is going to the extreme. I do not think we go far enough for the Australian forces. I would like to see the grant of an award for overseas service with a particular star or clip designating the area where a serviceman has served. Perhaps out of the power now being accorded the Defence Force Ombudsman there might be some capability to extend that recognition. Apart from that I would comment only that these Bills are identical with the Bill that the previous Government intended to submit to parliament in due course, that is with respect to the Defence Force Ombudsman. I therefore have no dissent from the provisions as they are set down. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(5.40) —In light of the bipartisan nature of the discussions so far I would like to make some comments about some of the other provisions in respect of the operation of the Commonwealth Ombudsman which will continue the thrust of what the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) has said. I think it is quite true that many of us who are in the parliamentary arena recognise that the role of the Commonwealth Ombudsman is very important by way of settling complaints from the public. Those in the public arena at the moment who are listening to this broadcast will recognise that, from time to time, they have complaints that they wish to take up and that we, as members of parliament, offer one of the avenues. I think it is also important to understand that the Ombudsman performs that sort of a role. In fact, the Commonwealth Ombudsman deals with approximately 11,000 complaints a year. It is important to understand, as a member of parliament and as a member of the public, that this form of complaint, inquiry and representation is a very important part of the functioning of government. The Ombudsman Amendment Bill and the Ombudsman (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, in particular the provisions that relate to the role of Commonwealth Ombudsman, make some changes which we believe are important in terms of the operation of the Ombudsman. One of the changes that are very important is the capacity in the future-under what is now proposed new section 7-for the Ombudsman to take complaints orally. Honourable members, and many people in the community, will understand that if we make a requirement that all complaints must be in writing, those in the community who have come from a background in which written English is a newly acquired skill are automatically disadvantaged. They will be disadvantaged if they have to give all their complaints to the Commonwealth authorities in writing. There has been an amendment which takes recognition of the fact that many in the community will be advantaged by being able to give their complaints orally. Those complaints of course will be translated into the written form later. But we believe that it is important that people give their complaints orally. We think that that will be a very important amendment with respect to the operation of the Ombudsman. There is another point that is very important and crucial. Those of us who operate in the public arena with the electorate at large will recognise that a lot of the work we do is in the sense of mediating between the complaint of an elector and the role of the Commonwealth authority. That mediation role is, in many ways, the role the Ombudsman plays. He, in fact, offers a court of appeal to which members of the public, who believe themselves to be aggrieved, can go. These Bills strengthen that thrust. There is an intention, which is quite explicit in these Bills, that the whole role of the Ombudsman should be relatively informal. The capacity of the Ombudsman to investigate complaints on an informal basis will be strengthened. That is also very important. One of the things that emerges when we look at the operation of the Commonwealth administration is that it is not always necessary to have a fully formal inquiry into an area of complaint by an elector but rather, more importantly, to investigate on an informal basis whether the complaint may have greater substance. In essence, there is a thrust in the Ombudsman Amendment Bill to allow for that informal complaint to be widened. It is then within the capacity of the Ombudsman, if he so judges, to make that complaint more formal. I should emphasise that with respect to that matter it is not intended that the power of the Ombudsman be reduced. I think it is important that those who are listening to this broadcast should recognise that there will still be a capacity for the Ombudsman, should he deem it necessary, to investigate a complaint fully on a formal basis using the full range of royal commission-type powers such as examining witnesses on oath and requiring production of documents, et cetera. That will still be there. The changes in the Bill do not affect the availability of these powers. There is a recognition in this Bill-it comes from the previous Government and is carried through by this Government-that so many of the complaints that do arise with respect to Commonwealth administration do not require the fully formal authority that the Ombudsman possesses. There is an analogy and the analogy is that within the general industrial relations arena the arbitration power, as such, is used rather in the minority and the conciliation and mediation powers are used in the majority. That notion of discussion and resolution of conflict is being used with respect to the role of the Ombudsman. We believe that is a very important matter. There is another matter which is also important with respect to the operation of the Ombudsman. It is one I would like to address very quickly; that is, the capacity of people to have their complaints dealt with on a confidential basis will be preserved. In particular, there is recognition within the Bill of those in custody who may make a complaint to the Ombudsman. There is a capacity within this Bill for those complaints to be placed within sealed envelopes and to be delivered to the Ombudsman and that further discussions can remain confidential, allowing that the complainant has the capacity therefore to make, in a protected way, complaints against Commonwealth authority. We believe that is also a very important provision. Another question which obviously comes to mind when we are talking about the role of an ombudsman in investigating Commonwealth operations is: To what extent do secrecy provisions exist? Quite obviously there have to be limits on the questioning capacity in the public arena of Commonwealth authorities. The Bill does provide that if, as a result of deliberations and the advice of the Executive Council, it can be deemed that to provide that information would result in a breach of the deliberations and the authority of the Executive Council, those documents and that advice would not be made public. We are suggesting, in essence, that there is a need to have some secrecy provisions. Those secrecy provisions go to the heart of the role of government; that is, the Executive Council. We are not allowing the cut-off point to be at an earlier stage with respect to protecting Commonwealth administration. In talking to these matters it seems that there are some important things to bring out. I believe it is important to recognise that this Bill, in essence, carries forward many of the provisions of the previous Government. It is important for the public at large to understand that there is a bipartisanship on this matter. The electorate should understand, in looking at a crucial matter such as this, that both sides of the House are clear on these matters. We are making the area of complaints a far less formal process and thereby giving much greater capacity for members of the public to get across their viewpoint. There is also an emphasis on this mediation role. That is being seen as being a very important role of the Ombudsman. On the question of confidentiality of complaints-the matter I referred to earlier-people, who in special circumstances , may wish their complaints to remain confidential will be able to do so. In the light of those remarks, I commend the Bills to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 26 May, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Leader of the House)(5.51) —by leave-I move: (1) That paragraph (14) of the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform be omitted and that the following paragraph be substituted: '(14) That the committee report by 15 September 1983.'. (2) That a Message be sent to the Senate requesting its concurrence. The resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform required it to present its report by 31 August. I am advised that the Committee has completed taking evidence. It has formed its major recommendations and it is considering a draft report. However, with both Houses expected to rise on 25 August and not sit again until 6 September, it would be difficult to meet the 31 August target date. Consequently, the Committee requests that its appointment be amended to require it to report by 15 September 1983. Of course, if it is possible, the report will be presented before that date. It will also be necessary to seek the Senate's agreement for the Committee to meet during sittings of the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Leader of the House)(5.53) —by leave-I move: That standing order 48A, adjournment of the House, and standing order 103, 11 o 'clock rule, be suspended for this sitting. I thank the Opposition Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) for his co-operation. As honourable members know, this evening the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will be introducing the Budget. I am advised that his speech will take an hour and a half. Supplementary pieces of legislation have to be introduced following his Budget Speech. Because of the length of some of those pieces of legislation, it may well be that we will be needing this extension of time. This would not be possible under the present Standing Orders. The whole intention of moving this suspension of Standing Orders is to enable the Treasurer's speech and the supplementary and complementary legislation to be introduced without any untoward delay. We hope that the matters can be completed by about 11 p.m., but it is better to have an assurance that we will not be affected by Standing Orders. Question resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 5.54 to 8 p.m. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(8.0) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I present the Budget for 1983-84. RECENT ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE This Government inherited an economy undergoing its worst recession in fifty years. Activity, both in the farm and non-farm sectors, began to weaken almost two years ago, and was still falling when the Government came to office. Gross Domestic Product has declined by 4.5 per cent from its pre-recession peak . The labour market deteriorated even more sharply than this figure suggests. Nearly three-quarters of a million Australians were already out of work when the Government took office. Unemployment had risen by 263,000 during the previous twelve months. Inflation, at 11.5 per cent, was running at more than double the OECD average and was accompanied by high interest rates. Obviously, the economic policies of the previous Government had failed to come to terms with Australia's deep-seated problems. The policy of 'fighting inflation first' had not only failed to restrain the inflation rate but had laid to waste large areas of our industries, relegating hundreds of thousands to the misery and indignity of unemployment. This Government sought and received a very clear mandate from the Australian people to put the country back on the path to economic prosperity and to deal with inflation and unemployment simultaneously-with a spirit of consensus and fairness that would give the strategy its greatest opportunity for success. With those objectives in mind the Government embarked upon the National Economic Summit, the May Statement of economic measures, the Premiers' Conference and now the Budget to build that consensus and hone the edge of its policies to turn those objectives into achievements. The National Economic Summit endorsed the broad thrust of the Government's economic strategy with particular support for the policy of fighting inflation and unemployment simultaneously. At the Premiers' Conference, an historic accord of all Premiers endorsed the Commonwealth Government's approach to its forthcoming Budget. The process of discussion, consultation and consensus has produced the first signs of optimism in a country wearied by broken promises, dashed expectations and depressed economic conditions. This Budget seeks to build upon that optimism-to nurture it, to develop it, until consumer spending and business investment regain their appropriate momentum. While that private sector spending is at a low ebb, the Government has accepted the need for a more substantial role for the public sector. Its policy in this Budget is to provide the maximum fiscal stimulus to the economy consistent with its anti-inflation objectives but without placing undue burdens on interest rates or the balance of payments. To this end, the Government took the opportunity in May of providing an early stimulus to the badly depressed building and construction industry, with measures directed at both private and public sector housing. In fulfilment of one of its major election commitments it also established the Community Employment Program to assist the long term unemployed. A similar approach was taken at the Premiers' Conference. Through both tax sharing grants and loan programs the Commonwealth assisted the States to increase their activity, including their large capital works programs. This Budget builds on those earlier steps. It is designed to provide a floor of activity in the economy while the private sector recovers. There are already signs of a pick-up in that activity. 1983-84 holds promise of a considerable improvement in economic performance. But our economic problems are deep-seated and they cannot be resolved quickly or by precipitate action. The key task of our policy therefore is to facilitate a sustained recovery that wears away the unacceptably high level of unemployment we are now experiencing. But this Budget is also about fairness and equity-about a re-ordering of priorities. It focuses assistance on those who have suffered most from the recession and on those areas so long neglected by our predecessors. Today's unemployed are victims of events beyond their individual control. It is unconscionable that they also be made victims of government indifference. Later in my Speech I will announce substantial increases in benefits to the unemployed. The Community Employment Program also makes its contribution in this area. It is directed at the longer term unemployed who, because of their lack of recent work experience, are particularly disadvantaged in job- seeking. We have also taken steps to fulfil our election pledge to introduce Medicare which will share the costs of health care for all Australians more equitably. Fairness also requires that those who are evading their obligations to society by avoiding tax are made to pay their share. The existing system and structure of taxation has developed in a fragmented and ad hoc fashion. The substantially increased weight of taxation overall makes the need for efficiency in tax arrangements all the more pressing. The Government has given this high priority both in the measures announced in May and those I will be announcing tonight. Before turning to the detail of our outlays proposals, I note that the burgeoning cost of our predecessors' programs, if left unchecked, would have severely circumscribed our ability to meet our own high priority commitments. On taking office we were advised that, on unchanged policies, the tentative Budget outlook for 1983-84 was for a deficit of $9.6 billion-including an increase of 12 per cent on 1982-83 outlays as then estimated. However, it became clear during the Budget process, in the light of more recent estimates, that outlays would be more than $800m higher than indicated in the forward estimates. A full reconciliation of the revised forward estimates with the original is provided in an Appendix to Statement No. 3 in the accompanying Budget Paper No. 1. If that had been the only change to the Budget estimates we would have been facing a deficit in 1983-84 of $10.4 billion rather than $9.6 billion. But because of several factors, including the higher growth estimates now in prospect, in part because of events put in train by this Government, the revenue estimates have increased by about $1.4 billion. Given that the residual deficit of $9 billion was higher than the Government had considered acceptable, our new expenditure initiatives could only be financied by cutting back on our precedessors' programs or by increasing taxes. OUTLAYS Because of the fiscal position the government inherited we were not prepared nor able simply to add our own programs to those of the previous Government. Rather, we have sought-and achieved-a substantial re-ordering of priorities. In doing so, we have reduced prospective expenditures, to the extent of almost $1220m in 1983-84, on those programs which supported organisations or individuals who could reasonably be expected to provide for themselves. Similarly, we have made revenue savings on program-related tax expenditures amounting to $230m in 1983-84; these include the income tax rebate for basic health insurance and the tax rebates for housing loan interest. On present estimates, a further $390m will be provided by the Medicare tax levy . The combined effect of these measures is to reduce the prospective 1983-84 Budget deficit by $1840m. Our decisions on new programs and additions to existing programs are estimated to add about $2490m to outlays in 1983-84; these include the introduction of Medicare, the Community Employment Program, our initiatives on public housing, measures to ease the plight of the unemployed, and a wide range of other initiatives-some already announced and others which I shall outline this evening . We have also provided substantial real increases in payments to the States and in a number of other areas. After allowance for the offsets I have just mentioned, totalling $1840m, the net cost of our new expenditure initiatives is about $650m. I repeat, therefore, that we have achieved our objectives for new programs, not by simply adding them on, but by a genuine re-ordering of priorities. Details of individual programs are set out in Statement No. 3 and other Budget statements: more information will be provided, as appropriate, by the Ministers responsible. HEALTH Under Medicare, to operate from February 1984, all Australians will be covered automatically for the costs of basic health care regardless of their income. Medicare will be a simple, equitable and universal system of medical and hospital cover; the additional outlays involved in its implementation are estimated at $600m in 1983-84 and about $1800m in a full year. Taking account of our decisions announced in May and estimated revenue from the proposed levy on taxable income, the net cost of Medicare to the Budget is estimated at $35m in 1983-84 and about $80m in a full year. The Minister for Health will introduce relevant legislation during the present sittings of Parliament. To counter medical fraud and overservicing, a special Surveillance and Investigations Program will be introduced in 1983-84; expenditure in this Field will double to $8m. SOCIAL SECURITY AND WELFARE This Government places very high priority on improving the lot of the most disadvantaged in our community. The welfare of this group deteriorated sharply, and its numbers increased substantially, during the seven years of the Fraser Government. We reject that Government's expenditure priorities and we reject their macroeconomic policies which added drastically to the ranks of the unemployed. But the damage cannot be repaired overnight. The measures I shall now announce, together with those I announced in May, represent first steps in re-establishing priorities in favour of those in the community who have suffered most from recent economic conditions. Further details will be provided by the Ministers for Social Security and Veterans' Affairs. Unemployment and Other Benefits The Government has already increased, from May 1983, the rate of unemployment benefit for single persons aged 18 and over by $4.25 per week to $68.65 per week , at a cost of about $100m in 1983-84. The Government has now decided to increase the rate again in November 1983 by $ 4.95 per week, or by $2 a week more than needed to allow for inflation, to bring the rate to $73.60 per week. Commencing in May 1984, this rate will be automatically indexed for increases in the Consumer Price Index; at that time, a $2 supplement will again be provided. On current reckoning, this will amount to a further increase of about $4.80 per week. The total increase since this Government came to office will be around $14 per week or more than 21 per cent; over the same period the combined married rate is likely to have increased, with existing indexation arrangements, by about 16 per cent to around $148.90 per week. The rate of unemployment and sickness benefit payable to single persons aged under 18 years, which has been increased only once since 1975, will be raised by $5 to $45 per week in November 1983. To encourage unemployed people to seek casual and part-time work, the income test for unemployment and sickness benefits is to be liberalised from March 1984 . Beneficiaries will be allowed to earn $20 per week rather than the present $10 per week without any reduction in the benefit they receive; and the upper limit of the non-benefit income range over which the benefit is reduced on a 50 per cent basis will be increased from $60 to $70 per week. These Budget measures are estimated to cost $118 million in 1983-84 and $276 million in a full year. Other measures which I shall announce shortly will also benefit the unemployed. Assistance for Families Supplements for Children of Pensioners and Beneficiaries The rate of additional pension and benefit for the 800 000 children of pensioners and beneficiaries, which has been increased only once since 1975, will be increased by 20 per cent to $12 per week from November 1983; the maximum rate of Family Income Supplement will be increased by the same amount per child. To ensure that such assistance is not reduced by the impact of personal income tax, all additional assistance for the children of unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries will be made non-taxable from 1 March 1984 at a full-year cost of $20 million. For beneficiaries who are standard rate taxpayers, this exemption will mean a reduction in tax of up to $3.60 per week for each child from March 1984. The comparable payments to pensioners, supporting parents and employed persons with low family incomes are already exempt from income tax. The Government will also legislate to provide for a uniform rate of mother's/ guardian's allowance of $8 per week payable to sole parent pensioners and supporting parent beneficiaries; we will extend, from May 1984, this non-taxable payment to single unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries with dependent children. The Government will be allocating $10 million in 1983-84, rising to $30 million in 1984-85, for high priority new and expanded projects and initiatives under the Childrens Services Program. The cost of these various measures to assist families is estimated to be $77 million in 1983-84 and $141 million in a full year. Assistance for Those Living in Remote Areas Most pensioners and beneficiaries living in remote areas of Australia can take little or no advantage of the Tax Zone Rebate. To redress this, the Government has decided to introduce a new payment for pensioners and beneficiaries living in Tax Zone A of $7 per week for single people $12 per week for married couples and $3.50 per week for each dependent child. These allowances, which will be payable from May 1984 and will be non-taxable, are estimated to cost about $3 million in 1983-84 and about $16 million in a full year. Retirement Incomes The Government is determined to make Australia a fairer society. We must reform our taxation and welfare systems so that tax burdens are spread throughout the community on the basis of capacity to pay, and welfare payments are provided according to needs. Since taking office, the Government has moved decisively to enhance our equity objectives in the retirement incomes area. In my May Statement, I announced the introduction of an income test on the component of age and service pensions for persons aged over 70 which was previously paid free of any income test. We have also reformed the tax treatment of superannuation. There is evidence of extensive and increasing avoidance of the pension income test by people who do not need the pension. One reason for this was the removal of the assets test in 1976. The Government has decided to reintroduce a test on both income and assets along similar lines to the test that applied before. An outline of the new test will be announced shortly by the Minister for Social Security. For the moment, I simply say that the exemptions will include the following types of assets: the pensioner's home or principal residence; a car for personal use by each pensioner; personal effects including furniture, household effects, a caravan, a boat, jewellery, works of art; and other assets to the value of $1500 for a single pensioner and $2500 for pensioner couples. Allowing for administrative processes, the new test will not operate until about 12 months after legislation has been passed. Meanwhile, the Government has decided to remove the exemption from the pension income test of certain income received from friendly societies, which has been increasingly exploited for the purpose of gaining or increasing pension entitlement. Removal of the exemption will take effect from 1 November 1983 and is estimated to save about $7m in 1983-84 and $10m in a full year. Pensioner Fringe Benefits The Government has decided to take action on the fringe benefit income test to reduce incentives for income test avoidance. This test, like the pension income test, will be based on income and assets; in the meantime, the Government will introduce automatic indexation of the income limits on a twice-yearly basis in line with increases in the Consumer Price Index. This will help to maintain entitlement to concessions for eligible pensioners whose incomes increase from time to time because of inflation. Assistance for the Handicapped The Government has decided to introduce, from December 1983, a spouse carer's pension. This will allow the husband of an age, service or invalid pensioner wife to receive assistance, on the same basis as wife's pension, where the husband provides care and attention for an extended period on account of his wife's severe physical or mental disability. Sheltered workshops, activity therapy centres and training centres for the handicapped will be eligible for certain increased subsidies towards staff costs , and a new bonus of $500 will be paid to people previously receiving sheltered employment allowance who successfully transfer to open employment. The total cost of the spouse carer's pension and the additional assistance for the handicapped is estimated to be $4m in 1983-84 and $10m in a full year. Emergency Relief The Government recognises the pressures on voluntary agencies at this time to provide additional emergency relief. To assist in meeting those pressures, the amount provided to assist such agencies will be doubled to $5m in 1983-84. Care of the Aged The Government is determined to reduce the extent to which Australians rely on inappropriate and expensive institutional care for the elderly and infirm. Pending the development during 1983-84 of detailed proposals on community care and the completion of a review of funding guidelines for nursing homes, the Government has decided to restructure the existing personal care subsidy for hostel care and to relate assistance more closely to the needs of hostel residents. We also plan to develop geriatric assessment units and to provide funds for essential research. The cost in 1983-84 is estimated at $9m Assistance for Migrants In 1983-84 an additional 60 grants at a cost of $778 000 will be provided under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme to assist ethnic and other community organisations to employ social welfare workers to provide services to migrants. The additional grants will bring the total number of grants under the scheme to 200 by June 1984. Assistance for Aboriginals The Budget provides $207m-an increase of 28 per cent-for Aboriginal advancement programs administered by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. These funds will be directed towards expanding the role of the National Aboriginal Conference and expanding existing programs for Aboriginals in the fields of employment, health, legal aid and community management and services; special programs will also be developed to assist Aboriginal fringe dwellers. Other spending specifically to assist Aboriginals will total about $167m in 1983-84, an increase of 22 per cent; for example, grants of $52m are earmarked for Aboriginals under the welfare housing program, and $7m is provided under the Community Employment Program for Aboriginal employment. Reflecting the state of the economy and the measures I have announced tonight, total outlays on Social Security and Welfare are estimated to increase by 19.3 per cent in 1983-84 to $16 843m. Consistent with our general approach of re-ordering priorities, the substantial improvements to our welfare system which I have just outlined have been achieved at a net cost of only $107m in 1983-84. EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING The Government has already announced several initiatives which will put people into work quickly, and which will also result in worthwhile improvements in the country's infrastructure, notably in such areas as roads and country town water supplies. In 1983-84 we expect to spend $958m on employment and training schemes-80 per cent more than in 1982-83-which, when fully operational, are expected to result in employment and/or training opportunities for about 300 000 people a year. Other spending aimed at increasing the supply of housing, Commonwealth office space and roads, maintaining the Commonwealth's assets and assisting the steel industry and steel-producing regions will also boost employment substantially. HOUSING Our housing programs provide increased, and more flexible, assistance for first home buyers and substantial additional funds for public housing. These programs, the details of which have already been announced, will lead to increased housing activity in both the public and private sector. This increase in activity is expected to create at least 30 000 additional jobs . Total outlays from the Budget on housing in 1983-84 are estimated at $912m, an increase of 23 per cent on 1982-83. CAPITAL WORKS Contrary to the failed approach of our predecessors, this Government supports the use of expansionary fiscal policy during economic downturns, including by way of capital works spending which directly stimulates employment. Substantial capital works spending is warranted by the overall slack in the economy, and in particular by the spare capacity at present in the construction sector. Further, after seven years of neglect under our predecessors, during which capital spending became the scapegoat for the lack of genuine expenditure restraint, there is a heavy backlog of urgently needed public works. Reflecting these factors, expenditure on civil works financed directly from the Budget is to be $390m in 1983-84, an increase of 16 per cent over 1982-83. Moreover, in total, direct capital expenditure and capital grants provided in the Budget will increase by about 22 per cent to $3700m in 1983-84. Airports There will be a major upgrading of our airports, including the relocation and upgrading of civil aviation facilities at Darwin at the total cost of $95m and the commencement of a new international terminal at Perth, to cost $48m. New aviation works to be started in 1983-84 form part of a program estimated to cost $213m over the next four years. Commonwealth Offices We shall embark on a major Commonwealth office construction program which will stimulate the construction industry and hold down our rapidly increasing expenditure on rental accommodation. Offices will be commenced in Townsville, Thursday Island and Lismore, and in Glenorchy and Bellerive in Tasmania. We shall also call for expressions of interest from the private sector with a view to proceeding with lease/purchase office development, as appropriate, at Parramatta, Newcastle, Wollongong, Dubbo, Rockhampton, Mackay, Cairns, Fremantle , Port Pirie and Devonport. Repairs and Maintenance Expenditure on repairs and maintenance (including funds under the Community Employment Program) will increase by 29 per cent to $220m in 1983-84. This labour intensive and geographically dispersed program will create jobs and will begin to redress the serious decline in the physical condition of Commonwealth assets that has been allowed to develop in recent years. TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS Total 1983-84 Budget outlays on transport and communications are estimated at $ 1705m. Because of the effect of once-only capital injections for Qantas, TAA, ANL and AUSSAT in 1982-83, this is about 3 per cent below 1982-83 spending. Roads Assistance Grants to the States and Northern Territory for roads will total $1233m in 1983 -84, an increase of 45 per cent. This includes $70m earmarked for expenditure on local roads under the Jobs on Local Roads element of the Community Employment Program. Road Safety Expenditure to improve road safety in Australia is to be increased in 1983-84 by 56 per cent to $6.1m. Rail The Government is undertaking a comprehensive review of Australian National Railways' operations with a view to improving its efficiency. Meanwhile, the $85m provided towards operating losses in 1983-84 compares with a subsidy of $106m in 1982-83. EDUCATION In 1983-84 our direct spending on education is planned to rise by about 11 per cent to $4211m; most of this-about $3515m-will support programs administered by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education and Schools Commissions. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has already announced funding details for these programs in calendar year 1984; they include measures directed towards increasing the participation rate of young people in post-compulsory education. Student Assistance The Government has decided to increase the main allowances under student assistance schemes from the beginning of 1984. The allowance payable under the Secondary Allowances Scheme will rise by 20 per cent; for TEAS and the other schemes, the increase will be between 5 per cent and 7 per cent. Income test requirements for all schemes will be eased with limits being increased by 6 per cent for 1984. The cost of these increases is estimated at $21m in 1983-84 and about $41m in a full year. Aboriginal Education To increase the number of trained Aboriginal teachers, the Government has decided to make available within the Aboriginal Study Grants Scheme a special allocation of 100 teacher training awards, to be available to mature age students; benefits will comprise a living allowance of $150 per week plus other normal entitlements. DEFENCE The Budget provides $5280m for defence, an increase of 10.4 per cent on 1982-83 outlays, and real growth of about 4 per cent. During the course of the year the Government will be assessing Australia's strategic environment as a basis for reviewing our forward plans for defence. The Ministers for Defence and Defence Support will provide further details. OVERSEAS AID A total of $822m is provided for overseas aid expenditure, including administrative costs, an increase of about 13 per cent on 1982-83 expenditure. Budgetary assistance to Papua New Guinea will increase by 10 per cent to $288m, reflecting recent special aid and the revision of the five-year aid agreement with that country. We will continue to give priority to assisting countries in Australia's own region. CULTURE AND RECREATION The Budget provides $599m for culture and recreation in 1983-84, an increase of 14.6 per cent on 1982-83 outlays. Of this amount, the ABC will receive a total of $289m in 1983-84; this will enable initial planning for the proposed introduction of a second regional radio network and eventual use by the ABC of the domestic satellite system to be introduced in Australia in 1985-86. The $37.9m provided for the Australia Council-an increase of 13 per cent over 1982-83-is the first step towards restoring arts funding to its 1975-76 real level. The Government has agreed in principle to the establishment of the Museum of Australia in Canberra; a Director will be appointed and initial design work on the museum will be undertaken. In line with certain changes in the basis of the present taxation arrangements to assist the film industry, which I shall announce later, an additional amount of $5m is provided in 1983-84 for direct investment by the Australian Film Commission in the production of films of high quality with potential for commercial viability. Earlier this year we established the Ministry of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. An amount of $40m, an increase of 48 per cent, is included in the Budget for assistance to sport and recreation. ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRY Total direct outlays on industry assistance are estimated to decline marginally in 1983-84 to $1104m. This mainly reflects the breaking of the drought over much of Australia together with certain decisions already announced by the Government. Rural Assistance In recognition of the effects of the drought, expenditure under the general provisions of the Rural Adjustment Scheme is to be doubled to $35m in 1983-84. A further $11m is to be provided under the scheme's carry-on finance arrangements to assist the sugar industry in New South Wales and Queensland. The Government will provide further assistance to the Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign. The Government's contribution for tuberculosis infected cattle destroyed under the campaign will be increased from 50 per cent to 75 per cent, the same as for brucellosis infected cattle; an additional $4m will be made available for a range of new measures designed to accelerate the eradication campaign in central and northern Australia. Water Resources The Government has decided to provide $46m for the National Water Resources Program in 1983-84, an increase of 19 per cent on 1982-83 expenditure. Industrial Development The Government attaches a high priority to the development of high technology industries with growth prospects. As outlined in our election policy we envisage a greater role for the Australian Industry Development Corporation in fostering industrial development. To this end, a capital instalment of $12.5m has been provided to AIDC in the Budget and the Government has decided to increase AIDC's gearing ratio and to guarantee its borrowings. Funds for expenditure under the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Scheme have been increased by 36 per cent to $71.6m. An additional $4m has been provided to the CSIRO as part of the package of increased support for key technology areas. The Ministers for Industry and Commerce and Science and Technology will announce further details. Steel Industry The Government is committed to the maintenance of an efficient and viable steel industry. Reflecting that commitment, the Minister for Industry and Commerce has recently announced details of the Steel Industry Plan. Tourist Industry To assist the development of Australia's tourist industry, funding for the Australian Tourist Commission will be increased by 75 per cent to $17.5m in 1983 -84. In addition, the Government will provide a grant of $1m in 1983-84 to the Queensland Government to subsidise the costs of diesel fuel to Barrier Reef island tourist resorts. Trade Promotion The Budget provides an additional $4.2m for expanded trade promotion activities , including the upgrading of trade promotion programs in Australia's major export markets and the establishment of a Market Research Fund. Further details will be announced by the Minister for Trade. Petroleum Products Freight Subsidy The Government will be amending the Petroleum Products Freight Subsidy Scheme to improve administration and reduce costs. This will involve removing from eligibility for subsidy, power kerosene and those locations where there is no retail site; in the latter case, subsidy rates will be based on the rate at the nearest location with a retail site or, for locations at sea, at the port of loading. These changes will save an estimated $2m in 1983-84. Banking As part of a continuing commitment to the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, and in the context of a general review of its financial operations including its profitability, the Government has decided to provide a capital injection of $15m in 1983-84 to the Commonwealth Trading Bank. This will be the first such capital subscription to the Bank since its inception. LAW, ORDER AND PUBLIC SAFETY Total expenditure on Legal Aid is estimated to increase by 23 per cent to $71. 4m. Recognising the importance of adequate capability for criminal investigations, the Government is providing $4m in 1983-84 to allow for an increase in the manpower resources of the Australian Federal Police. PAYMENTS TO THE STATES, NORTHERN TERRITORY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT Total net payments to the States, the Northern Territory and local government, including all specific purpose payments, are estimated to increase by 14 per cent to $18 710m in 1983-84. The major decisions affecting these payments have already been announced. In addition to providing for a once-only special revenue assistance grant of $ 155.5m to the States in 1983-84, the Budget includes $30m for payments for Tasmania in 1983-84 under the assistance arrangements arising from termination of the Gordon-below-Franklin dam; details are being announced as agreement is reached on individual projects. RECEIPTS I turn now to revenue proposals. Budget revenues show only moderate growth in 1983-84. This reflects among other influences the 1982-83 recession, the full year effects of the previous Government's tax cuts and a projected drop in crude oil levy receipts. This subdued revenue outlook, together with our expenditure initiatives, necessitates some increase in taxation for 1983-84. In deciding on the measures involved, we have been guided by the principles we adopted in our May Economic Statement-namely, that they should be equitable, make a durable contribution to the budget and improve the operation of the taxation system. As I noted earlier, the substantially increased weight of taxation overall makes the need for efficiency in tax arrangements all the more pressing. It also makes even more urgent the drive against tax evasion and avoidance. Durable tax reform cannot, of course, be achieved overnight. The measures already taken, and those I am about to announce, are a start to, rather than fulfilment of, our tax reform objectives. Traditional Excises The traditional excises-on beer, potable spirits, tobacco products and certain petroleum products-are set at specific rates, that is, at so many dollars or cents per unit of the exisable commodity. In the past, discretionary increases in these specific excise rates have not been sufficiently frequent or, in aggregate, large enough to counteract the eroding effects of inflation. Real rates of excise have consequently tended to fall. Between 1973-74 and 1982-83, revenue from the traditional excises, measured in constant 1982-83 dollars, fell from $4.3 billion to $3.3 billion. Over the same period, the share of traditional excise collections in total budget receipts fell from 13 per cent to a little over 7 per cent. The Government is taking two steps towards countering this trend. First, we are making some discretionary increases in certain nominal excise rates. With effect from tonight, there will be a rise of 1.5 cents per litre in the excise on motor spirit and distillate. There will be an increase of 0.5 cents per litre in the excise on aviation turbine fuel and aviation gasoline. The rebate of excise on diesel fuel used off-road by the mining, forestry, farming and fishing industries and by households, hospitals, nursing and aged persons' homes will not be increased. These discretionary rate increases are expected to yield about $295m in 1983-84 . They will assist our energy independence by maintaining the real price of petroleum products, thus continuing the incentive to consumers to restrain their reliance on these fuels. There will also be some additions to the base of excise taxation, with effect from tonight. The excise on grape spirit used in fortifying wine will be reintroduced at the rate of $2.50 per litre of alcohol. In order both to increase revenue and to control possible substitution and blending of certain petroleum products, fuel oil, heating oil and power and lighting kerosenes will become subject to excise at the new rate of excise on motor spirit and diesel fuel. However, for excise and customs purposes, heating oil will be treated on a par with diesel fuel and will therefore be subject to the 7.155 cents per litre excise rebate for eligible off-road uses such as home heating. The net revenue gain from these extensions to the excise base is estimated at $ 122m in 1983-84. Certain minor items will be deleted from the excise base with effect from tonight. Fusel oil, amylic alcohol, cigarette papers and tubes, and matches will no longer be excisable. Although this will cost some $1.5m in revenue in 1983-84, it will permit more cost-effective allocation of administrative resources in the customs and excise area. From tonight, following recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission , there will be a single excise rate for each of the three major tobacco groups- cigarettes, manufactured tobacco and cigars. Additionally, the rate for cigars will rise to the rate on cigarettes; the rate on manufactured tobacco will rise immediately by $5.00 per kilo to $20.10 per kilo, with similar increases in future Budgets until such time as the rate reaches that which then applies for cigarettes and cigars. The revenue gain is estimated at $4m in 1983-84. As a second step towards countering the declining trend in real excise revenues , the Government is introducing from tonight a system of six-monthly indexation of traditional excise rates (that is, excluding the excises on crude oil and LPG ) and of the excise-equivalent component of customs duties on imports of comparable products. This measure will allow for the maintenance of the real value of excise rates in a non-destabilising fashion. Previous erratic reactions to the declining trend in collections, most notably in 1978, have destabilised the sales patterns of the industries concerned, imposed sudden and large increases on consumers, as well as providing problems for the overall economic management. The new system will afford a greater degree of stability for consumers and industry alike. These traditional excises will rise gradually in line with inflation and as wages and other incomes themselves increase. The effect of the new arrangements will be simply to place excisable products on much the same basis as those products subject to sales tax. The first six-monthly indexed increase in excise rates will take effect from tonight and will reflect the 4.3 per cent increase in the CPI during the March and June quarters of this year. That 4.3 per cent increase will be applied to the new excise rates announced tonight in all cases except manufactured tobacco, on which the new excise rate has been set with specific industry considerations in mind. Other traditionally excisable products, whose rates have not been subject to discretionary increases tonight, will of course also be subject to the indexation increase tonight and subsequently. As examples of the effects of these changes (including the discretionary excise increases) on the retail prices of excisable products, the price of petrol might be expected to increase by about 2 cents per litre, of cigarettes by about 3 cents per packet and a bottle of beer by about 3 cents. The second of the six-monthly indexation increases in nominal excise rates under the arrangements now announced will occur on 1 February 1984, based on the CPI increases for the September and December quarters of 1983. Subsequent indexation of excises will occur on 1 August and 1 February each financial year. The combined revenue gain from the two indexation adjustments in 1983-84 is expected to be about $236m. For each of the excise increases announced tonight, there will be commensurate increases in the excise-equivalent components of the corresponding customs duties on imports. These are estimated to add a further $13m to 1983-84 revenue. Crude Oil Levy The Government has taken action to encourage the maximum absorption by refiners of domestically produced crude oil with particular emphasis on excisable 'old' oil. Legislation will be prepared to provide authority for the imposition of a duty on petroleum imports, should that prove necessary to discourage underlifting of indigenous crude oil. Esso/BHP have been advised that the Government wishes that in 1983-84 not more than 18 million barrels of crude oil be produced for domestic consumption from the excise-free Fortescue field. However, approval will be given for the export, for spot sale, of production from that field in 1983-84 in excess of that level. Approval will also be forthcoming for spot sales of excisable 'old' oil in certain circumstances. These measures should ensure that the maximum available level of domestic crude oil production is taken up and that a balance is maintained between the production of 'old' and 'new' oil. It is estimated that crude oil levy receipts in 1983-84 will be $245m higher as a result of these measures. Sales Tax In reviewing the sales tax law for anomalies and inconsistencies, the Government has decided to change the classification for sales tax purposes of a wide range of goods. The changes, which do not involve any general increase in sales tax rates, are estimated to yield $29m in 1983-84 and $44m in a full year. Details are given at Appendix III of Statement No. 4. These changes will variously mean that, of the goods concerned that pass the taxing point after tonight, some now exempt will be subject to tax, others now taxed will become exempt, while others again will be taxed at a different rate. Under these arrangements, certain vessels used for tourist purposes that were subjected to tax in the 1981-82 Budget will become exempt. To assist the boat-building and tourist industries, these vessels will also retrospectively be made exempt back to the 1981-82 Budget, at an additional cost to revenue of $5m in 1983-84. Income Tax Measures Section 26 (a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act imposes tax on profits made on the sale of property acquired for the purpose of resale at a profit. With effect from tomorrow, that section is to be strengthened, in three ways. The first will address situations where tax would have applied if property had been resold by the purchaser, but it was instead transferred, say by gift, to a passive recipient. Under present law an intention to resell at a profit could not necessarily be attributed to the donee. The law will be amended so that the donee will be regarded as having acquired the property with the same intention as the transferor had at the time of acquisition of the property, and for the same price. The second will remove doubts about the effectiveness of section 26 (a) in situations such as that where it was arranged for a company to purchase property , and when it appreciated in value the shares in the company were sold. It will also be made clear that other situations where there is not a strict identity between the property acquired with a profit-making purpose and the property subsequently disposed of are not beyond the reach of the section. Thirdly, profits on the sale of bonus shares or rights derived as a consequence of ownership of other shares will be made taxable if profits on disposal of the original shares would attract tax. At present the bonus shares and rights are treated as separate from the original shares, and the purpose in acquiring the latter is not attributed to the bonus shares or rights. 'Bottom of the Harbour' Legislation The Government has given careful consideration to the views expressed by honourable members and senators on the Bill which was considered by Parliament earlier this year. In the light of those views, it has decided to resubmit to the Parliament a modified Bill which excludes two elements of the earlier Bill to which objections were raised-levying of personal tax on capital profits and on other accumulated profits from past years when there was no pre-company tax stripping. Removal of those elements leaves two principal areas of the earlier Bill. The first is recovery of escaped personal tax relating to those years where there was pre-tax profit stripping. The second is some strengthening of the recoupment tax law as it applies to company tax, and in certain other respects. The modified Bill will permit the personal tax recouped to be paid over a period of 12 months, free of interest. This measure is estimated to yield $60m in 1983-84 and a total of $270m ultimately. Taxation Expenditures Tax expenditures impact on the budget just as do direct outlays but from a base that is less readily controlled and accountable to the Parliament. After a review of tax expenditures, the Government has decided to make the following changes. Expenditure on Land Clearing and Swamp Drainage, etc. The write-off in equal instalments over 10 years of capital expenditure deductible under section 75A of the Income Tax Assessment Act (such as expenditure on land clearing and swamp drainage) is to be abolished in respect of expenditure incurred (other than under an existing contract) after tonight. The estimated saving to revenue is $3m in a full year. This measure will meet the concerns of those who believe that the earlier tax treatment encouraged these activities to an environmentally unsound and economically unnecessary degree. Expenditure on Home Insulation The deduction of certain expenditure on the thermal insulation of a first home will be abolished in respect of expenditure incurred after tonight (other than under a contract entered into by today). The concession was unnecessary, discriminatory and inequitable. The first revenue savings, estimated at $6m, will come in 1984-85. Part-time Members of the Reserve Defence Forces The present exemption from income tax of the pay and allowances of part-time members of the Reserve Defence Forces is to be phased out. Concurrently, there will be a review of those emoluments. Payments on or after 1 December 1983 and before 1 December 1984 will be exempt only as to 50 per cent while those in respect of service on or after the latter date will be fully assessable. There will be estimated savings to revenue of $5m in 1983-84 and $20m in a full year. Incentives to Invest in Australian Films The extraordinarily generous taxation incentives for investment in Australian films have proved a boon for accountants, lawyers and their well-heeled clients. In the process, control of Australian film making has moved out of the hands of the film makers and Film Commissions to the detriment of the industry as a whole . Accordingly, assistance to the film industry is to be restructured. In relation to investment expenditure incurred under a contract entered into after tonight, the tax deduction now available at 150 per cent of the investment will be reduced to 133 per cent. Similarly, the amount of net revenue from a film that is exempt from income tax will be reduced from 50 per cent to 33 per cent of the investment in the film. The resultant saving to revenue in 1983-84 is estimated at $1m, and $4m in a full year. As an offset to that and indeed as a generous expansion of assistance, as I noted earlier, additional funds amounting to $5m are to be made available this year to the Australian film industry through the Australian Film Commission. BUDGET OVERVIEW Total Budget outlays in 1983-84 are estimated to increase by 15.8 per cent to $ 56 703m. Total Budget receipts are estimated to increase by 8.6 per cent in 1983-84 to $ 48 342m. The Budget deficit is therefore estimated at $8 361m, an increase of $3 888m on the outcome for 1982-83. Abstracting from the overseas component, the domestic Budget deficit is estimated to be $5 744m, an increase of $3 262m over last year. We have therefore kept our commitment, developed in extensive consultants, to keep the Budget deficit to no more than $8.5 billion. The Government believes that this outcome represents the right balance between the immediate need for a fiscal stimulus and the on-going requirement for fiscal responsibility. There can be no doubt that this Budget, with a deficit increasing to an estimated 4.7 per cent of GDP from 2.8 per cent last year, will prove to be highly expansionary. That deficit, however, is well below that which we inherited after our predecessors' period of pork-barrelling. The Government recognises that recovery in the private sector is fundamental to the restoration of Australia's economic health. We intend to assist that recuperation. Unless the structural deficit were to be reduced, strong recovery in the private sector would ultimately bring on a clash for funds between the two sectors, and thus put at risk the durability of recovery. Our revenue measures, including those announced in the May Statement, have therefore been designed with an eye to the contribution they will make to financing future budgets when the private sector is enjoying more vitality than at present. MONETARY POLICY The performance of the economy over 1983-84 and beyond will be heavily influenced by our economic policy approach. The essential elements of that approach are by now well known: an expansionary fiscal policy, with the Prices and Incomes Accord as a major anti-inflation instrument, supported by non-inflationary monetary policy. The task of financing the 1983-84 Budget deficit responsibly will be considerable, coming as it does on top of a monetary situation which our predecessors had for some years allowed to drift. The Fraser Government overshot its monetary projections for each of the five years since 1978-79-contrary to their rhetoric, there was no effective monetary restraint. While in 1982-83 the overrun was small, monetary growth accelerated as the year progressed and as liquidity was boosted by the burgeoning budget deficit. In the twelve months to June 1983, M3 increased by 12.5 per cent; preliminary estimates suggest that in the twelve months to July that figure has increased further, to around 13 per cent. It is central to the success of our overall policy approach that monetary conditions during 1983-84 be such as to promote an environment of sustainably lower inflation while allowing the expected pick-up in real activity to proceed. Given that expected pick-up, there will be a sharp increase in nominal output through the course of 1983-84-probably of the order of 14 per cent or so. Setting a monetary projection consistent with that growth requires allowance to be made for the expected change in the velocity of circulation of money-that is, the relationship between monetary growth and nominal GDP growth. During the recent recession, as in past economic downturns, velocity fell sharply. This meant, in effect, that the banks were accounting for a greater share of financing, at the expense of non-banks. As the economy picks up, this development can be expected to be reversed, at least in part, and velocity can be expected to rebound. It is therefore appropriate to set the M3 projection below the expected growth in nominal GDP. Accordingly, the Government will contain the growth in financial aggregates to a degree consistent with M3 growth in the rate of 9 to 11 per cent over the twelve months to the June quarter 1984. The June-quarter basis of measurement is an attempt to avoid, on the one hand, the excessive amount of irrelevant history contained in year-average measures such as were employed by the previous Government in 1982-83 and, on the other hand, the possibility of undue influence from random events involved in measurement to the single month of June. The monetary projection will continue to be presented in terms of M3, the aggregate which focuses on transactions of the banking system. For the reasons I have mentioned, however, policy cannot focus solely on M3 and in the year ahead we shall be monitoring the progress of a range of financial aggregates with coverage both narrower and broader than M3. The projection is a conditional one. There will be a review of the projection during the year in the light of trends in activity and other relevant developments. Policy will aim at gradually moving the excessive present growth in M3 to within the recommended range. In line with the monetary policy just proposed, and on the timetable previously foreshadowed, the Treasury is announcing this evening details of the next bond tender, for an amount of $1500m. THE ECONOMIC OUTLOOK I turn now to the economic outlook for 1983-84. In doing so, I stress the very great uncertainties involved. The fact is that, in several major respects, the Australian economy is today operating outside the domain of our post-war experience. That said, there will clearly be very strong growth in total public spending during 1983-84, probably of the order of 4 1/2 per cent in real terms. Private consumption expenditure should grow by around 1 1/2 per cent, a litle faster than in 1982-83. Until the upturn in the economy is more firmly established, however, there, will be little prospect of an improvement in business fixed investment; in 1983- 84, there may be a decline similar to that recorded in 1982-83. Reflecting measures already announced, the outlook for private dwelling investment is much brighter; with a very sharp rebound of the order of 20 per cent through the course of the year, real growth of around 3 per cent is projected for 1983-84 as a whole. The sharp decumulation of non-farm stocks which occurred in 1982-83 is expected to slow in 1983-84, making a positive contribution to output growth; and farm stocks should rise with the projected strong increase in farm product. Exports should show some improvement in 1983-84, as a result of improving world demand and increased productive capacity in some parts of the resource sector; as the year progresses, recovery in the rural sector should also make its contribution. With improved competitiveness as a result of the depreciation of the Australian dollar over the course of 1982-83, and private business investment continuing to fall, imports seem set for another decline. As a result of those trade movements, the deficit on the current account of the balance of payments should narrow further this year. In aggregate, real non-farm product could increase by 2 per cent or so for 1983 -84 as a whole, with significantly faster growth-of the order of 5 per cent-over the course of the year. With real farm product recovering by around 20 per cent, total gross domestic product could grow by 3 per cent or so in 1983-84. No one can be certain how much of this projected pick-up in activity will be reflected in the labour market in the year ahead. The slump in employment in this recession has been unprecedented for the post- war period. Employers may require firm evidence that improved profitability and demand are likely to be sustained before reversing the labour shedding that took place in 1982-83. Meanwhile, increased output may come mainly from unwinding shorter working week arrangements and increasing overtime working. That notwithstanding, and partly reflecting the Government's specific employment-generating intiatives, employment should grow by around 1 1/2 per cent over the course of 1983-84. However, employment is currently below its average level in 1982-83 and the average level of employment this year may therefore not be very different from last. With growth in the working age population continuing, it will take time for the upward trend in unemployment to be reversed. On the basis of a centralised wage system applying half-yearly indexation, an assumption of strictly limited sectional claims and a significant increase in hours worked, average weekly earnings could increase by 7 per cent in 1983-84. The Consumer Price Index could rise by about 7 1/2 per cent in year-on-year terms, and rather less over the course of 1983-84. Both estimates take account of the direct price effects of the introduction of Medicare, increases in State taxes and charges and the revenue measures announced tonight. Those Budget measures effective immediately are estimated to contribute directly about 0.4 per cent to the CPI, with a smaller impact from the February 1984 adjustments. Over the course of 1983-84 average weekly earnings should increase markedly in real terms, primarily reflecting the usual pattern under indexation in times of declining inflation, and the expected growth in hours worked. THE WAY AHEAD Employment has now grown by more than 47 000 from its trough early in April. On the basis of the economic forecasts outlined earlier, the employment gain should exceed 130 000 by the end of this current financial year, with the rate of growth of jobs accelerating further ahead. This is a heartening start to the task set during the election campaign of creating 500 000 jobs over our first three years. But the employment growth is even more welcome because it is expected to occur in a context of a clear decline in the inflation rate. Moreover, provided that the Prices and Income Accord is adhered to, the resulting subdued growth in money incomes during calendar 1984 holds prospects that a declining inflation trend can be sustained. Continued declines in inflation would transform Australia's economic outlook. Lower inflation would mean lower interest rates, which in turn would help to create jobs in credit-sensitive areas like housing and business investment. Lower inflation would assist the maintenance of our international competitiveness, thus preserving Australian jobs against the inroads of foreign competition and allowing new jobs to be created as domestic firms are enabled to exploit their opportunities to the full. Continued lower inflation would lessen fears of a renewed outbreak of economic conflict that would represent a major obstacle to the successful implementation of our expansionary fiscal policies. Throughout my speech tonight I have indicated in tangible ways the Government's concern for the plight of the disadvantaged, whether they be people in poor health, victims of the recession, or those who are finding it difficult to purchase a home. Assistance in all of these areas is expensive. Some of the necessary finance has come from the improved growth prospects that our economic policies of consensus with controlled expansion have fostered. But costs still have to be met. The increased taxes I have announced tonight are in a direct sense the means we have adopted to finance the improved treatment of many disadvantaged Australians . We have sought to share the burden of extra taxation fairly through the community so that nobody, other than blatant tax avoiders, is expected to make major sacrifices. For the most part the imposts amount to a few cents on beer, cigarettes, petrol and the like and a levy on income tax to replace private costs of providing medical care. I believe that Australians generally will regard this as a small price to pay for helping the very many in our midst who have been badly disadvantaged by the events of recent years. In this Budget we have provided a substantial macroeconomic stimulus within an acceptable balance of risks. We have embarked on major direct employment-creating programs. We have begun to improve the lot of those most in need. We have kept tax increases to a minimum and attempted to spread rather than heighten the burden that taxation imposes. In extraordinarily difficult cirumstances, the Government has tonight pursued its major commitments within the mandate given to us last March. I commend this Budget to the House. (The Budget Statements for 1983-84 are included as an appendix at the end of this day's proceedings.) Debate (on motion by Mr Peacock) adjourned. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(9.15) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill seeks appropriations of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1983-84 totalling $2,860,169,000. Of this amount, $998,737,000 was authorised by the Supply Act (No. 2) 1983-84; the balance of $1,861,432,000 would be authorised by this Bill. The Bill provides for proposed expenditure on the construction of public works and buildings, the acquisition of sites and buildings, certain advances and loans, items of plant and equipment which are clearly definable as capital expenditure and expenditure on new policy initiatives for which legislation has not previously been provided. Provision is also made for grants to the States under section 96 of the Constitution and for payments to the Northern Territory. An amount of $120,000,000 is included under the Advance to the Minister for Finance, the same as was provided in the Supply Act (No. 2) 1983-84 which this Bill, when enacted, will subsume. Details of the proposed expenditures are set out in Schedule 2 to the Bill and the main features were outlined in my Budget Speech. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(9.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate moneys for the service of the parliamentary departments for the year ending 30 June 1984. The Bill seeks appropriations of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1983-84 totalling $35,062,000 . Of this amount, $14,008,000 was authorised by the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1983-84, the balance of $21,054,000 being sought in this Bill. The then Government agreed in March 1982 to the provision of a separate Appropriation Bill for the Parliament which, consistent with the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on the Parliament's Appropriations and Staffing, is not a Bill for the ordinary annual services of the Government. It was part of the agreement that detailed executive scrutiny of and control over expenditure estimates for the Parliament were not necessary and that the Government would limit its involvement to approval of the overall levels for recurrent and capital expenditure for the parliamentary departments. This has been done and the amounts included in the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —I present the following papers for the information of honourable members in connection with the Budget of 1983-84: Budget statements 1983-84 Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure for the year ending 30 June 1984 Civil Works Program 1983-84 Payments to or for the States, the Northern Territory and Local Government Authorities 1983-84 Government Securities on Issue at 30 June 1983 Australia's Overseas Development Assistance Program 1983-84 National Income and Expenditure 1982-83 Income Tax Statistics. Ordered that the papers be printed. Bill-by leave-presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(9.24) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to make provision for the financing of the prospective 1983-84 Budget deficit. The Budget deficit in prospect for 1983-84 gives rise to a deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of about the same magnitude and thus creates a need to seek authority to finance certain expenditures from borrowings to the extent that amounts appropriated by the Parliament for expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund will exceed moneys legally available to that Fund. Legally, expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund cannot exceed the moneys available to that Fund. Thus, successive governments have, for many years, introduced legislation in the form of a loan Bill to authorise payments from the Loan Fund to meet defence and certain non- defence expenditures. In the Budget Speech the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced that the prospective Budget deficit for this financial year is estimated to be some $8.4 billion. The shortfall in the Consolidated Revenue Fund is estimated to be of the same order. Under existing standing authorities some $2 billion of expenditure can be charged to Loan Fund. This leaves a shortfall of some $6.4 billion for which separate funding authority is required. This Bill therefore seeks authority to borrow moneys for defence and other purposes to enable certain other expenditures to be met from the Loan Fund rather than from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I should make it clear, however, that the Bill does not authorise defence or other expenditures additional to those otherwise authorised by parliament. The Bill does not include any specific limit on the amount of borrowings that may be undertaken. The actual limit, in the case of defence expenditure, however , is the amount for which appropriation is sought for defence purposes in the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1983-84-some $5 billion-and any subsequent moneys for defence purposes that may be approved in subsequent Appropriation Acts. The effective limit is likely to be significantly less than these amounts as defence expenditures cannot be charged to Loan Fund until the legislation I am introducing is enacted. The legal limit for borrowing for non-defence purposes is determined by the level of borrowing authority approved by the Loan Council. Together, it is estimated that these limits will be sufficient to enable the financing of the Budget deficit. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. TAXATION (UNPAID COMPANY TAX) ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1983 [NO. 2] Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(9.26) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Some three months ago the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) introduced into this House a Bill by this title. The major purpose of that Bill was to give effect to this Government's election undertaking to recover personal tax avoided by former owners of companies that were the subject of bottom of the harbour schemes. In addition, the Bill was designed to strengthen and improve in several identified areas the legislation passed by the Parliament last year to recoup the company tax that was evaded by the use of these schemes. Honourable members will recall that the Bill, after amendment, was passed by the House but defeated in another place. As foreshadowed by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Budget Speech earlier tonight the Government is now submitting to the Parliament, as an important part of the Budget, a Bill that covers esentially the same ground as the earlier one but which has been changed in significant respects. The principal change concerns the measure of personal tax to be recovered. Under the earlier Bill, former owners of a stripped company were to be made liable for personal tax on the total after tax accumulated profits effectively received by them as part of the price received for the sale of their shares. The Government has now decided that the recovery of personal tax should be confined to such tax avoided in respect of the liberated after tax profits of those years of income where evasion of primary company tax was involved. In short, the personal tax measures will apply to current year profits. This limitation will mean that personal tax avoided in respect of profits of earlier years that had borne primary company tax will not be within the scope of the legislation as now proposed. Similarly personal tax is not to be recouped in respect of any capital profits of the stripped company, regardless of the year of income in which such profits were derived. Another significant aspect of the proposed limitation is that a liability for avoided personal tax will not arise in respect of any year of income where the only company tax evaded for that year was undistributed profits tax under Division 7 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. I mention also that the time to pay, free of interest, facility inserted in the earlier Bill by amendment in this House has been retained in the present Bill. The Government believes that, with these changes, the legislation is now in a form which responds adequately to the points made in the debate on the earlier Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, subject to one exception, the present Bill proposes to strengthen and improve the company tax recoupment measures in the same areas as were proposed in the earlier Bill passed by this House. The exception concerns the proposal under the earlier Bill to simplify the procedures that require copies of notices of company assessments be served on a range of former owners. The passage of time has reduced the administrative advantages which that proposal was designed to provide and has obviated the need for the amendments. The Government has therefore decided not to proceed with these. For reasons connected with the grounds of a recent constitutional challenge in the High Court of Australia to the validity of the recoupment tax legislation, and about which I will have something to say later, this Bill now proposes a variation to earlier amendments to an evidentiary provision of the recoupment tax legislation. I turn now to the details of the Bill. Measures to Recover Personal Tax By far the greater part of this Bill is related to amendments to give effect to our decision that the restitution expected of those persons who benefited form the sale of shares in companies that were stripped of pre-tax profits should not be limited to the tax that ought to have been paid by the companies concerned. Rather, those persons should also pay the tax that, as shareholders or other former owners, they escaped through receipt in a non-taxable capital form of after-tax profits that, if the companies had continued to operate as going concerns, would have been taxable as dividends in their hands. As I mentioned earlier, the recovery of personal tax will, however, be confined to the tax related to after-tax revenue profits of the stripped company for those years of income in respect of which primary company was evaded. In our view it is quite beyond argument that the revenue is just as entitled to have these tax losses made good as it is to have the lost company tax made good. This Bill will accordingly insert in the recoupment tax law rules to be applied to fix the liability of former owners of a stripped company for personal income tax on those profits on which primary company tax was evaded. Broadly, these rules will require a former owner of a stripped company to pay income tax on the basis that the company had paid a dividend to the former owner at the time of sale of the shares. The amount of this imputed dividend will be the same proportion of the company's after-tax taxable income for the year of income in respect of which primary company tax was evaded as the proportion of the sale consideration received by that owner. The amount of after-tax taxable income will be determined after allowance has been made for the unpaid ordinary company tax that is to be recouped under the existing legislation, as proposed to be amended. The Bill provides that a dividend will be deemed to have been paid in circumstances where the former owner of a company is liable to make good unpaid company tax on the company's taxable income, that is, where there is a liability for vendors recoupment tax in relation to ordinary company tax or there would have been such a liability if any payments of such tax made after 25 July 1982 were disregarded. That date is, of course, the date on which the former Government announced its intention to legislate to recover unpaid company tax escaped through bottom of the harbour schemes. This qualification is necessary to ensure that the liability for escaped personal income tax will not be avoided simply by making a payment of the company tax in pursuance of the former Government's announcement or of the legislation enacted last year. The requirement that there exists or, but for payments of company tax, would exist a liability for vendors recoupment tax means that, where the liability for that tax is or would be less than $100 and the Commissioner of Taxation exercises his power under the existing law not to pursue the liability, there will be no liability for the relatively small amounts of personal income tax that would otherwise be liable to be recouped. Where the former owner concerned is a natural person the imputed dividend is to be included in his or her assessable income. In the case of an entity not itself subject to income tax on the dividend by reason of its tax exempt status or, in certain cases, the intercompany dividend rebate, the imputed amount will of course be treated as tax free income in the hands of that entity. Where a company, or a person as trustee of a trust, is allocated a dividend that is deemed to have been paid by a stripped company and the owners of that company, or the beneficiaries of that trust, are the same persons as the former owners of the stripped company at the date of its sale, the company or trustee will, in the first instance, be liable to pay dividend recoupment tax on the dividend at the maximum personal rate applicable to the year of income in which the sale of shares occurred. However, there is to be a right for former owners in this situation to elect to be taxed on amounts equal in total to the amount of the dividend deemed to have been received by the company or trust concerned. If this election is made, and the Commissioner is satisfied that the allocation of the deemed dividend among former owners is reasonable and that personal tax, if any, payable by the former owners will, subject to the hardship relief provisions of the income tax law, be paid by them, the interposed company or trust will be freed from its liability for dividend recoupment tax. In a similar fashion a stripped company will, where a liability for personal tax or dividend recoupment tax exists, be freed from its liability for the income year concerned for undistributed profits tax payable under Division 7, and the former owners will accordingly no longer be liable for vendors recoupment tax on an unpaid Division 7 liability for that year. As already mentioned, a liability for personal tax or dividend recoupment tax will not exist in relation to the profits of a particular year of income where the only unpaid company tax for that year giving rise to a liability for vendors recoupment tax is a liability for undistributed profits tax under Divison 7 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. As with the existing recoupment tax law, it will be possible under the provisions being inserted by this Bill to trace from the primary level to the next level and, as necessary successively to further levels where a company or trust has ceased to exist, has different shareholders or beneficiaries as a result of shares or beneficial interests having been sold, or is unlikely to be able to meet a liability for dividend recoupment tax on the dividend which is deemed to have been paid to it. The automatic tracing process applicable in this case will continue until a dividend is deemed to have been paid to a natural person, or tax free entity referred to earlier, or to a company or trust that still exists if, in the latter situations, the company or trust is one the ownership of which has not changed since the stripped company was sold and has the capacity to meet the dividend recoupment tax payable. A significant feature of the Bill is the provision of a time to pay facility in relation to the personal income tax and dividend recoupment tax liabilities which are to be imposed by this and an associated Bill. This provision is modelled on an existing facility-which is to be retained in a modified form- which permits former owners of companies who are liable to pay a share of unpaid company tax to meet that liability by instalments, typically over 12 months without late payment penalty being charged. In the earlier Bill as first introduced, the Government proposed that the existing facility be abolished from a date to be proclaimed. On review, we accepted and still accept that the particular facility for time to pay should be retained. Additionally, the present Bill also provides for dividend recoupment tax and related personal tax to be paid over 12 months without attracting additional tax for late payment. The modification of the existing facility I referred to a moment ago is to impost a strict limitation to 12 months as the period for which an arrangement to pay unpaid company tax may be made. Similarly , the proposed facility in relation to personal tax and dividend recoupment tax will require full payment to be made within a period of 12 months if the penalty free concession is to be attracted. An application for time to pay personal income tax or dividend recoupment tax in respect of a share of a stripped company's profits will need to be made within 30 days after service of the notice of assessment relating to that liability. Post-sale avoidance schemes The recoupment tax legislation contains a let-out provision that operates where the stripped company was the subject of an unsuccessful post-sale scheme to avoid tax. Under this escape clause there is no liability to recoupment tax liability on the people who benefited by non-payment of the company tax. This provision was inserted by the former Government for reasons which are best known to it. In our view it defies logic and it is our announced policy to abolish it. This is to be done by the Bill. Pre-sale avoidance scheme Consistentily with the removal of the post-sale avoidance scheme provision, this Bill will also ensure that, in ascertaining the potential tax liability of a company for the purpose of determining whether the recoupment tax legislation applies in relation to it, any pre-sale scheme which is ulitmately established to be ineffective of its tax avoidance purpose is to be disregarded. There are several further amendments contained in the Bill designed to improve the administration of the legislation or to correct technical deficiencies. The Bill proposes to remove one of the pre-conditions to liability for recoupment tax-the requirement that the company was by a stripping scheme rendered unable to pay its tax-which was inserted by the previous Government, it seems for presentational purposes. The element that the requirement expresses is, in substance, present in all cases of pre-tax profit stripping to which the legislation applies and a specific reference to it is quite unnecessary. The ' stripping scheme test', and an associated provision requiring full disclosure by the Commissioner of known details of it, is being exploited by some taxpayers as a means of delaying issue of recoupment tax assessments. Because of their availability as a pure delaying tactic, the provisions are having and will continue to have, unless removed, an adverse effect on revenue. It is also proposed by this Bill to re-insert in the recoupment tax legislation a provision removed by the previous Government which authorised the Commissioner of Taxation to report to this Parliament the names of persons who fail to meet their liability for vendors or promoters recoupment tax. The Commissioner is already required to provide in his annual report to Parliament details of breaches or evasions of the taxation laws and it is consistent with that duty that he be authorised, where he considers it appropriate, to report details of failure to pay recoupment tax. Finally, I explain an amendment I touched on earlier. An existing provision of the recoupment tax legislation that reflects the settled policy of the tax law in these matters seeks to ensure that persons liable for recoupment tax can contest the correctness of the underlying company assessment only through the established objection and appeal procedures against the company assessment itself. For this purpose it provides that a certificate specifying the amount of a company's liability to company tax is to be conclusive evidence except in an appeal concerning the assessment of the company. Some technical deficiencies in the provision were to be corrected by the Bill that was defeated earlier in the year and the Government has, with an eye to a particular constitutional question , now decided to make some other amendments as well. Honourable members will know that the recoupment tax legislation has been under constitutional challenge on a number of grounds. One of them concerns the evidentiary provision and reflects a legal argument that the Commonwealth cannot validly levy a tax that is uncontestable. It is said that there are circumstances where a certificate that is conclusive evidence would render the tax uncontestable. Obviously it cannot be predicted what decision the High Court will reach on the particular point but the Government has concluded that it should solve the difficulty by legislating so that the certificate represents only prima facie evidence, with the result that the matters that are the subject of it will therefore clearly not be uncontestable. In providing to that effect, the Bill also proposes that such a certificate would, in appropriate circumstances, represent conclusive evidence if a provision in the Bill that re-instates its conclusive nature were to be proclaimed. A decision on whether to make the proclamation, and thus have the provision revert to the conclusive evidence form that is reflective of settled policy, will be made in the light of any High Court decision on the underlying constitutional point. The revenue implications of these amendments in the context of the Budget are significant. The measures contained in the Bill are estimated to yield $270m in total and $60m in 1983-84. They should be given the approval of the Parliament. As usual with amendments of the taxation laws, an explanatory memorandum giving details of the amendments contained in the Bill is being circulated to honourable members. It will be clear that while the Government stands by the principles of the Bill as originally introduced, it has nevertheless been prepared to modify its stance to meet all reasonable criticisms of the original measures. In that light, I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(9.44) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill, like the one I have just introduced, is a revision of an earlier Bill . That Bill too was passed by this House, but rejected in another place. Like the earlier Bill, this Bill will formally impose a tax-to be called dividend recoupment tax-on the dividend amount determined in accordance with the rules being inserted in the recoupment tax legislation by the amending assessment Bill . The underlying purpose of the amendments is to recover personal income tax escaped by individual former owners of stripped companies. That will be done in a direct manner wherever possible. However, in cases where former owners held their shares through interposed companies or trusts, recovery may in certain circumstances be by way of imposing on one or more of the interposed companies or trusts a tax equivalent to the maximum personal rate of tax applying in the year of income in which the shares in the stripped company were sold. This Bill will impose that tax. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(9.46) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Budget measure will alter the sales tax classification of certain goods, principally to correct a number of anomalies and inconsistencies. The Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act which this Bill amends not only classifies particular goods as exempt from sales tax, but also places other goods in one or other of the tax rate categories. Goods not covered by the Act are taxable at 20 per cent. In all, there are 26 changes. Before the election, we undertook to review the rate structure and classification of goods under the sales tax law and this Bill is a step in that direction. In making the changes we have given attention to representations that have been made to the Government by honourable members and other interested people. Some alterations are designed to remove competitive anomalies; that is, those which give some products a competitive advantage over other products. Other changes are designed to achieve uniformity in classification of various types of goods or to remove weaknesses or correct deficiencies which are proving costly to the revenue. Others are designed to refine aspects of measures in the 1981-82 Budget which have thrown up administrative difficulties for taxpayers or have not fully achieved their desired purpose. In doing all this we have necessarily had to keep an eye on revenue consequences. Accordingly, a number of the amendments will bring into the taxable field goods which are exempt, while others will move goods into a higher tax bracket. However, it is not in any sense a one-way street, and in some instances anomalies and inconsistencies are being removed by exempting goods that are at present taxable or by moving goods into a lower tax category. Speaking in more detail, several important changes have been made to the exemptions available to the agricultural industry. Our basic aim is not to curtail the industry's sales tax exemptions, but specifically to confine these exemptions to goods that are for use in that industry. At present, certain specified units of agricultural machinery, implements and apparatus are exempt from sales tax whether or not the goods are for use in the agricultural industry . This was not the intention underlying the particular item and we propose to correct the situation by restricting the exemption for the particular goods so that it applies only when the goods are for use in the agricultural industry. I emphasise again that restricting the exemption item in this way does not mean that there is to be any narrowing of the exemptions available on agricultural machinery, implements and apparatus for use by persons in the agricultural industry. In consequence of the changes that are being made, agricultural machinery, implements and apparatus not for use in the agricultural industry will now attract tax at the 20 per cent rate, but goods which are hand tools to which the 7.5 per cent rate generally applies will attract only that rate. A further alteration will affect equipment, preparations and materials for the checking or eradication of disease or pests. The intention underlying the particular item is to exempt spraying equipment and materials used in the agricultural industry in controlling insect pests and other diseases. Due to deficiencies in the law, certain insecticides used, for instance, in and around the home to control insect pests, have gained exemption. Other domestic insecticides are taxable at 20 per cent. We proposed to correct this situation by restricting exemption under the item to relevant equipment and materials only when for use in the agricultural industry. As a result, insecticides, fungicides and herbicides used for domestic purposes will now attract tax at 20 per cent. Once again, I stress that there is to be no narrowing of the exemption available for equipment, preparations and materials for use in the agricultural industry for the checking or eradication of disease or pests. Before leaving the agricultural area, I mention a change that involves the exemption for tractors. In order to overcome problems that have arisen in recent years with this exemption, it is now to be varied. Exemption will continue for tractors for use in the agricultural industry, tractors for use in the timber- getting industry in the hauling of log timber and tractors for use as aids to manufacture. However, exemption will no longer apply to tractors used in other circumstances unless overriding exemption provisions of the law, such as those which exempt goods for use by government departments, apply. Tractors for use in building and construction industries, including construction of roads, dams and other works will qualify for the rate of 7.5 per cent that applies generally to construction equipment. A major effect of the decision to withdraw the general exemption for tractors will be to tax at 20 per cent certain models of ride-on mowers for lawn and grass mowing. Although designed for use principally as mowers, these goods have the general appearance and features of a small conventional tractor. They have been marketed for use as general purpose tractors in order to gain sales tax exemption, but will now attract tax at 20 per cent in line with other mowers. I move now to some of the other changes to sales tax classifications that will result in increases in revenue. The first of these relates to the exemption from sales tax available for piping, tubing, channelling and guttering. The intention underlying the particular item was to exempt these goods only when they are for use for irrigation, water supply, drainage or sewerage purposes. Due to deficiencies in the law, however, the item does not limit exemption in this way and we propose now to restrict exemption to equipment for use for those purposes . It is proposed to tax at the 20 per cent rate liners and component parts for swimming pools and to tax goods designed to form part of swimming pools, incuding swiming pool filters installed as fixtures, at 20 per cent. An anomaly exists at present as a result of which the smaller above-ground pools are taxable at 20 per cent, as are the component parts for them and portable filters , but other pools are exempt. We propose to remove this anomaly by making liners , component parts and filters installed as fixtures in respect of all swimming pools subject to tax at 20 per cent. I referred earlier to proposals designed to refine further the measures taken to correct certain anomalies in the 1981-82 Budget which have given rise to administrative difficulties for taxpayers or have not fully achieved their desired purpose. With this in mind, we propose to tax all oils, greases and lubricants at 20 per cent. The particular item was amended in the 1981-82 Budget to exclude from exemption oils and greases for use as lubricants of road vehicles. Exemption continued for some oils and greases but was conditional on their being for use for business or industrial purposes as lubricants of machinery, implements and apparatus other than road vehicles. Oil companies and distributors have complained about the additional paperwork in obtaining certificates from people in business who seek exemption. Likewise, purchasers have complained about the need to do this. In some instances purchasers have complained that some distributors are not prepared to allow exemption. Other problems arise where lubricants are purchased by persons or businesses which operate both road vehicles and other machinery for business purposes, as in the agricultural, mining and construction industries. The administration of the exemption is difficult for all parties where a particular lubricant is for use both in road vehicles and in other equipment in exempt circumstances. Accordingly, all oils, greases and lubricants will now attract tax at 20 per cent. As announced earlier tonight, the levy on matches is to be switched from an excise to sales tax. The Bill includes the necessary sales tax measures. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have commented on the more important alterations to sales tax classifications that will result in increases in revenue. There are others, such as the proposal to increase the rate of tax on blank video tapes and blank recording tapes and on most recorded video tapes to 32.5 per cent, but I think that I need not go into all of them in this introductory speech. They are fully explained in the explanatory memorandum that is being circulated to honourable members and I think that what I have said sufficiently illustrates the kinds of adjustments of this nature that are to be effected by the Bill. Still other alterations will result in the withdrawal of minor exemptions and the restriction of certain exemptions to restore them to their originally intended scope. I indicated earlier that a number of measures in the Bill will reduce sales tax revenue, and they are also covered in the explanatory memorandum and have been listed in Budget Papers. There are three particular reductions in sales tax that I would like to make some comment about at this stage. The first of them was announced recently by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and involves exemption from sales tax of certain tourist vessels. In the 1981-82 Budget, certain ships and other vessels for use exclusively or principally for purposes of pleasure, sport or recreation by the owner or by other persons, whether or not for reward, became taxable at 20 per cent. Prior to 1981, vessels let out on hire on a 'bare boat' basis for pleasure, sport or recreational purposes were taxed at 20 per cent, the hirers being regarded as using the vessel for such purposes. However, pleasure craft that took paying passengers on pleasure, sport or recreational outings and vessels hired out with a crew were exempt from sales tax. Vessels used as ferries for scheduled public passenger and freight transport services were exempt prior to the 1981-82 Budget and have remained exempt. Since the 1981 amendment, it has been represented that tourist vessels should not be taxable in a situation where buses, trains and planes used to transport tourists are exempt. The boat building industry has also complained of a significant reduction in orders. The Government has recognised the problems in this area and we propose to exempt from sales tax certain types of tourist vessels which are used essentially for transporting paying passengers on regular and scheduled tours. Accordingly, the types of tourist vessels to be exempted are those vessels which are licensed to carry at least 12 adult passengers, are to be used by their owner principally in the course of a business carried on by the owner and are to be used principally for the purpose of transporting paying passengers on regular and scheduled sight seeing tours. The exemption will extend to vessels which are not owned but which are held under a long term lease or under a hire purchase agreement and are used in the requisite circumstances. Exemption is not to extend to vessels to be used to take tourists on unscheduled scuba diving expeditions, game fishing outings or other general recreational trips. Nor is exemption to extend to vessels that are to be chartered or otherwise hired out, whether for purposes of pleasure, sport or recreation or for other purposes such as business promotions, functions and conferences where the transport of paying passengers is not involved and no regular, scheduled tour occurs. The Government has decided to backdate the exemption to 19 August 1981 so as not to disadvantage those who have purchased the particular vessels since that date. The Government has also decided to exempt Videotex equipment, Teletext decoding equipment and similar equipment for use by the profoundly deaf in adapting a television receiver. Videotex equipment enables the spoken word and information to be reproduced in visual form on screens of television receivers or monitors designed for use with such equipment, without the need for sound. The benefit of such equipment to the deaf is obvious and I am sure members of the community will welcome the Government's decision in this regard. The Government also proposes to reduce the rate of tax on a range of household goods. Household goods in general, including glassware, crockery, sewing and knitting machines and furniture are already taxable at 7.5 per cent. However, because of alternative taxing provisions or the manner in which the particular provision relating to household goods has been framed, certain goods which are clearly household goods have not attracted the 7.5 per cent rate. With this in mind, the Government has decided to reduce the rate of tax on cut glassware from 20 per cent to 7.5 per cent, the same rate as for other household glassware; to reduce the rate of tax on articles of a material other than glass, but used for similar purposes to glassware, from 20 per cent to 7.5 per cent, the same rate as for household glassware and crockery; to reduce the rate of tax on household spinning wheels and weaving looms from 20 per cent to 7.5 per cent, the same rate as for household sewing and knitting machines; and to reduce the rate of tax on jardinieres and vases from 32.5 per cent to 7.5 per cent. The net result of all the changes will be an increase in revenue estimated at $44m in a full year and $29m in 1983-84. I mention that these figures would have been $58m and $45m respectively if we had not provided the reductions in sales tax that we have. It is customary for sales tax changes to come into operation on the day following the introduction of the amending Bill and the Bill therefore provides that the amendments are to be effective on and after tomorrow, 24 August 1983. There is the exception that the amendment to exempt certain tourist vessels, which the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) is so pleased about, will be backdated to 9 August 1981 and some changes arising out of the closer economic relations agreement with New Zealand will have effect after the amending Bill becomes law. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.02) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will modify from 1 October 1983 the terms on which an income tax rebate is available to home buyers during the first five years of occupation of a sole or principal residence in Australia. The change was announced in the 19 May economic statement, as part of an overall package of housing measures. In particular, it was announced then that there would be a new cash subsidy scheme which would provide assistance to first home buyers, on an income tested basis, from 1 October 1983. The schemes of assistance for home buyers introduced by the previous Government had been neither efficient nor effective in targeting assistance to those in most need and in providing a stimulus to the housing industry. One of those schemes, which provided a tax rebate on the portion of interest payments that exceeded 10 per cent per annum on loans of up to $60,000, was terminated with effect from 1 July 1983. The other tax rebate scheme, which applies only to first home buyers, is to be modified by this Bill so that, subject to a transitional measure, there will be no new entrants to the scheme after 30 September 1983. After that date prospective first home buyers will come within the new first home owners assistance scheme, which will have the effect of making home ownership an attainable goal of many more Australian families. Home buyers who first occupy their sole or principal residence by 30 September 1983 will remain entitled to a tax rebate on home loan interest payments during the first five years of ownership, subject to an income test. Under the income test, benefits will be available in full to taxpayers whose family income in the 1982-83 income year does not exceed $24,300. Where a taxpayer's family income in that year exceeds $24,300 the rebate will be shaded out progressively, finally cutting out at $27,900. In applying the income test, family income will be taken to be the combined taxable income of the taxpayer and, where relevant, of the person who is the taxpayer's spouse on 1 October 1983. For the 1983-84 income year, of course, only the rebate entitlement for the period after 30 September 1983 will be income tested. Although, as a general rule, there will be no new entrants to the rebate scheme after 30 September 1983, taxpayers who contract to acquire or build or commence to build by that date will be brought within the scheme even though they occupy the home after 30 September. This transitional measure to extend entry into the scheme will protect those first home buyers who will not be eligible for assistance under the proposed first home owners assistance scheme that I referred to earlier. Without this extension of the rebate some lower income first home buyers would not be entitled to the benefits of either scheme. In applying the income test in these cases, family income will be the combined taxable income of the taxpayer and, where relevant, of the person who is the taxpayer's spouse when the home is first occupied. A memorandum explaining the technical features of the Bill is being made available to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(10.05) —I move: Customs Tariff Proposals No. 10 (1983) and Excise Tariff Proposals No. 3 (1983) . Excise Tariff Proposals No. 3 and Customs Tariff Proposals No. 10 which I have just tabled introduce certain tariff changes foreshadowed by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Budget Speech this evening. The Proposals increase the duties of Excise and Customs on beer, spirits, manufactured tobacco products and refined petroleum products. The increases operate from eight o'clock this evening. The Excise Tariff Proposals also remove duties of Excise on amylic alcohol and fusel oil, playing cards, cigarette tubes, paper and papers and matches. Corresponding amendments are included in the Customs Tariff Proposals to remove the relevant Excise components from the Customs Tariff rates. In addition the Government has accepted the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission to simplify the structure of the Excise Tariff on tobacco products which were contained in its report of October 1982 on the tobacco industry and the Excise Tariff Proposals No. 3 reflect this decision. A summary of the alterations contained in the Proposals is being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. Ministerial Statement Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —by leave-In the Budget Speech, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced the Government's intention to re-introduce a means test that takes account of both income and assets for assessing entitlement for pension. This will replace the current test which only takes account of income, including income from assets. It will apply to social security pensions including age, invalid and widows pensions, sheltered employment and rehabilitation allowances, and supporting parents benefits and repatriation service pensions. The test will follow in broad terms that which applied prior to November 1976. The final details of how the new test will work in practice will be settled after the Government has consulted with pensioner organisations. The existing arrangements are intended to concentrate assistance on those more in need, but this has not been achieved. A particular problem is the prevalence of contrived arrangements designed to exploit the pension income test by people who in fact are well able to support themselves. There has been increasing circumvention of the test by such mechanisms as converting income to capital gains. The growth in these income test avoidance schemes in recent years has been such that they now jeopardise the Government's ability to direct scarce funds to the pressing welfare needs of the disadvantaged in our society. Attempts by the previous Government to devise legislation addressing these loopholes failed. After considering similar options the Government has decided that nothing short of re-imposition of an assets component will redress this serious drain on the welfare purse. In designing the new assets test, particular attention will be given to protecting the position of the great majority of pensioners who have only small assets, and those who are not attempting to circumvent existing rules. In addition, the new test will be structured to ensure that there is no undue disruption of or intrusion into pensioners' affairs. Accordingly, specific types of assets that we envisage would be exempt include: The pensioner's home or principal residence; a car for personal use; personal effects including furniture, household effects, and a caravan, a boat, jewellery, and the like; and other assets to the value of $1,500 for a single pensioner and $2,500 for a pensioner couple. After the exemption of assets of this type, the test would operate by taking a uniform 10 per cent of the value of other assets into account and deeming that amount to be income for pension assessment purposes. This will then be added to non-assets income, such as earnings, to arrive at a total figure of means. Pensioners' means will then determine pension entitlement in the same way that income determines it at present. Although these arrangements will be broadly the same as those which existed in 1976, employing a notional return rate of 10 per cent is relatively more generous than was the case in 1976 when prevailing interest rates were generally lower. The great bulk of pensioners will, as at present, fall below the pension free areas, so that they will continue to receive the full rate of pension. Some could be moderately better off than under current arrangements. For example, a single pensioner without other income could have up to $17,100 in a savings account and still receive the maximum rate of pension. A married pensioner couple could jointly hold $28,500 without reduction in pension. As a result, pensioners with a modest level of assets, or who have not been avoiding the income test would not be affected to any significant degree. But those with substantial assets who have been circumventing the income test to obtain or increase their pension entitlement will experience a reduction in that entitlement. We intend that the new arrangements will include provisions which will ensure that the test is not circumvented by pensioners depriving themselves of assets. An effect of these provisions will be to take into account assets which have been gifted or otherwise disposed of without receiving adequate financial consideration in return. From tonight, a person who disposes of assets in this way will be deemed to continue to have that property for the purpose of determining entitlement to pension or fringe benefits. The treatment of modest gifts or allowances made by pensioners to their families will be a matter for discussion with pensioner organisations. We expect that the new arrangements will be in place about 12 months after the passage of the necessary amending legislation. This allows for the major changes to administrative systems and arrangements that will be required. I would emphasise that this change is part of the Government's ongoing examination and rationalisation of the retirement income system. It will further reduce the attraction of lump sum superannuation payments and thereby encourage take-up of superannuation pensions or annuities to secure a regular retirement income. It is therefore consistent with the Government's recent measures in relation to lump sum superannuation, although it does not in any way lessen the need for these measures which are also designed to promote greater equity in taxation arrangements. Nor will an assets test interfere with further reforms and modifications to superannuation arrangements or preclude the examination of the feasibility of a national superannuation scheme that is to be undertaken. I present the following paper: Pensions Means Test-Ministerial Statement, 23 August 1983. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr West, and read a first time. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(10.15) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. When introducing the Migration Amendment Bill 1983 in this House on 26 May 1983, I foreshadowed a review of legislation within my portfolio to ensure that so far as possible, Acts provide for the equal treatment of all non-citizens. As a consequence of the amendments contained in the Migration Amendment Bill 1983, it is necessary to amend a number of other Acts, in particular where the terms ' immigrant' and 'prohibited immigrant' are employed within the meaning of the Migration Act 1958. Also, it is appropriate in my view to take this opportunity to amend other legislation within my portfolio so as to be consistent with the proposed terminology in the Migration Act 1958. I now turn briefly to the details of the Bill. Part II of the Bill effects amendments to section 25 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 which are consequential to the removal of references to 'prohibited immigrant' from the Migration Act 1958. Clause 4 inserts a new sub-section 25 (7) to provide that a person who entered Australia before the commencement of the Migration Amendment Act 1983 and who at the time of entry, was a prohibited immigrant or the holder of a temporary entry permit, shall not become an Australian citizen under the section. The clause also inserts a new sub-section 25 (7A) to provide that a person who enters Australia after the commencement of the Migration Amendment Act 1983 and who, at the time of entry, is a prohibited non-citizen or the holder of a temporary entry permit, shall not become an Australian citizen under the section. Part III effects a consequential amendment to the Civil Aviation (Offenders on International Aircraft) Act 1970. Part IV effects a consequential amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Part V amends the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 so as to be consistent with the amendments contained in the Migration Amendment Bill 1983. Part VI effects consequential amendments to the Navigation Act 1912. Part VII effects a consequential amendment to the Navigation Amendment Act 1980. Part VIII effects consequential amendments to the Overseas Students Charge Act 1979. Clause 27 provides that a person shall be taken not to be an overseas student if the person ceases to be an immigrant within the meaning of the Migration Act 1958 as in force immediately before the commencement of the Migration Amendment Act 1983. Part IX effects consequential amendments to the Quarantine Act 1908. Part X effects a consequential amendment to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1935. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr Hodgman —On this night of broken promises I move: That the debate be adjourned. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison is aware that he is allowed to move that the debate be adjourned but is not allowed to use other language when moving that motion. I trust that he will observe that procedure in the future. Question resolved in the affirmative. Tasmania Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.19) —I desire to take the first opportunity available to any Tasmanian member of the Federal Parliament to register on behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal Party representing our State in the Senate and the House of Representatives the strongest possible protest at the disgraceful treatment of Tasmania by the Hawke socialist Government in the incredible Budget which has been brought down this evening. It is a matter of public record that prior to the Federal election on 5 March this year the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), made a clear commitment to the people of Tasmania that if the Gordon below Franklin power development scheme was brought to a halt his Government would guarantee that Tasmania would be compensated for the cost of the generation of electricity over and above the cost which would have been incurred by hydro development. Secondly, he guaranteed that no person would lose his job. I remind the House that prior to the election the former Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser, on behalf of the then Federal Government, made an offer to Tasmania of the sum of $500m as compensation for our State. Mr Hawke won the election. In my humble opinion he won it on promises which he well knew at that time could not be honoured. As we have found out tonight in the Budget, those promises have been blatantly dishonoured. Let me refer to just two of them. There was a clear commitment by the leader of the socialists in Australia, the Prime Minister, that there would be immediate tax cuts for 96 per cent of the Australian work force-a promise which has been dishonoured. There was a second promise that 500,000 extra jobs would be created for Australians-a promise which again has been dishonoured. I come back to Tasmania. The Hawke socialist Government brought an action against the smallest State of the Commonwealth in the highest court of the land. It brought an action against Tasmania and, in the ultimate, it succeeded. As soon as that action had been concluded the Prime Minister said: 'Don't worry, we will compensate you'. First he sent Senator Walsh to negotiate with the people of Tasmania on behalf of the Hawke Government. The behaviour of Senator Walsh was such that I could not comment upon it without breaching Standing Orders. It came as no surprise to anybody that Senator Walsh was sacked. The next thing we heard the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) was to be the negotiator, and the Deputy Prime Minister is, indeed, an honourable man. But what has happened is that at every possible opportunity in negotiations with Tasmania the Hawke socialist Government has reneged and tried to wriggle out and dishonour its commitment. Mr Speaker, let me quickly give some examples. First and foremost, the southern outlet was approved as an alternative works program for the men and equipment employed on the Gordon below Franklin scheme. Having agreed to that, the Hawke Government then reneged. Crotty Road was approved as an alternative works program. Having approved that program, the Hawke Government then reneged. As of yesterday the highest amount that this magnanimous socialist Government had offered the people of Tasmania was a miserable, paltry $5m. What do we find in the Budget tonight? We find compensation for Tasmania of $30m. Shame on the Government! On a clear mathematical calculation of what is involved the Premier of Tasmania has estimated-I support him-that the proper compensation the Government should pay for what it has done to our State is $3,500m, that being the difference in cost for 60 years between hydro generated power and the thermal or nuclear power generation which the Government is now going to force on our State. What has the Government done in relation to freight equalisation? Last year the Fraser Government budgeted $32m for freight equalisation, and $27,252,000 was spent. What has this great, generous Hawke Government, which is committed to more employment, done? It has cut the guts out of Tasmania. It has cut expenditure on freight equalisation to $23m. It will send industries into bankruptcy. It will put thousands out of work. This is the Government which has already put an additional 3,000 Tasmanians out of work. In 17 year in politics, both State and Federal, I have never found a government which, so soon after its election to power, has broken so many promises. It ought to be in the Guiness Book of Records. The Prime Minister has broken more promises in seven weeks than Malcolm Fraser broke in seven years. This Government and its treatment of Tasmania are to be condemned. It should not think that because it will not win a seat in Tasmania for two decades other States will not take notice of the way it behaves. This Government's performance is disgraceful. Its behaviour is scandalous. It stands condemned in the eyes of all decent and fair-minded Australians. Honourable members opposite should be ashamed of themselves. Tasmania will never forget them for what they have done to the smallest but finest State in the nation. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.25 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Public Service Act 1922. Mr Barry Jones to present a Bill for an Act to facilitate the management of liquid fuel that is, or is likely to be, in short supply. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 23 August 1983: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 124 Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 63 Audit Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 96, 105 Australian Capital Territory Representation (House of Representatives) Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 115 Australian Citizenship Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 68 Australian National University Act-Statutes- No. 165-Enrolment, Courses and Degrees Amendment No. 17 No. 166-Enrolment, Courses and Degrees Amendment No. 18 No. 167-University House Amendment No. 9 Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 80 Bounty (Books) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 81 Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 107 Bounty (Penicillin) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 73 Canned Fruits Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 82 Christmas Island Act- Ordinance-1983-No. 1-Small Claims Regulations-1983-No. 1 (Customs Ordinance) Commonwealth Electoral Act and Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act- Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 114 Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 139 Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 71 Commonwealth Teaching Service Act- Determinations-1983-Nos. 4, 5, 6 Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 131 Conciliation and Arbitration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 94, 104 Copyright Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 125, 126, 127, 128 Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 92, 93 Dairy Industry Stabilization Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 90 Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 89 Defence Act- Determinations-1983- No. 11-Special Action Forces Allowance and Uganda Allowance No. 12-Recreation Leave No. 13-Chaplain's (Reserves) Equipment Allowance No. 14-Allowances for Applicants for Entry Into the Defence Force and other allowances Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 61, 129 Defence Act, Naval Defence Act and Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 137 Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 58, 59, 85, 86, 142 Defence (Visiting Forces) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 130 Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 100 Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 97 Economic Planning Advisory Council Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 99 Export Control Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 136 Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 117 Freedom of Information Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 84, 123 Health Insurance Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 106 Health Insurance Commission Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 88 Home Deposit Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 134 Income Tax Assessment Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 79, 87, 111 International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act-Regulations- Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 132, 133 Lands Acquisition Act- Lands acquired for- Extensions to Perth Airport-Newburn, WA Telecommunications Services-Mogo Hill, NSW Statements (12) of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 ( 1) Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 140 National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 102, 116 National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 66, 135 Naval Defence Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 62 Navigation Act- Navigation (Orders) Regulations-1983- No. 1-Marine Orders, Part 30 No. 2-Marine Orders, Part 43 No. 3-Marine Orders, Part 3 No. 4-Marine Orders, Part 6 No. 5-Marine Orders, Part 7 No. 6-Marine Orders, Part 9 No. 7-Marine Orders, Part 2 Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 95, 120, 121, 122 Northern Territory Representation Act and Commonwealth Electoral Act-Regulation -Statutory Rules 1983, No. 113 Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 60 Public Service Act- Determinations-1983-Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 , 16 Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 55, 57, 91, 98, 109, 110, 112, 119, 138 Public Service Arbitration Act-Public Service Arbitrator-Determinations accompanied by statements regarding possible inconsistency with the law-1983- Nos. 156 to 179-External Plant Officers Association and others Nos. 180 to 189-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers ) and others No. 190-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers) Nos. 191 and 192-Hospital Employees Federation of Australia* No. 193-Amalgamated Metals Foundry and Shipwrights' Union and others* No. 194-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers) No. 195-Australian Journalists' Association No. 196-Royal Australian Nursing Federation* No. 197-Printing and Kindred Industries Union* No. 198-Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia* No. 199-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers)* No. 200-Association of Draughting, Supervisory and Technical Employees No. 201-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers)* No. 202-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Australian Government Employment* No. 203-Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service No. 204-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers)* No. 205-Professional Musicians' Union of Australia No. 206-Association of Professional Engineers, Australia* No. 207-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Australian Government Employment No. 208-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others No. 209-Commonwealth Foremen's Association of Australia, Australian Public Service Nos. 210 and 211-Australian Broadcasting Commission Staff Assocation No. 212-Hospital Employees Federation of Australia Nos. 213 to 225-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others No. 226-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others* Nos. 227 and 228-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others No. 229-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others* No. 230-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others No. 231-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others* Nos. 232 to 241-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others Nos. 242 and 243-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others* Nos. 244 to 258-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others No. 259-Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia* (* Not accompanied by statement) Quarantine Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 70 Remuneration and Allowances Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 118 Repatriation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 83 Salaries and Wages Pause Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 69, 72, 101 , 141 Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances-1983- No. 8-Fireworks ( Amendment) No. 9-Rates (Amendment) No. 10-Parole Orders (Transfer) No. 11-Criminal Injuries Compensation No. 12-Rates (Amendment) (No. 2) No. 13-Motor Omnibus Services (Amendment) No. 14-Motor Traffic (Amendment) No. 15-Roads and Public Places (Amendment) No. 16-Sale of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) No. 17-Money Lenders (Amendment) No. 18-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 2) No. 19-National Exhibition Centre Trust (Amendment) Regulations-1983- Nos. 3 and 4-(Motor Omnibus Services Ordinance) No. 5-(Roads and Public Places Ordinance) Roads and Public Places Ordinance-Determination, listing fees and charges for the purposes of the Ordinance, dated 25 July 1983 Securities Industry Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 108 States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States of- New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia, dated 15 May 1983 New South Wales, Victoria (2), Queensland (2), South Australia, Western Australia (2) and Tasmania, dated 30 May 1983 Queensland, dated 31 July 1983 Queensland, dated 16 August 1983 Queensland and Western Australia, dated 18 July 1983 Western Australia, dated 21 June 1983 Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 Telecommunications Act-Australian Telecommunications Commission- By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts)-Amendments Nos. 34, 35, 36 Telecommunications (Community Calls)-Amendments Nos. 27, 28, 29 Telecommunications (Staff)-Amendment No. 41 Weights and Measures (National Standards) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 64 Wool Industry Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 103 World Heritage Properties Conservation Act- Proclamations (10), dated 26 May 1983 Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 65, 67 The following answers to questions were circulated: Mr Barry Jones —On 5 May 1983 (Hansard, page 258) Mr Kent asked me a question, without notice, arising from a report in the Dutch journal P.T. Aktueel concerning development of the SYNROC process. The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: I have seen a translation in the article from the Dutch journal P.T. Aktueel on the development of SYNROC in Australia. The article is inaccurate and speculative. It is not based on fact. I have set out below the scope of Australian Government action on SYNROC. No initiative has been taken by the Government to set up a collaborative program with the Netherlands Government and the article does not in fact suggest that it has. The basis for the figure of 4m guilders is not clear. An amount of $1.009m ( about 2.5m guilders) was provided in the 1982-83 Budget for the construction of a small pilot plant at the AAEC's Research Establishment at Lucas Heights. This plant will be used to demonstrate all steps in the production of full scale SYNROC-filled cannisters and to commence the related testing procedures. In addition, a total of $1.037m has been committed to SYNROC research and development under the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration ( NERD and D) Program since its inception in 1978. There is no substance to references in the article to possible reprocessing and nuclear waste disposal within Australia. The Government does however support the development of safe long-term nuclear waste disposal technology for application to existing waste problems, and has given medium priority to nuclear waste management in the Guidelines and Priorities for Grants under the NERD and D Program. By way of comparison, total funds committed to energy research and development in the period 1978-79 to 1982-83 under the NERD and D Program have amounted to $96.1m of which $8.9m was for solar energy. Question No. 5 Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: Is he able to say who were the representatives of Polish employees at the last International Labour Organisation meeting, and, if so, whom did they claim to represent. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Polish delegation to the 68th Session of the International Labour Conference, June 1982, consisted of Government representatives only and did not include delegates from either employer or employee organisations. There were no delegates representing Poland, either Government, employers or employees, at the 69th Session of the International Labour Conference held in June 1983. Question No. 6 Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Is there a proposal to establish a racing and sporting radio station in Canberra; if so, what stage has it reached. (2) Have previous proposals been rejected; if so, why. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My Department has received several expressions of interest for a Category ' S' public broadcasting licence in Canberra. The only one of these for a racing and sporting station is from Canberra Racing and Sporting Broadcasters Pty Ltd. All expressions of interest are being considered in terms of future radio services for the Australian Capital Territory region. (2) The Government has not rejected any proposals; however, a proposal from the Australian Capital Territory Totalizator Agency Board (ACT TAB) was not proceeded with by the previous Government. Question No. 8 Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an advertisement on page 40 of the National Times of 7-13 November 1982, soliciting advertising, which claims that there are 341,000 readers of that newspaper. (2) Has the Minister's attention also been drawn to an advertisement on page 38 of the National Times of 7-13 November 1982, soliciting advertising, which claims there are 518,000 readers of that newspaper. (3) If so, will the Minister refer this matter to the Trade Practices Commission for investigation. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) The Trade Practices Commission has investigated this matter. The Commission has reported that it was of the view, even before the matter was raised with the National Times by the Commission, that it would be difficult to prove a breach of the Trade Practices Act for the reasons that: the advertisements in which the different readership figures appear show clearly that the readership figures are supported by surveys conducted by two different organisations, Roy Morgan and McNair Anderson; and the surveys themselves were conducted over different time periods and there is nothing to suggest that the conditions under which the surveys were conducted were the same. The Commission subsequently contacted the National Times and was informed that the use of the two different figures was due to clerical error. The Commission was satisfied with this explanation and has decided not to take any further action. Question No. 9 Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) What is the latest available figure for occupied bed day cost, for each of the three Australian Capital Territory public hospitals. (2) What proportion of the actual cost is paid by (a) private patients and (b) shared ward patients. (3) What proportion of (a) patients and (b) bed-days are in the (i) private patient, (ii) paying shared ward patient and (iii) non-paying patient category, in each of the hospitals. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The adjusted bed-day costs for 1981-82 were- Royal Canberra Hospital (RCH) $209.90 Woden Valley Hospital (WVH) $196.50 Calvary Hospital (Calv) $220.50 (2) The accommodation charge for a bed-day in a multi-bed ward in the ACT is $ 120, and the charge for a single room at the patient's request is $165 per day. The proportions are therefore- RCH WVH Calv per cent per cent per cent (a) Private Patients in Single Ward* 79 84 75 (b) Shared-Ward Patients 57 61 54 * At patient's request. (3) For the financial year 1981-82- (a) the proportions of patients were- RCH WVH Calv Total per cent per cent per cent per cent (i) and (ii) All paying patients* 77 84 85 80 (iii) Non-paying patients 23 16 15 20 * It is not possible to obtain separate figures for single and multi-bed ward patients (b) The proportions of occupied bed-days were- RCH WVH Calv per cent per cent per cent (i) and (ii) All paying patients* 66 72 69 (iii) Non-paying patients 34 28 31 * Not possible to obtain separate figures for single and multi-bed ward patients. Question No. 13 Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article by Dr Ian Manning headed 'The Distribution of Wealth in Australia' in the April 1983 issue of the Current Affairs Bulletin, published by the University of Sydney. (2) If so, and if Manning's findings are confirmed by more detailed surveys by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, will he attempt to publicise them widely with a view to reforming Australia's taxation and related policies in the direction of greater equity. (3) Will he draw the article to the attention of the (a) Prime Minister, (b) Treasurer and (c) Minister for Housing and Construction. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As a result of this question, yes. (2) Considerations of reform in Australian taxation policies are the responsibility of the Treasurer. The Government is critically reviewing its expenditure policies to promote greater equity and will take into account those of Dr Manning's findings which are confirmed by other objective evidence. (3) Yes. Question No. 14 Mr O'Keefe asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Do deaths from cancer constitute a high proportion of the Australian death rate. (2) What percentage of deaths in Australia are attributed to this disease. (3) What Government funds are being made available for research into cancer. (4) Is he able to say whether the Australian medical profession is in close contact with overseas medical institutions to obtain the latest methods of cancer treatment. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) For 1981 (the most recent data available) the percentage of deaths in Australia attributed to cancer was 21.85 per cent. (3) $3.8m was provided through the National Health and Medical Research Council for cancer research for 1983. The Government also contributed $568,225 in 1982-83 to the International Agency for Research in Cancer, as Australia's share of the Agency's budget. (4) There are numerous well established channels through which the Australian medical profession can maintain contact with overseas developments in the treatment of cancer. These include attendance at international medical conferences and seminars, reciprocal visits to this country by overseas researchers and clinicians, and study of papers in scientific and medical publications. Question No. 15 Mr O'Keefe asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) How many Aboriginals are there in (a) Australia and (b) each State. (2) How many of these Aboriginals are (a) full blood and (b) half caste. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) and (b): I have been informed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics that the following question was asked in the 1981 Census: 'Is the person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island origin? For persons of mixed origin, indicate the one to which they consider themselves to belong.' The following results were obtained: Torres Strait Aboriginals Islanders Total NSW 33,414 1,953 35,367 Vic. 5,283 774 6,057 Qld 33,966 10,732 44,698 SA 9, 476 349 9,825 WA 30,749 602 31,351 Tas. 2,334 354 2,688 NT 28,680 408 29,088 ACT 763 60 823 Australia 144,665 15,232 159,897 552 281 persons (3.8 per cent of the total population) did not answer the question. (2) (a) and (b): A census question relating to each person's race has been included in every Australian census since Federation. Since 1966, however, questions have not been asked which require people to indicate a mix of racial origin. Thus, since then, the questions have sought people's identification of the race to which they belong. Question No. 16 Mr O'Keefe asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Will the Government continue to fund the Bicentenary Road Program. (2) If so, will the former Government's program of assistance to local government for this purpose be continued. (3) When will an announcement be made on funding in this important field. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3)-The Governor-General in his opening address to Parliament on 21 April 1983 announced that the Government would continue the Australian Bicentennial Road Development (ABRD) Program. This program provides funding to the States and the Northern Territory under four road categories, including local roads. Funds available for local roads are expected to amount to approximately $300m over the duration of the Program which terminates on 31 December 1988. The Government is also providing funds for local roads under the recently established Community Employment Program. Under this program an amount of $70m has been specifically earmarked in 1983-84 for the Jobs on Local Roads (JOLOR) Program. The JOLOR program is designed to reduce the backlog of local road works in addition to creating worthwhile employment opportunities. JOLOR funds are being made available for approved projects involving the construction or maintenance of local roads and, if authorities so wish, the construction of cycle paths regardless of whether the cycle path is associated with a road. Question No. 17 Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Since the introduction of procedures on biennial flight reviews, how many pilots have failed to report for a biennial review. (2) What is the average number of test flights that have been taken by pilots undertaking this check. (3) How many complaints have been received by his Department concerning unnecessary testings and inconvenience caused to aircraft owners. (4) Has action been taken by his Department to de-license pilots who have not taken their review; if so, what are the details. Mr Beazley — The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Biennial flight reviews are not conducted by the Department but by Grade One flying instructors and approved pilots from within the industry. These persons are required to certify in a pilot's log book that he has satisfactorily passed the flight review but they are not required to report this information to my Department. Thus the information needed to answer the question is not in the possession of the Department nor is it readily ascertainable. (2) These are not test flights but rather educational refreshers. Undoubtedly, a satisfactory standard is reached by most pilots in one refresher period but its length will depend upon the time needed by each individual to reach a satisfactory standard. In some cases a second period may be necessary but the average, overall, would be close to one period. (3) Since the introduction of the review requirements in September 1982 the Department has received only isolated complaints and then, primarily, from pilots who live in remote areas. (4) No. It has always been clearly stated by the Department that the review is quite unconnected with the holding of a pilot licence. Failure to complete the review by the required date simply results in a loss of the 'command' privilege, not a loss of licence. To date, formal action has been taken against only one pilot arising from a failure to complete a review at the proper time. The investigation of an incident in which he was involved revealed that he was improperly undertaking a 'command' role and his licence was suspended until he had passed an appropriate test. Question No. 18 Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Will the capital costs of facilities being provided, or to be provided, at Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth International Airports be recoverable in whole or in part from fares to be paid by air travellers on domestic routes. (2) Will increased operational costs add to the price of domestic air travel. (3) What is the estimated loading on domestic air fares as a result of (a) capital costs incurred, or to be incurred, and (b) increased operating costs. (4) Will any increases in domestic fares arising out of increased capital or operating costs be confined to travellers using the new facilities. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Facilities at Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth Airports are provided for the use of international and domestic operators. As costs recoverable from particular sectors of the industry are determined on the basis of usage, part of the costs of these facilities will be recoverable from the domestic sectors, including domestic airlines. The extent to which any resulting increase in costs are absorbed by the airlines or sought to be recovered through fares is a matter for the operators. (2) and (3) The Independent Air Fares Committee (IAFC) is presently the sole Commonwealth authority able to determine and approve air fares. The extent to which increases in Commonwealth charges are reflected in air fares is a matter for that Committee to determine in response to an application from an airline. Air navigation charges, for example, are estimated to account for only 4-5 per cent of total airline costs for the domestic trunk operators and slightly less for regional operators. Accordingly, increases in ANCs have only a very slight impact on fares. (4) No. Air Navigation Charges (ANCs) and fuel excise paid by domestic operators are used to recover the costs incurred by the Commonwealth in providing, operating and maintaining the aviation infrastructure as a whole. The costs to be recovered from individual sectors of the industry are determined on a network wide basis, and accordingly charges are set on this basis. As a result any increase in aviation infrastructure costs which is passed on in fares is ultimately borne by all travellers on the network. Question No. 21 Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: Will Australia's representatives at the United Nations be instructed to put down a motion calling for recognition of the colonial status of the Ukraine within the Soviet Russian empire. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As I am sure honourable members will be aware, the Ukraine was a founding member of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, established by treaty in December 1922 and confirmed in the 1924 Constitution. Australia has not contested the legality of this arrangement. In the light of this, the Government does not consider it appropriate more than sixty years later to attempt to ascribe colonial status to the Ukraine. This does not mean, of course, that the Australian Government condones the repressive actions of the Soviet authorities towards assertions of nationalist identity in the Soviet Union. The Government will continue to condemn violations of human rights, from which Ukrainian dissidents have suffered particularly severely. We will thus continue to urge the Soviet Union, both in the United Nations and elsewhere, to observe the internationally recognised standards relating to human rights and cultural freedom. Question No. 22 Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) What level of assistance is provided by the Government to the Australian tobacco growing industry. (2)What is the annual cost of assistance to (a) taxpayers and (b) consumers of tobacco products. (3) Is it intended to continue assistance to the industry; if so, why. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Tobacco growers benefit from general assistance measures available to all primary producers, and also from Government assistance to the joint industry/ Commonwealth tobacco research scheme which is similar to schemes applying to a number of other rural industries. In 1982-83 approximately $600,000 will be provided for this purpose. The Industry is also assisted by a joint State/Commonwealth stabilisation scheme which is administered by the Australian Tobacco Board and under which quota tobacco leaf is sold at a pre-determined reserve price. These marketing arrangements are supported by tariffs and by-law concessions on imported tobacco leaf and products. (2) (a) The cost to taxpayers in 1982-83 of the joint industry/Commonwealth tobacco research scheme will be about $600,000. (2) (b) The IAC has estimated that in 1980-81 the cost penalty to manufacturers of using Australian tobacco leaf under existing marketing arrangements was $29. 6m. On this estimate, if existing marketing arrangements were dismantled and if manufacturers passed on the full amount of the reduced costs, consumers of tobacco products could save $29.6m. This amounts to approximately one cent per packet. (3) Following careful and detailed consideration of the IAC report on the Australian tobacco industry, the Government has decided to implement a further 5 year stabilisation plan for the tobacco industry. While basic tariff and by-law provisions will be retained, the new stablisation scheme will include measures designed to rationalise the tobacco growing industry and ensure a narrowing of the margin between Australian and international leaf price over the period of the plan. These measures will enable the gradual reduction of protection to the industry but without imposing unnecessary hardship upon growers. Question No. 27 Mr Rocher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Are privately owned and operated business colleges required to submit to the Tertiary Education Commission a statutory declaration at the end of each quarter setting out enrolments in approved courses. (2) If so, what were the total enrolments for approved courses in non- government business colleges in each State and Territory for the last 3 quarters in 1982 and the first quarter in 1983. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) Statistics which are available relate to enrolments for each State and Territory for the months of March and September each year. The enrolments for March and September 1982 and March 1983 are: March September March 1982 1982 1983 New South Wales 2,089 2,098 2,262 Victoria 1,773 1,847 1,583 Queensland 612 461 455 South Australia 663 565 635 Western Australia 739 657 657 Tasmania - - - Northern Territory - - - Australian Capital Territory 35 39 57 Total 5,911 5,667 5,649 Question No. 28 Mr Rocher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) What amounts were expended by the Commonwealth in the academic years 1980, 1981 and 1982 under the classification 'incidental allowance' which is paid to tertiary students who qualify for the living allowance under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS). (2) What are the amounts each Australian university charges for student association fees. (3) How many students who qualify for TEAS living allowance attended each Australian university during the same years. (4) How many full time students attended or enrolled with each Australian university during the same years. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The amounts estimated to have been expended are: 1980 $6.618m 1981 $6.614m 1982 $6.330m (2) The general service fee, which includes student association fees, charged by universities for full time students for 1983 are as follows. New Common Continuing University student fees student $ $ $ Sydney 194.50 . . 154.50 New South Wales 202 . . 169 Macquarie 143 . . 128 New England 193 . . 123 Newcastle 145 . . 135 Wollongong 164 . . 129 Melbourne . . 192 . . Monash . . 198 . . La Trobe 195 . . 180 Deakin . . 155 . . Queensland . . 130 . . Griffith . . 115 . . James Cook . . 125 . . Adelaide 193 . . 163 Flinders 197 . . 167 Western Australia . . 75 . . Murdoch . . 75 . . Tasmania . . 95 . . ANU 160 . . 140 (3) and (4) The following table shows full time enrolments with numbers of TEAS beneficiaries shown in brackets. Full time enrolments include enrolments in courses where TEAS is not relevant, for example higher degree courses. UNIVERSITIES Full Time Enrolments and TEAS Beneficiaries Institution 1980 1981 1982 Sydney 13,857 (4,303) 13,691 (4,268) 13,887 (3,949) New South Wales 12,298 (4, 380) 12,664 (4,087) 12,049 (3,701) Macquarie 4,143 (1,391) 3,969 (1,290) 4,168 (1,339) New England 2,526 (1,252) 2,323 (1,211) 2,250 (1,103) Newcastle 2,245 ( 721) 2,121 (680) 2,177 (630) Wollongong 1,430 (547) 1,442 (500) 1,579 (491) Melbourne 11,369 (3,489) 11,499 (3,527) 11,369 (3,259) Monash 9,432 (2,686) 9, 594 (2,715) 9,811 (2,638) La Trobe 5,280 (2,391) 5,038 (2,213) 5,109 (2,113) Deakin 1,505 (694) 1,554 (683) 1,512 (642) Queensland 9,279 (3,961) 9,392 (3, 898) 9,549 (3,533) Griffith 1,563 (786) 1,619 (820) 1,588 (706) James Cook 1, 170 (525) 1,177 (478) 1,264 (713) Adelaide 6,027 (2,117) 6,166 (2,132) 6,256 (1 ,986) Flinders 2,424 (1,209) 2,337 (1,062) 2,295 (997) Western Australia 6,548 (2,391) 6,502 (2,273) 6,564 (2,163) Murdoch 1,041 (554) 1,090 (562) 1,210 (621) Tasmania 2,344 (722) 3,189 (917) 3,078 (966) ANU 3,595 (1,009) 3,565 (1,050) 3 ,609 (979) Total 98,076 (35,128) 98,932 (34,366) 99,324 (32,529) Question No. 29 Mr Rocher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: How many overseas students were enrolled at Australian universities and colleges of advanced education for the academic years 1980, 1981 and 1982. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Universities and colleges of advanced education have reported the following enrolments of overseas students at Australian institutions: 1980 1981 1982 Universities Full time 6,922 7,875 8,500 Part time 903 1,004 1,079 External 233 302 278 Total 8,058 9,181 9,857 Colleges of Advanced Education(a) Full time 1,306 1,399 1,733 Part time 424 367 363 External(b) 31 94 56 Total 1,761 1,860 2,152 (a) Excludes students in advanced education courses conducted by TAFE institutions, the Australian Maritime College and private institutions, and, for 1982, institutes of advanced education in universities. (b) Excludes an unknown number of students resident overseas enrolled externally at Australian CAEs. (See note (ii) below). Notes: (i) For universities an overseas student is one recording an overseas home address at the time of first enrolment. (ii) For CAEs an overseas student is one who entered Australia expressly for study purposes. Sources: ABS, CTEC. Question No. 30 Mr Rocher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) How many teachers and teaching staff were employed in each State and Territory for each of the years 1980 to 1982 inclusive; (2) How many students were enrolled in each State and Territory for the same years. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) No distinction is made in collected statistics between teachers and teaching staff. NUMBER OF TEACHERS BY STATE 1980-1982 (Number of full time teachers plus full time equivalent units of part time teaching) Government Non-Government Total 1980 1981 1982 1980 1981 1982* 1980 1981 1982* New South Wales 45,963 45,248 45,762 12,012 12,663 57,974 57,911 Victoria 40, 592 40,462 40,775 11,750 12,411 52,342 52,873 Queensland 19,512 19,719 20,470 4,749 4,952 24,261 24,671 South Australia 14,628 14,472 14,214 2,394 2,527 17 ,021 16,999 Western Australia 11,668 11,691 11,840 2,636 2,719 14,304 14,410 Tasmania 4,908 4,947 4,901 831 853 5,738 5,800 Northern Territory 1,413 1,486 1,566 204 222 1,617 1,708 Australian Capital Territory 2,523 2,500 2,629 838 878 3,361 3,378 Australia 141,206 140,525 142,157 35,414 37,225 176,620 177, 750 * 1982 data is available on a national basis only for government schools. Source: 1980 and 1981-Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1982-Australian Education Council (2) SCHOOL ENROLMENTS BY STATE 1980-1982 Government Non-Government Total 1980 1981 1982 1980 1981 1982* 1980 1981 1982* New South Wales 799,304 790,393 782,079 230,384 237,853 1,029,688 1,028,246 Victoria 606,147 595,042 584,781 216,125 221,611 822,272 816,653 Queensland 353,401 360,424 360,864 97,174 100,503 450,575 460,927 South Australia 218,682 213,033 207,944 41,116 43,312 259,798 256,345 Western Australia 206,634 207,126 208,344 46,595 48,507 253,229 255,633 Tasmania 72,332 70,932 69,142 14,620 14, 917 86,952 85,849 Northern Territory 22,309 23,271 23,801 4,105 4,215 26,414 27,486 Australian Capital Territory 39,268 39,182 39,010 16,366 17,078 55,634 56,260 Australia 2,318,077 2,299,403 2,282,965 666,485 687,996 2,984,562 2,987 ,399 * 1982 data is available on a national basis only for government schools Source: 1980 and 1981-Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1982- Australian Education Council Question No. 31 Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) How much of his Department's expenditure in the last three years is attributable to overseas aid. (2) Which overseas aid projects benefited from any expenditure, and by how much , during the same period. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Expenditure by the Department of Housing and Construction on aid projects for the three years, June 1979 to June 1982, was $2,363,920. The Department's input to overseas aid projects is at the request of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau (ADAB) and occasionally, the Department of Trade. The trade component of the above expenditure was $21,150, with the ADAB component being $2,342,770. The services provided by my Department on overseas aid projects are in the form of technical advice or direct project involvement. Departmental expenditures on the ADAB projects are recovered. On trade projects, only overseas travel expenses are recovered. The $21,150 is exclusive of any such travel cost and represents direct Departmental costings incurred but not recovered. (2) The expenditure by the Department of Housing and Construction on aid projects between June 1979 and June 1982 involved a large number of services and projects in numerous countries. In many cases the depart- mental involvement was to assist ADAB in the technical management of projects which were allocated to private sector consultants or to provide a management role for projects carried out using indigenous labour resources. A list of the projects and expenditures is as follows: Project Country Expenditure $ Bangladesh Cattle Facilities Extensions Bangladesh 249,431 Ngu Hospital upgrading Tonga 112,376 University of the South Pacific SSED Building Fiji 110,709 Suva sewerage facilities Fiji 142,328 Apia Wharf: Upgrading Western Samoa 51,186 Sarawak: New bridges Series 1 to 4 Malaysia 463,743 Tarawa sewerage scheme Kiribati 56,315 Den Pasar: Water supply scheme Indonesia 15,330 Suva regional water supply scheme Fiji 327,624 Kota Bumi water supply Indonesia 18,091 Regional TTK water supply schemes Indonesia 48,992 Cilicap water supply scheme Indonesia 182,893 Bonriki Airport hangar Kiribati 9,909 Suva sewerage tunnel Fiji 178,426 Vava'u Bulk fuel storage Tonga 31,333 Electricity supply upgrading Tonga 16,498 Way Linti water supply scheme Indonesia 30,027 Tarawa water suply scheme Kiribati 6,427 Tanjunkerang/Telakbetung water supply scheme Indonesia 47,401 Nuku'alofa seaport improvements Tonga 42,902 Technical assistance to Cipta Karya (Indonesia water supply/Sewerage Authority) Indonesia 4,579 Songkla University feasibility study Thailand 370 Faleolo airport study Western Samoa 11,517 Suva sewerage discharge studies (Kinoya Bay) Fiji 4,750 Christmas Island water supply studies Kiribati 3,510 Physical planning assistance-University of the South Pacific (seconded full time to ADAB) Fiji - Vanuatu Santo Secondary School Vanuatu 23,665 Airport development study Solomon Islands 4,300 Feasibility study: Power Generation from Wood Waste (Trade) Fiji 800 Philippines national coal logistics project: Advice Philippines 50,400 ASEAN countries: Coal utilisation seminars (Trade) ASEAN Nations 14,200 North Bangkok power station conversion Thailand 900 Lignite mine development, Mae Moh Thailand 2,800 Ao Phai power station Thailand 19,000 Black coal technology Thailand 700 Batam Island coal installation Indonesia 2,500 Sri Lanka power station study Sri Lanka 800 Extensions to coal logistics system Philippines 31,400 Coal Utilisation papers for ESCAP member countries (Trade) - 2,400 Power station coal handling plant Malta 200 Kalewa coal mine development (Trade) Burma 250 Coal slurry pipeline study (Trade) Philippines 500 Ethanol plant study (Trade) Papua New Guinea 1,200 Ethanol plant study (Trade) Thailand 1,800 Lombrum wharf study Papua New Guinea 7,220 Queen Salote wharf development Tonga 6,280 Semarang flood mitigation Indonesia 6,151 Dessicated coconut factory: Review Tonga 1,500 Vietnam-Assess equipment Vietnam 28,287 Question No. 32 Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) To what extent did the former Departments of Housing or Construction commission consultant architects, engineers, quantity surveyors and other specialists to complete designs or tender documentation during 1980-81 and 1981- 82. (2) How many new projects were involved. (3) How many consultants were engaged from each State or Territory on new projects, and what was the value of projects on a State and Territory basis. (4) In each of the financial years 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82, (a) what proportion of the design workload of the former Departments of Housing or Construction was placed with private practitioners and (b) for each State what proportion of the design workload relating to projects in that State was placed with private practitioners in that State. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The total number of commissions awarded by the Department of Housing and Construction to private architects, engineers, quantity surveyors and other specialists during the years 1980-81 and 1981-82 was: 1980-81 517 1981-82 449 (2) The number of new projects involved was: 1980-81 329 1981-82 315 (3) The number of consultants engaged and the value of projects for each State or Territory were: No. of consultants Value of projects ($m) State/Territory 1980-81 1981-82 1980-81 1981-82 New South Wales 70 45 127.3 134.9 Victoria 96 114 73.9 136.6 Queensland 90 46 19.2 20.7 South Australia 32 32 154.0 78.0 Western Australia 16 18 3.2 (7.1) 4 .4 (10.6) Australian Capital Territory 73 60 48.0 41.0 Tasmania 6 8 0.3 6.3 Northern Territory 6 4 40.0 9.0 389 327 465.9 430.9 Notes concerning the above figures are: (a) The bracketed values for Western Australia are the values of projects on which both consultants and contract personnel have worked. (b) The value of projects quoted is not the value of the work totally done by consultants; it is the total value of the projects on which consultants were engaged. (c) The consultancies covered by the above table were for part or all of the range of tasks involved in design, from conceptual studies through to completion of documentation. (d) Where separate commissions were placed for early stage design studies and/ or design development and/or documentation, the value of the project or each stage is included in the appropriate 'Value of Projects' column. (4) (a) The proportion of design workload placed with private practitioners for the years 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 was: 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 Approx. Approx. 24 per cent 30 per cent 41 per cent 48.5 per cent (b) The proportion of the design workload relating to projects in each State placed with private practitioners in that State was as follows: (shown as percentages) NSW Vic. Tas. Qld SA NT WA ACT 1978-79 18.2 35.4 50.7 11.7 31.5 11.7 4.4 6.4 1979-80 31.5 35.1 56.6 7.3 41.5 4.4 13.1 27.9 1980-81 45.2 46.0 74.8 32.5 36.3 19.6 11.3 38.2 1981-82 63.2 52. 7 54.1 37.6 50.0 13.3 11.5 47.3 The private practitioners referred to above are in the main consultants but also include contract personnel. Question No. 33 Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) How many temporary entry permits were granted to foreign experts to work in Australia and in Western Australia during 1981-82. (2) How many of these expatriates were to be engaged in work on engineering and resource development projects in (a) Australia and (b) Western Australia. (3) How many of those permits granted were for work in connection with the Woodside LNG project, and what are the numbers and skills of those for each company involved in the project. (4) What measures are being taken to co-ordinate granting of permanent permits to work in Western Australian State Government authorities. (5) Are any steps taken to ensure that resident professionals receive priority in employment opportunities over imported workers issued temporary work permits. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There were 12,412 visas issued to professional and technical experts in 1981-82; 2,411 of these for work in Western Australia. (2) (a) Figures not available for Australia as a whole. (b) 721 expatriates were engaged in work on engineering and resource development projects in Western Australia in 1981-82 with periods of stay ranging from a few weeks to two years. (3) In 1981-82, 529 permits were granted for work in connection with the Woodside LNG project, covering skills in marine and geological surveying, oil rig platform design and building and underwater diving, welding, construction, dredging and pipe-laying for the 16 companies involved in the project. (4) and (5) Current temporary residence policy allows for the admission to Australia of specialist personnel from overseas only where it can be demonstrated that no suitably qualified Australian residents are readily available to fill the vacancies. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs consults with the Western Australia Department of Resources Development, through the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, on labour market questions and relevant aspects of industrial relations prior to deciding an application. Companies applying for the admission of personnel from overseas are required to demonstrate that they have adequately tested the local labour market and, where appropriate, to introduce training programmes so that local staff may eventually replace overseas staff. Question No. 34 Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) How many Libyan citizens are there in Australia. (2) How many of these are (a) diplomatic personnel with diplomatic immunities, (b) employed by the Libyan Government or its agencies and without diplomatic immunity or (c) members of the families of employees. (3) How many Libyans have been granted (a) Australian citizenship, (b) permanent residence and (c) visitors' visas. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Accurate figures are not available. (2) (a) There are currently five diplomatic agents and one Administrative and Technical Officer engaged in Australia by the Libyan Government; all have diplomatic immunity. (b) Accurate figures are not available. (c) There are twenty two dependants of those personnel in 2 (a) above; all have diplomatic immunity. (3) (a) From July 1977-March 1983 a total of 22 persons claiming Libyan citizenship were granted Australian citizenship. (b) From July 1977-September 1982, three persons arrived in Australia for permanent residence who stated that their country of citizenship was Libya. (c) From July 1977-September 1982, 64 visitors intending a stay longer than 12 months and 279 visitors intending a short term visit arrived in Australia and stated that their country of citizenship was Libya. Question No. 35 Mr Rocher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy , upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) From which countries did Australia import more than 2 per cent of its oil in 1982. (2) What percentage of total oil imports originated in each of these countries. (3) What quantity of oil was imported during this period. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) In 1982, countries which supplied more than 2 per cent of Australia 's oil imports (crude oil and petroleum products-Groups 333 and 334 of the Australian Import Commodity Classification) were: Country of Origin (a) Percentage Saudi Arabia 37.1 Indonesia 19.7 Singapore 11.4 United Arab Emirates 10.8 Kuwait 9.1 Iran 2.9 Oman 2.0 (a) For import statistics the 'Country of Origin' is defined as the 'Country of Production', that is, the country responsible for the last phase of any substantial manufacturing operation before the goods take their final form. This is normally the country in which the goods were loaded for export to Australia. (3) 16,160.5 megalitres. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Question No. 38 Mr Allan Morris asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: Can all existing Government contracts, all new Government contracts and all contracts in which the Commonwealth has some involvement be structured so as to ensure that Australian iron and steel is used exclusively, except in those cases where there is not an appropriate Australian product. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The issue of purchasing preference for Australian made goods is currently under review, with a view to implementing the Government's pre-election commitments; in the meantime interim arrangements, announced on 15 December 1982, apply. These arrangements include a preference margin in the form of a notional discount for comparison purposes of 20 per cent of the Australian Content of goods for purchases valued from $10 000 to $1 000 000 and consideration by ministers of purchases valued above $100 000 to determine whether any additional preference is justified. For purchases up to $10 000 value 20 per cent is notionally added to offers of goods identified as of overseas origin. The Government is firmly committed to the maintenance of an efficient viable steel industry in Australia. The need for assistance to the industry is fully recognised and the Government is expected to produce, in the near future, a steel development plan to ensure the long term survival of the industry. The suggestion that Government contracting arrangements be reviewed to ensure maximum usage of Australian iron and steel has been noted. The appropriate time for consideration of this suggestion is in the context of the Government's decision on a long term assistance package for the steel industry. Question No. 41 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: Will the Government propose to nuclear armed powers that they renounce their veto powers if a more equitable voting procedure is adopted at the United Nations, for example a 3/4 majority vote of the General Assembly and, where appropriate, of the Security Council, with the majority vote representing nations which have 3/4 of the world population and contribute 3/4 of the revenue required by the proposed resolution, and/or a majority of a democratically chosen disarmament, arbitration and peace-keeping authority; if not, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian Government takes a constructive, positive approach to the question of making the United Nations more responsive to the needs of its member states. As a practical matter however there is little likelihood of securing the necessary degree of agreement to amend the organisation's charter to remove the power of veto from the permanent members of the Security Council, since such a proposal would require the assent of the permanent members themselves. Charter reform has been a difficult exercise, although Australia participates in consideration of this question and will continue to do so. The United Nations can only function effectively on the basis of consent. If major parties to a dispute refuse to heed the demands of the United Nations, including the Security Council, experience has shown that the United Nations' ability to resolve the problem is limited. Countries like Australia have a duty to encourage member states to accept a greater role for the United Nations and the related arbitral and juridical process, but until this acceptance has become more widespread, moves for substantive amendments to the charter are unlikely to be successful. Question No. 47 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to his predecessor's reply to parts (3) and (4 ) of my Question No. 4680 (Hansard, 21 October 1982, pages 2,563-4); if so, does the reply imply that Australia has abandoned any attempt at specific policies or proposals for United Nations Charter reforms and that it prefers to wait for a consensus of other nations. (2) Will the proposals of President Carter mentioned in the question be promoted for public support by Australians as envisaged in UN resolutions calling for member nations to support the UN World Disarmament Campaign or will the Government wait to see what the attitude and interpretation of UN blocs is and react accordingly to indicate that Australia stays in company with like- minded countries. (3) Does the Government intend that Australia regain its initiative of the early years of the United Nations when Mr Frank Forde and Dr H. V. Evatt called for UN powers of enforcement of peace-keeping jurisdiction. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The reply to Question No. 4680 was of course a reply by the previous Government . (1) and (3) Australia would support any constructive proposal for reform of the United Nations Charter and, as stated in the reply to your previous question on this matter, spoke in favour of the principles enunciated in President Carter's report in the General Assembly. However as a matter of fact any agreement to reform the Charter will require widespread support from member states of the organisation, including the permanent members of the Security Council, and we must bear this in mind. Australia has been an active supporter of UN peace-keeping activities. In addition to financial contributions we have provided personnel and equipment to operations in Cyprus, Kashmir and the Middle East. Australia is also a member of the General Assembly's Special Committee on Peace-Keeping operations which was set up to review the whole question of peace-keeping. There is, however, no doubt that the United Nations' record on peace-keeping is not entirely successful. The Security Council, the primary organ for the maintenance of international peace and security, finds its resolutions often ignored. Those provisions of the Charter dealing with collective action for peace and security have been rendered largely ineffective. Member States have contrived to avoid bringing particular problems to the Security Council, or to do so too late for the Council to have any effective impact. Obviously the attainment of the ideals which the original participants held for the ability of the United Nations to keep the peace has proved elusive. Nevertheless, the Secretary-General has proposed a number of measures to face what he himself has described as a crisis in the multilateral approach to solving world problems. These include a more systematic use of the Security Council which, when alerted by the Secretary-General, could attempt to identify and isolate disputes before they degenerate into armed conflict. The Secretary-General has also proposed that Member States use their collective influence to ensure respect for decisions of the Security Council. Australia supports the Secretary-General's ideas, and spoke accordingly before the 37th Session of the General Assembly. They presuppose, however, a measure of co-operation among the permanent members, and until this consensus develops, have little chance of being implemented. (2) The Government supports the goals and objectives of the world disarmament campaign and its policies on disarmament will be determined by a thorough and detailed assessment of Australia's interests. The Government has already given indications of positive directions on its policies on disarmament. These policies reflect principled concern for peace and security and for the achievement of effective balanced verifiable and negotiated disarmament measures . The Government's attitude to the positions taken by blocs in the United Nations will be based on these principles. Question No. 48 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Does the United Nations Charter specify conditions for sanctions to be applied to member states in breach of international law. (2) If so, were these conditions operative during Australia's sanctions against the Soviet Union following that country's undertaking military operations in Afghanistan; if not, why not. (3) Does the nuclear-armed nations' veto power in the Security Council effectively prevent sanctions, peace-keeping force deployment or any other discipline, remedy or penalty being applied by the UN against any nation. (4) Is the major threat to survival of life beyond this century, the nuclear arms race. (5) What steps has Australia taken to try to replace the veto power with enforceable arbitration of international disputes, including policies expressed by the late Mr Frank Forde and the late Dr H. V. Evatt at the United Nations. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Australia's decision to impose sanctions on the Soviet Union was taken by the previous Government independently of the United Nations. (3) Articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations Charter empower the Security Council to employ a range of measures to give effect to its decisions in the event of it determining that a threat to international peace and security exists . These measures include complete or partial interruption of economic relations, the severance of diplomatic relations and the closure of communications links. Should these measures be ineffective the Council may resort to military action. The Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council can exercise power of veto over calls for such measures. This Government, like those of other member States of the United Nations, must abide by these conditions. Although the power of veto of permanent member states can present disadvantages, it is a fact of life that the cooperation of the major powers can only be expected if they believe their interests are being protected or served. (4) The Government is deeply concerned at the threat to survival of mankind posed by the size and scale of nuclear arsenals. The Government considers that the most effective way of addressing these questions is to give its strong backing to the negotiating process between the super powers and the other nuclear weapons states with the objective of achieving limits, reductions and ultimately the abolition of nuclear arsenals. This is a period of intense rivalry and competition between the super powers and indeed between states in various parts of the world and any machinery or mechanism in the United Nations has to proceed from this basis. (5) See reply to question 47 (3). Question No. 50 Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Can the High Court building be made to accommodate nine rather than seven Justices without structural alteration. (2) What would be the approximate cost of the necessary alterations to suit the building for an expanded court. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am informed by the National Capital Development Commission that- (1) Yes. (2) The order of cost to convert existing conference and other space on the Justices' floor to provide two additional suites is $600,000 at May 1983 rates. Question No. 51 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Have he and his Department acquired responsibility for the administration of animal quarantine in Australia. (2) If not, (a) is it still intended that this responsibility be given to his Department, (b) when will the transfer from the Department of Health take place and (c) how long will the transfer take. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) The Minister for Health has initiated certain reviews of the quarantine service. When the results of those reviews are available further consideration may be given to the administrative arrangements to apply to the quarantine function. Question No. 56 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the extra costs to Australian farmers of tariff duties on imported machinery when his Department makes a unilateral decision that duties be imposed on the basis that suitably equivalent machinery is available in Australia. (2) Is it a fact that Australian primary industry would be more efficient if the guidelines were changed from suitably equivalent to exactly equivalent; if so, will he have the guidelines changed so that Australian primary producers are not disadvantaged. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Duties are imposed by action of the Parliament normally following a public inquiry and recommendation by the Industries Assistance Commission. The Department administering the current by-law system may take action to waive these duties only if suitably equivalent goods are not reasonably available from Australian producers. The Department is careful not to remove or erode the protection the Parliament has accorded to an Australian industry. (2) The current guidelines are being changed under the new commercial tariff concession system planned for introduction on 1 July 1983. The criteria being prescribed under that system should lead to a clearer understanding of the basis for granting a tariff concession. It will not, however, introduce the concept of exactly equivalent. To do so would lead to a lessening of the protection the Parliament has accorded to sections of Australian industry. Question No. 93 Mr Fife asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: What (a) percentage of households either owned or were purchasing their accommodation, (b) was the mean and median size of a first mortgage home loan, excluding loans for renovations or extensions, granted by (i) banks, (ii) building societies, and (iii) other sources of finance, (c) was the mean and median time of repayment of a first mortgage home loan, excluding loans for renovations or extensions, granted by (i) banks, (ii) building societies and ( iii) other sources of finance, and (d) was the total number of first mortgage home loans, excluding loans for renovations or extensions granted by (i) banks, (ii) building societies and (iii) other sources of finance, on a (A) national, ( B) State and (C) capital city basis for each year since 1948. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) HOME OWNERSHIP RATE- Censuses of Australia and Australian Bureau of Statistics surveys of Housing Occupancy and Costs revealed that the proportion of households owning or purchasing their accommodation was as follows (1): New Australian South Queens- South Western Northern Capital Date Wales Victoria land Australia Australia Tasmania Territory Territory Australia 1947 Census 48.1 52.7 61.2 56.7 56.6 52.9 25.9 17.0 52.6 1954 Census 59.6 64.4 69.8 66.0 65.3 62.5 35.1 19.1 63.3 1961 Census 68.8 72.7 72.1 70.2 70.0 68.9 31 .4 28.6 70.3 1966 Census 70.4 73.7 71.8 72.4 70.3 70.1 30.6 45.5 71.4 1971 Census 68.2 71.6 69.6 69.4 64.2 68.3 30.1 51.8 68.8 1976 Census 67.2 71.5 68.3 68.6 65.8 69.6 29.5 63.7 68.4 1978 Survey(2) 73.6 76.9 73.0 70.9 68.7 73.6 25.2 71.1 73.4 1980 Survey(2) 71.3 74.8 71.8 71.7 70.0 71.9 29.1 67.9 71.9 1981 Census 69.2 73.4 69.4 70.6 67.2 70.2 34.2 68.3 70.1 (1) No data readily available on capital city basis since 1948. (2) Because the questions asked in each survey and the Census were slightly different the data available are not strictly comparable. Sources: Censuses of Australia Survey of Home Rental and Ownership, November 1978. Survey of Housing Occupancy and Costs, Australia, August 1980. (b) MEAN VALUE OF LOANS APPROVED TO INDIVIDUALS FOR THE CONSTRUC- TION OR PURCHASE OF DWELLINGS: BY TYPE OF LENDER- The following tables contain statistics relating to secured loans to individuals for the construction or purchase of dwellings for owner occupation. The statistics include lending on both first and subsequent mortgages. Information in respect of years prior to 1966-67, capital cities and median loan values is not available. (a) Australia Permanent Other (3) All Savings Trading building significant significant Financial year banks banks societies lenders lenders $ $ $ $ $ 1966-67 (1) 6,400 5,400 . . . . . . 1967-68 (1) 6,700 5,600 . . . . . . 1968-69 (1) 7,200 6,000 . . . . . . 1969-70 (1) 7,500 6,300 10,800 . . . . 1970-71 (1) 8,200 6,700 11,900 . . . . 1971-72 (1) 8,900 8,000 12,700 . . . . 1972-73 10,800 10,400 14,700 . . . . 1973-74 12,600 11,700 16,600 . . . . 1974 -75 15,600 12,800 18,500 . . . . 1975-76 (2) 16,700 14,800 21,600 . . . . 1976 -77 (2) 18,700 15,600 24,100 23,900 20,400 1977-78 (2) 20,600 17,600 26,000 24 ,700 22,200 1978-79 (2) 22,700 18,600 27,700 26,000 23,900 1979-80 (2) 23,900 19,100 29,800 27,700 25,400 1980-81 (2) 24,800 21,100 32,700 32,400 27,500 1981 -82 (2) 26,000 21,700 35,200 33,400 28,400 (1) See footnotes at the end. (2) See footnotes at the end. (3) See footnotes at the end. Sources: ABS, Reserve Bank. (b) New South Wales Permanent Other (3) All Savings Trading building significant significant Financial year banks banks societies lenders lenders $ $ $ $ $ 1966-67 . . 5,600 . . . . . . 1967-68 6,500 5,600 . . . . . . 1968- 69 7,100 5,900 . . . . . . 1969-70 7,300 6,700 12,100 . . . . 1970-71 8,300 7, 400 13,400 . . . . 1971-72 9,400 9,200 14,600 . . . . 1972-73 11,800 12,100 17 ,200 . . . . 1973-74 13,600 13,500 18,400 . . . . 1974-75 17,100 13,900 20,500 . . . . 1975-76 (2) 17,600 15,400 22,600 . . . . 1976-77 (2) 19,300 16,300 24, 600 23,600 21,100 1977-78 (2) 21,700 19,000 26,200 25,300 23,200 1978-79 (2) 24,300 19,400 28,000 27,500 24,800 1979-80 (2) 26,600 20,300 31,400 30,600 27, 600 1980-81 (2) 29,000 22,600 35,900 37,100 31,300 1981-82 (2) 32,500 24,600 37,600 37,700 33,300 (2, 3) See footnotes at the end. Sources: ABS, Reserve Bank. Victoria Permanent Other (3) All Savings Trading building significant significant Financial year banks banks societies lenders lenders $ $ $ $ $ 1966-67 . . 5,500 . . . . . . 1967-68 7,200 5,900 . . . . . . 1968- 69 7,700 6,100 . . . . . . 1969-70 8,100 6,000 8,800 . . . . 1970-71 8,400 5, 900 10,000 . . . . 1971-72 9,100 6,800 11,600 . . . . 1972-73 10,900 9,500 13, 300 . . . . 1973-74 13,200 10,200 16,600 . . . . 1974-75 16,800 13,300 18,600 . . . . 1975-76 (2) 17,300 14,500 22,500 . . . . 1976-77 (2) 19,300 15,800 24, 900 24,900 20,700 1977-78 (2) 21,300 17,200 27,400 25,700 22,700 1978-79 (2) 23,400 17,900 29,300 25,400 24,400 1979-80 (2) 23,900 18,300 30,200 27,200 25, 000 1980-81 (2) 23,700 20,600 32,100 30,300 25,800 1981-82 (2) 24,000 20,900 36,100 30,300 26,100 (2, 3) See footnotes at the end. Sources: ABS, Reserve Bank. Queensland Permanent Other (3) All Savings Trading building significant significant Financial year banks banks societies lenders lenders $ $ $ $ $ 1966-67 . . 4,600 . . . . . . 1967-68 6,300 4,700 . . . . . . 1968- 69 6,700 4,800 . . . . . . 1969-70 6,900 5,100 8,500 . . . . 1970-71 7,300 5, 400 9,500 . . . . 1971-72 8,100 6,800 10,700 . . . . 1972-73 9,900 8,900 13, 200 . . . . 1973-74 11,400 10,400 16,700 . . . . 1974-75 13,000 10,300 18,600 . . . . 1975-76 (2) 14,700 13,500 20,100 . . . . 1976-77 (2) 16,000 15,000 21, 800 20,900 18,200 1977-78 (2) 17,900 15,200 23,900 21,300 19,300 1978-79 (2) 19,400 16,200 25,900 24,000 21,500 1979-80 (2) 20,200 16,200 28,000 24,700 22, 500 1980-81 (2) 21,100 17,500 30,000 28,100 24,000 1981-82 (2) 23,600 17,700 35,100 31,600 26,300 (2, 3) See footnotes at the end. Sources: ABS, Reserve Bank. South Australia Permanent Other (3) All Savings Trading building significant significant Financial year banks banks societies lenders lenders $ $ $ $ $ 1966-67 . . 5,900 . . . . . . 1967-68 6,800 6,300 . . . . . . 1968- 69 7,200 6,900 . . . . . . 1969-70 7,400 6,700 9,600 . . . . 1970-71 7,700 7, 200 9,900 . . . . 1971-72 8,200 7,800 10,300 . . . . 1972-73 9,800 8,800 12, 800 . . . . 1973-74 11,800 10,700 15,400 . . . . 1974-75 14,400 13,200 17,000 . . . . 1975-76 (2) 16,800 16,100 21,700 . . . . 1976-77 (2) 19,400 16,300 24, 800 31,300 21,800 1977-78 (2) 20,600 18,200 25,500 29,800 22,500 1978-79 (2) 22,100 21,100 26,400 28,300 23,700 1979-80 (2) 23,200 22,700 27,400 24,200 24, 100 1980-81 (2) 24,600 24,600 30,300 27,800 26,300 1981-82 (2) 25,000 25,900 32,100 27,300 26,600 (2, 3) See footnotes at the end. Sources: ABS, Reserve Bank. Western Australia Permanent Other(3) All Saving Trading building significant significant Financial year banks banks societies lenders lenders $ $ $ $ $ 1966-67 . . 5,200 . . . . . . 1967-68 6,800 5,900 . . . . . . 1968- 69 7,300 7,300 . . . . . . 1969-70 7,600 6,600 11,600 . . . . 1970-71 9,000 6, 700 12,100 . . . . 1971-72 9,200 7,500 12,500 . . . . 1972-73 10,500 8,600 13, 600 . . . . 1973-74 11,500 9,500 14,800 . . . . 1974-75 12,900 10,500 15,700 . . . . 1975-76(2) 15,900 12,700 20,600 . . . . 1976-77(2) 17,700 12,700 24,100 20,000 19,900 1977-78(2) 19,600 14,200 25,800 23,400 22,300 1978-79(2) 21,300 16,600 27,200 26,000 24,000 1979-80(2) 22,400 16,700 28,900 25,800 24,900 1980- 81(2) 23,600 18,800 30,400 30,300 26,500 1981-82(2) 24,400 18,700 31,700 31,200 26,600 (2, 3) See footnotes at the end. Sources: ABS, Reserve Bank. Tasmania Permanent Other(3) All Saving Trading building significant significant Financial year banks banks societies lenders lenders $ $ $ $ $ 1966-67 . . 4,400 . . . . . . 1967-68 6,100 5,100 . . . . . . 1968- 69 6,500 5,000 . . . . . . 1969-70 6,800 5,300 8,700 . . . . 1970-71 7,400 5, 500 9,100 . . . . 1971-72 8,100 6,400 9,900 . . . . 1972-73 9,200 7,600 11,100 . . . . 1973-74 10,900 8,700 12,200 . . . . 1974-75 12,800 10,900 14,900 . . . . 1975-76(2) 13,000 13,600 17,800 . . . . 1976-77(2) 17,400 14,400 20,100 21, 000 18,100 1977-78(2) 18,800 17,400 21,200 21,600 19,500 1978-79(2) 21,200 16, 500 23,300 21,000 21,100 1979-80(2) 21,500 17,200 25,100 21,700 21,900 1980-81( 2) 21,600 19,100 24,400 22,100 21,900 1981-82(2) 22,000 18,300 23,000 24,000 22 ,000 (2, 3) See footnotes at the end. Sources: ABS, Reserve Bank. Northern Territory(4) Permanent Other(3) All Saving Trading building significant significant Financial year banks banks societies lenders lenders $ $ $ $ $ 1966-67 . . 5,700 . . . . . . 1967-68 5,700 7,800 . . . . . . 1968- 69 7,400 5,700 . . . . . . 1969-70 . . . . 12,300 . . . . 1970-71 . . 5,100 12,800 . . . . 1971-72 . . . . 14,300 . . . . 1972-73 . . . . 16,600 . . . . 1973-74 . . . . 15,500 . . . . 1974-75 . . . . 15,300 . . . . 1975-76(2) . . . . 21,100 . . . . 1976-77(2) 18,400 12,300 24,600 21,800 22,400 1977-78(2) 17 ,800 14,400 27,200 21,000 21,400 1978-79(2) 21,200 14,900 30,600 23,100 23,000 1979-80(2) 22,700 16,700 29,900 27,400 29,200 1980-81(2) 27,600 18,500 31,200 35,200 38,900 1981-82(2) 28,500 17,200 30,800 37,900 43,300 (2, 3, 4) See footnotes at the end. Sources: ABS, Reserve Bank. Australian Capital Territory(4) Permanent Other(3) All Saving Trading building significant significant Financial year banks banks societies lenders lenders $ $ $ $ $ 1966-67 . . 4,000 . . . . . . 1967-68 4,700 5,000 . . . . . . 1968- 69 4,800 4,800 . . . . . . 1969-70 7,900 5,100 . . . . . . 1970-71 10,100 4, 800 . . . . . . 1971-72 10,400 7,500 . . . . . . 1972-73 10,600 9,900 . . . . . . 1973-74 11,000 11,900 . . . . . . 1974-75 13,200 11,600 . . . . . . 1975- 76(2) 15,800 14,800 . . . . . . 1976-77(2) 18,500 19,300 . . . . 20,100 1977- 78(2) 19,200 20,800 . . . . 21,500 1978-79(2) 21,400 21,400 . . . . 23,900 1979-80(2) 23,600 17,300 . . . . 24,300 1980-81(2) 26,800 22,000 . . . . 27, 900 1981-82(2) 31,800 23,600 . . . . 28,900 (2, 3, 4) See footnotes at the end. Sources: ABS, Reserve Bank. Footnotes: (1) Prior to 1972-73 statistics including lending for the Territory of Papua and New Guinea (TPNG), (amounts were relatively minor). (2) From October 1975 all lending for alterations and additions has been excluded; previously lending for alterations and additions estimated to cost $10 ,000 or more was included. (3) 'Other significant lenders' comprise terminating building societies, finance companies, government housing authorities and other government authorities, credit unions and insurance companies (life and general). (4) Figures for permanent building societies and other significant lenders in the Australian Capital Territory are included under Northern Territory. (c) Mortgage Repayment Period No data are available on the mean and median time of repayment of a first mortgage home loan. (d) Number of Home Loans The following tables contain statistics relating to secured loans to individuals for the construction or purchase of dwellings for owner occupation. Statistics refer to first mortgages only. Information in respect of years prior to 1966-67 and capital cities is not available. (a) Australia (No.) Permanent Other (3) All Saving Trading building significant significant Financial year banks banks societies lenders lenders 1966-67 (1) 52,293 37,314 . . . . . . 1966-68 (1) 57,671 38,561 . . . . . . 1968-69 (1) 59,861 36,018 . . . . . . 1969-70 (1) 61,121 33,376 33,970 . . . . 1970-71 (1) 68,204 32,162 35,415 . . . . 1971-72 (1) 73,638 41,985 52,884 . . . . 1972-73 99,809 67,463 78,135 . . . . 1973-74 89,990 61,441 45,637 . . . . 1974-75 110,231 34,319 38,316 . . . . 1975-76 (2) 124,473 45,286 71,880 . . . . 1976-77 (2) 106,740 41,218 64,434 42,502 254,894 1977-78 (2) 104,007 38,363 65,343 41,393 249,106 1978-79 (2) 111,411 43,952 75,783 39,450 270,596 1979-80 (2) 112,730 43,740 79,393 40,434 276,297 1980-81 (2) 109,847 45,259 73,954 42, 636 271,696 1981-82 (2) 101,983 40,701 51,431 34,857 228,972 (1, 2, 3) See footnotes at the end. Sources: ABS, Reserve Bank. (b) New South Wales (No.) Permanent Other (3) All Saving Trading building significant significant Financial year banks banks societies lenders lenders 1966-67 . . 16,729 . . . . . . 1967-68 18,057 16,615 . . . . . . 1968-69 17, 583 16,153 . . . . . . 1969-70 18,978 14,438 14,546 . . . . 1970-71 21,370 13, 948 16,013 . . . . 1971-72 21,655 18,567 19,449 . . . . 1972-73 27,270 29,713 26,958 . . . . 1973-74 23,835 28,108 10,287 . . . . 1974-75 31,298 12,815 14, 591 . . . . 1975-76 (2) 33,939 16,582 24,500 . . . . 1976-77 (2) 29,080 15,236 26,490 12,266 83,072 1977-78 (2) 28,935 16,003 27,892 12,178 85,008 1978-79 (2) 33,550 19,388 26,465 14,127 93,530 1979-80 (2) 31,778 18,137 30,653 16,162 96, 730 1980-81 (2) 28,778 17,897 27,488 16,089 90,252 1981-82 (2) 21,756 13,608 18,814 12,132 66,310 (2, 3) See footnotes at the end. Sources: ABS, Reserve Bank. Victoria (No.) Permanent Other (3) All Savings Trading building significant significant Financial year banks banks societies lenders lenders 1966-67 . . 7,573 . . . . . . 1967-68 19,993 8,052 . . . . . . 1968-69 21,853 7,539 . . . . . . 1969-70 23,216 6,660 4,467 . . . . 1970-71 23,500 6,592 4, 524 . . . . 1971-72 24,992 7,988 10,718 . . . . 1972-73 34,946 14,882 17,750 . . . . 1973-74 31,544 11,999 9,968 . . . . 1974-75 38,760 7,114 5,917 . . . . 1975-76 (2) 44,264 10,085 14,162 . . . . 1976-77 (2) 40,391 8,612 12,249 11, 006 72,256 1977-78 (2) 36,647 6,368 12,669 10,347 66,030 1978-79 (2) 38,117 7, 486 16,249 9,468 71,320 1979-80 (2) 41,701 7,499 14,960 8,122 72,282 1980-81 (2 ) 42,911 7,411 15,230 7,637 73,189 1981-82 (2) 42,100 7,543 9,838 6,392 65,873 (2, 3) See footnotes at the end. Sources: ABS, Reserve Bank. Queensland (No.) Permanent Other (3) All Savings Trading building significant significant Financial year banks banks societies lenders lenders 1966-67 . . 5,371 . . . . . . 1967-68 7,473 5,953 . . . . . . 1968-69 7,816 5,052 . . . . . . 1969-70 7,516 4,981 4,679 . . . . 1970-71 8,804 4,843 5,141 . . . . 1971-72 9,876 6,918 9,675 . . . . 1972-73 14,159 11,529 14,988 . . . . 1973-74 11,341 8,921 12,944 . . . . 1974-75 13,085 5,110 6,357 . . . . 1975-76 (2) 17,322 6,010 11,059 . . . . 1976-77 (2) 13,541 5,365 8,118 6,538 33,560 1977-78 (2) 15,677 5,408 6,260 7,113 34,458 1978-79 (2) 15,174 6,776 12,186 6, 198 40,334 1979-80 (2) 15,330 7,457 12,282 6,867 41,936 1980-81 (2) 15,920 8, 461 11,128 8,491 44,000 1981-82 (2) 15,486 8,994 8,996 7,346 40,822 (2, 3) See footnotes at the end. Sources: ABS, Reserve Bank. South Australia Permanent Other(3) All Savings Trading building significant significant Financial year banks banks societies lenders lenders 1966-67 . . 4,024 . . . . . . 1967-68 6,057 4,022 . . . . . . 1968-69 5,703 3 ,521 . . . . . . 1969-70 6,189 4,141 1,474 . . . . 1970-71 6,980 4,336 1,348 . . . . 1971-72 9,072 5,214 1,480 . . . . 1972-73 12,113 6,431 3,077 . . . . 1973-74 10,550 6,500 2,836 . . . . 1974-75 10,979 5,874 1,197 . . . . 1975-76( 2) 12,137 6,260 2,721 . . . . 1976-77(2) 10,296 5,860 2,984 4,965 24,102 1977- 78(2) 10,317 5,477 3,904 4,252 23,950 1978-79(2) 10,877 4,887 4,680 3,734 24, 178 1979-80(2) 10,350 4,793 4,972 2,918 23,033 1980-81(2) 9,156 5,210 4,892 2, 693 21,951 1981-82(2) 9,653 4,539 3,236 2,583 20,011 (2, 3) See footnotes at the end. Sources: ABS, Reserve Bank. Western Australia Permanent Other(3) All Savings Trading building significant significant Financial year banks banks societies lenders lenders 1966-67 . . 2,728 . . . . . . 1967-68 3,926 2,762 . . . . . . 1968-69 4,633 2 ,640 . . . . . . 1969-70 3,484 2,111 7,171 . . . . 1970-71 5,139 1,574 7,003 . . . . 1971-72 5,086 2,162 9,259 . . . . 1972-73 7,071 3,291 11,295 . . . . 1973-74 8,177 4,023 6,741 . . . . 1974-75 10,176 2,279 7,272 . . . . 1975-76(2 ) 10,110 4,530 15,607 . . . . 1976-77(2) 8,232 4,107 11,674 4,365 28,378 1977- 78(2) 7,387 3,318 12,020 4,124 26,850 1978-79(2) 7,935 3,637 12,823 3,145 27, 540 1979-80(2) 8,284 4,065 13,125 2,695 28,169 1980-81(2) 7,913 4,582 11,810 3, 217 27,520 1981-82(2) 8,637 4,526 8,122 2,854 24,139 (2, 3) See footnotes at the end. Sources: ABS, Reserve Bank. Tasmania (No.) Permanent Other (3) All Savings Trading building significant significant Financial year banks banks societies lenders lenders 1966-67 . . 607 . . . . . . 1967-68 1,618 747 . . . . . . 1968-69 1,591 724 . . . . . . 1969-70 1,309 695 1,139 . . . . 1970-71 1,859 583 685 . . . . 1971- 72 2,220 722 1,076 . . . . 1972-73 2,813 1,000 1,989 . . . . 1973-74 2,642 1, 060 1,188 . . . . 1974-75 2,980 817 1,390 . . . . 1975-76 (2) 3,936 1,159 2, 010 . . . . 1976-77 (2) 2,899 1,147 1,528 1,061 6,635 1977-78 (2) 2,892 980 1, 168 1,038 6,078 1978-79 (2) 3,593 899 1,786 925 7,203 1979-80 (2) 3,132 838 1, 713 972 6,655 1980-81 (2) 3,161 796 1,123 1,201 6,281 1981-82 (2) 2,609 662 599 974 4,844 (2, 3) See footnotes at the end. Sources: ABS, Reserve Bank. Northern Territory (No.) Permanent Other (3) All Savings Trading building significant significant Financial year banks banks societies lenders lenders 1966-67 . . 35 . . . . . . 1967-68 35 51 . . . . . . 1968-69 54 53 . . . . . . 1969-70 . . . . 494 . . . . 1970-71 . . 59 701 . . . . 1971-72 . . . . 1, 227 . . . . 1972-73 . . . . 2,078 . . . . 1973-74 . . . . 1,673 . . . . 1974- 75 . . . . 1,592 . . . . 1975-76 (2) . . . . 1,821 . . . . 1976-77 (2) 282 332 1,391 2,301 1,479 1977-78 (2) 253 243 1,430 2,341 1,162 1978-79 (2) 306 261 1, 594 1,853 1,282 1979-80 (2) 304 264 1,688 2,698 1,827 1980-81 (2) 283 260 2,283 3,308 2,153 1981-82 (2) 260 239 1,826 2,576 1,749 (2, 3, 4) See footnotes at the end. Sources: ABS, Reserve Bank. Australian Capital Territory(4) (No.) Permanent Other(3) All Savings Trading building significant significant Financial year banks banks societies lenders lenders 1966-67 . . 247 . . . . . . 1967-68 512 359 . . . . . . 1968-69 628 336 . . . . . . 1969-70 429 350 . . . . . . 1970-71 552 227 . . . . . . 1971-72 747 414 . . . . . . 1972-73 1,437 617 . . . . . . 1973-74 1,901 830 . . . . . . 1974- 75 2,953 310 . . . . . . 1975-76(2) 2,765 660 . . . . . . 1976-77(2) 2,019 559 . . . . 5,412 1977-78(2) 1,899 566 . . . . 5,570 1978-79(2) 1,859 618 . . . . 5,209 1979-80(2) 1,851 687 . . . . 5,665 1980-81(2) 1,725 642 . . . . 6,348 1981-82(2) 1,482 590 . . . . 5,224 (2, 3, 4) See footnotes at the end. Sources: ABS, Reserve Bank. Footnotes: (1) Prior to 1972-73 statistics included lending for the Territory of Papua and New Guinea (TPNG), (amounts were relatively minor). (2) From October 1975 all lending for alterations and additions has been excluded; previously, lending for alterations and additions estimated to cost $ 10,000 or more was included. (3) 'Other significant lenders' comprise terminating building societies, finance companies, government housing authorities and other government authorities, credit unions and insurance companies (life and general). (4) Figures for permanent building societies and other significant lenders in the Australian Capital Territory are included under Northern Territory. Question No. 94 Dr Theophanous asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 5 May 1983: Will he bring up to date the information on International Labour Organisation conventions provided on 17 November and 29 October 1981 in answer to questions Nos. 2713 and 2714 (Hansard, pages 2927-2931 and 2827-2828 respectively). Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Since November 1981 no International Labour Organisation conventions have been ratified by Australia. (2) and (3) In conjunction with the National Labour Consultative Council my department is at present undertaking a review of the position of all States and the Commonwealth in respect of unratified conventions. I will provide the honourable member with details of the results of that review when it is completed. (4) The answer supplied in Hansard of 17 November 1981 still applies. (1) The 68th and 69th sessions of the International Labour Conference were held at Geneva from 2-23 June 1982 and 1-22 June 1983 respectively. (2) The following instruments were adopted: (i) 68th Session (a) Maintenance of Social Security Rights Convention No. 157 (b) Termination of Employment Convention No. 158 (c) Termination of Employment Recommendation No. 166 (ii) 69th Session (a) A recommendation concerning the establishment of an international system for the maintenance of rights in social security (b) A convention concerning vocational rehabilitation and employment (disabled persons) (c) A recommendation concerning vocational rehabilitation and employment ( disabled persons) (No numbers have been allocated as yet). (3) (i) 68th Session The Australian Government delegates voted in favour of Convention No. 157 and Recommendation No. 166 and abstained on Convention No. 158. (ii) 69th Session The Australian Government delegates voted in favour of all instruments. Question No. 95 Dr Theophanous asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 5 May 1983: What statistical material is available by way of survey or academic study, which compares unemployment rates among the (a) Yugoslavian, (b) Greek, (c) Italian, (d) Maltese, (e) Polish, (f) German, (g) Dutch, (h) Jewish, (j) Lebanese, (k) Vietnamese and (m) Chinese ethnic communities in Australia. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Statistics of unemployment rates classified by country of birth are compiled from the Australian Bureau of Statistics' monthly labour force survey and are published in 'The Labour Force, Australia' (Catalogue No. 6203.0). Unemployment rates for persons born in Yugoslavia, Greece, Italy, Malta, Poland, Germany, the Netherlands and Lebanon are shown in this publication. Estimates for persons born in Vietnam or China are not available, nor is information available from the labour force survey on the Jewish community. Information on unemployment rates by country of birth is also available from the 1981 Census of Population and Housing; see Table 7 in microfische batch 81. 501, a copy of which is available in the Parliamentary Library. As regards the Jewish community, information that may be of interest will be a cross- classificatory table of religion and labour force status, expected to become available for the whole of Australia towards the end of 1983. The Bureau of Labour Market Research, the research arm of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, will commence in the 1983-84 financial year a project entitled 'The Labour Market Experience of Migrants' which will relate the individual characteristics of migrants to their labour market experience and will include data on unemployment in various ethnic communities in Australia. A number of studies have been commissioned by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs covering specific ethnic groups and geographic areas. Many of these take into account employment issues as part of an overall examination of migrant settlement; they will not however provide comparative unemployment rates for ethnic communities. Question No. 98 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 5 May 1983: (1) What is the projected number of new housing commencements in each State for (a) 1982-83, (b) 1983-84 and (c) 1984-85. (2) What are the economic projections for the housing sector in each State for (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2)- DWELLING COMMENCEMENT FORECASTS(Number) State/Territory 1982-83 New South Wales 30,500 Victoria 26,000 Queensland 24,300 South Australia 7, 900 Western Australia 10,750 Tasmania 2,530 Northern Territory 1,900 Australian Capital Territory 1,840 Total 105,720 The above forecasts were prepared by the Forecasting Committee of the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry to facilitate discussion at the Housing and Finance Conference held on 28 April 1983. Forecasts by State/Territory for 1983-84 and 1984-85 are not available. Question No. 99 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 5 May 1983: (1) Are any environmental impact studies being conducted on (a) Cockburn Sound or (b) Herdsman Lake in Western Australia. (2) If so, what were their conclusions or recommen- dations. (3) If not, are there plans to conduct studies on these areas of environmental significance to Western Australia. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No environmental impact studies on these areas have been conducted or are proposed by the Commonwealth. However studies have been carried out on Cockburn Sound and Herdsman Lake by Western Australian authorities. In addition, studies on biological matters and water quality (in respect of Herdsman Lake) and effluent discharges (in the Cockburn Sound) are currently being undertaken under State supervision. (2) I am informed that the conclusions and recommendations in relation to those studies already completed have been documented and are available on request from the Western Australian Department of Conservation and Environment in Perth. (3) See response to (1), above. The honourable member may wish to seek further information on this matter directly from the Western Australian Minister for Environment, the Hon. R. Davies, M.L.A. Question No. 105 Mr Bilney asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 10 May 1983: (1) How many Australia-based officers of his Department were stationed overseas in Australian posts served by the Australian Government telecommunications network in (a) 1980, (b) 1981 and (c) 1982. (2) What was the total expenditure of the Department on international telephone calls to and from Australia in each of those years. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Australia-based officers of DIEA stationed overseas at 30 June each year were: (a) 153; (b) 152; (c) 155. (2) The department does not keep separate records of trunk calls to and from Australia. In relation to telephone expenses incurred overseas the department is only responsible for meeting the cost of official phones in residences. The expenditure on such phones has been: $ 1979-80 16,751 1980-81 16,351 1981-82 16,153 However these amounts include local as well as international calls and it is not possible to separate the international calls component. The cost of phone calls made from the workplace at overseas posts are met under common services arrangements by the Department of Foreign Affairs and hence I am unable to provide details of the cost of international calls made from there to Australia by officers of my department. In relation to calls from Australia, the department's Central Office is the registered subscriber for the switchboard servicing all departments and authorities in the Benjamin complex. The existing account structure does not provide details of calls made overseas. In addition, some of the regional offices (which also make international calls), have their costs met by other departments which are the main subscribers in those regions. It is therefore not practicable to provide any costing information in respect of international calls from Australia made by officers of my department. Question No. 106 Mr Bilney asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 10 May 1983: (1) How many Australia-based officers of his Department were stationed overseas in Australian posts served by the Australian Government telecommunications network in (a) 1980; (b) 1981 and (c) 1982. (2) What was the total expenditure on international telephone calls to and from Australia in each of these years. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) 756; (b) 757; (c) 683. (2) The Department of Foreign Affairs as the major department represented in the Administrative Building, is responsible for the payment of telephone charges incurred through the common switchboard. Departmental ledgers do not provide for a specific expenditure item for international telephone calls from Australia. The Department of Foreign Affairs is responsible for the provision of common services at eighty-four (84) overseas posts and all costs of international telephone calls made from overseas missions (including attached departments) are a charge to appropriations of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Departmental ledgers do not provide for a specific expenditure item for international calls to Australia. Question No. 107 Mr Bilney asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 10 May 1983: (1) How many Australian-based officers of his department were stationed overseas in Australian posts served by the Australian Government telecommunications network in (a) 1980, (b) 1981 and (c) 1982. (2) What was the total expenditure of the Department on international telephone calls to and from Australia in each of those years. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In each of the years 1980, 1981 and 1982 two officers on the establishment of the Department of Primary Industry were stationed overseas in Australian posts served by the Australian Government telecommunications network. Four other officers were also stationed overseas during these three years, but for the period of their posting such officers were appointed as Trade Commissioners. (2) Information on departmental expenditure on international telephone calls to and from Australia is not readily obtainable. The principal reasons for this are : (a) Telephone calls in relation to the Department's Central Office in the Edmund Barton Building, Industry House and John Curtin House are paid for by the Department of Industry and Commerce, (b) The cost of all telephone calls made from overseas missions are met by the Department responsible for the administration of the overseas mission which in the case in question is the Department of Foreign Affairs. Question No. 112 Ms Fatin asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 May 1983: (1) Which metropolitan local councils in Western Australia have been allocated funds from the Australian Bicentennial Road Development (ABRD) Fund. (2) Which rural local councils in Western Australia have been allocated funds from the ABRD Fund. (3) How much has each council been allocated. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) All metropolitan and rural councils in Western Australia can expect to receive funds for local roads construction under the Australian Bicentennial Road Development (ABRD) Program. (3) Details of estimated allocations for each council are set out in the table below. The precise amounts finally allocated to each council will depend upon the revenues received from the fuel surcharge. DISTRIBUTION OF LOCAL ROAD FUNDS TO WESTERN AUSTRALIAN COUNCILS FROM AUSTRALIAN BICENTENNIAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND Estimated allocations under ABRD 1983-84 Total to 1987-88 1982-83 to 1982-83 per year 1988-89 1988-89 $ $ $ $ Metropolitan Councils- Belmont City 19,000 33,000 16,000 200,000 Canning City 31,000 61,000 30,000 366,000 Cockburn City 21,000 40,000 20,000 241,000 Fremantle City 14,000 26, 000 13,000 157,000 Gosnells City 30,000 59,000 30,000 355,000 Melville City 34,000 65,000 32,000 391,000 Nedlands City 11,000 22,000 11,000 132,000 Perth City 53,000 90,000 45,000 548,000 South Perth City 17,000 32,000 16,000 193, 000 Stirling City 92,000 168,000 84,000 1,016,000 Subiaco City 8,000 15,000 8 ,000 91,000 Armadale Town 24,000 46,000 23,000 277,000 Bassendean Town 7,000 13,000 6, 000 78,000 Claremont Town 5,000 9,000 4,000 54,000 Cottesloe Town 4,000 8, 000 4,000 48,000 East Fremantle Town 3,000 6,000 3,000 36,000 Kwinana Town 10,000 20,000 10,000 120,000 Mosman Park Town 4,000 7,000 4,000 43,000 Bayswater Shire 22,000 42,000 21,000 253,000 Kalamunda Shire 23,000 44,000 22,000 265,000 Mundaring Shire 16,000 30,000 15,000 181,000 Peppermint Grove Shire 1,000 2,000 1,000 12,000 Rockingham Shire 18,000 34,000 17,000 205,000 Serpentine-Jarrahdale Shire 10,000 19,000 10,000 115,000 Swan Shire 24,000 46 ,000 23,000 277,000 Wanneroo Shire 58,000 113,000 57,000 680,000 Total 559,000 1,050,000 525,000 6,334,000 Country Town Councils including City of Bunbury- Albany 64,000 122,000 61,000 735,000 Bunbury 97,000 187,000 94,000 1,126,000 Geraldton 87,000 169,000 84,000 1,016,000 Kalgoorlie 40,000 77,000 38,000 463,000 Narrogin 26,000 49,000 25,000 296,000 Northam 33,000 64,000 32,000 385,000 Total 347,000 668,000 334,000 4,021,000 Shire Councils- Albany 52,000 100,000 50,000 602,000 Augusta-Margaret River 39,000 75,000 38 ,000 452,000 Beverley 21,000 41,000 20,000 246,000 Boddington 10,000 18,000 9,000 109,000 Boulder 64,000 123,000 61,000 740,000 Boyup Brook 30,000 58,000 29,000 349,000 Bridgetown-Greenbushes 29,000 55,000 27,000 331,000 Brookton 15,000 29,000 14,000 174,000 Broome 15,000 29,000 14,000 174,000 Broomehill 10,000 19,000 10,000 115,000 Bruce Rock 28,000 55,000 28,000 331,000 Busselton 59,000 113,000 57,000 681,000 Capel 20,000 39,000 20,000 235,000 Carnamah 18,000 34,000 17,000 205,000 Carnarvon 58,000 112,000 56,000 674,000 Chapman Valley 16,000 30,000 15,000 181,000 Chittering 12,000 23,000 12,000 139,000 Collie 42,000 80,000 40,000 482,000 Coolgardie 38,000 72,000 36,000 434,000 Coorow 18,000 34,000 17,000 205,000 Corrigin 28,000 54,000 27,000 325 ,000 Cranbrook 22,000 43,000 21,000 258,000 Cuballing 11,000 21,000 10,000 126,000 Cue 8,000 15,000 8,000 91,000 Cunderin 25,000 48,000 24,000 289,000 Dalwallinu 36,000 69,000 34,000 415,000 Dandaragan 32,000 62,000 31,000 373, 000 Dardanup 21,000 40,000 20,000 241,000 Denmark 18,000 34,000 17,000 205, 000 Donnybrook-Balingup 27,000 53,000 26,000 318,000 Dowerin 20,000 39,000 20 ,000 235,000 Dumbleyung 19,000 36,000 18,000 217,000 Dundas 15,000 28,000 14 ,000 169,000 East Pilbara 23,000 45,000 22,000 270,000 Esperance 96,000 184, 000 92,000 1,108,000 Exmouth 16,000 30,000 15,000 181,000 Gingin 20,000 38,000 19,000 229,000 Gnowangerup 29,000 55,000 28,000 332,000 Goomalling 16,000 32,000 16,000 192, 000 Greenough 28,000 54,000 27,000 325,000 Halls Creek 14,000 27,000 13,000 162,000 Harvey 46,000 89,000 44,000 535,000 Irwin 12,000 23,000 11,000 138, 000 Jerramungup 21,000 40,000 20,000 241,000 Katanning 39,000 76,000 38,000 457,000 Kellerberin 27,000 52,000 26,000 313,000 Kent 21,000 41,000 20,000 246,000 Kojonup 31,000 60,000 30,000 361,000 Kondinin 25,000 48,000 24,000 289,000 Koorda 22,000 42,000 21,000 253,000 Kulin 26,000 50,000 25,000 301, 000 Lake Grace 38,000 72,000 36,000 434,000 Laverton 8,000 15,000 8,000 91, 000 Leonora 11,000 21,000 10,000 126,000 Mandurah 46,000 88,000 44,000 530, 000 Manjimup 68,000 131,000 66,000 789,000 Meekatharra 15,000 30,000 15,000 180,000 Menzies 8,000 15,000 8,000 91,000 Merredin 60,000 115,000 58,000 693, 000 Mingenew 11,000 22,000 11,000 132,000 Moora 35,000 68,000 34,000 409,000 Morawa 19,000 37,000 18,000 222,000 Mt Magnet 8,000 15,000 8,000 91,000 Mt Marshall 28,000 54,000 27,000 325,000 Mukinbudin 19,000 36,000 18,000 217,000 Mullewa 25,000 50,000 25,000 300,000 Murchison 8,000 15,000 8,000 91,000 Murray 39,000 74,000 37,000 446,000 Nannup 19,000 37,000 18,000 222,000 Narembeen 29,000 56,000 28,000 337,000 Narrogin 16,000 31,000 16,000 187,000 Northam 28,000 54,000 27,000 325,000 Northampton 28,000 54,000 27,000 325,000 Nungarin 10,000 19,000 10,000 115,000 Perenjori 25,000 48,000 24,000 289,000 Pingelly 18,000 35,000 18,000 211,000 Plantagenet 43,000 83,000 41,000 499, 000 Port Hedland 61,000 117,000 59,000 705,000 Quairading 22,000 43,000 21, 000 258,000 Ravensthorpe 22,000 43,000 22,000 259,000 Roebourne 59,000 113, 000 56,000 680,000 Sandstone 8,000 15,000 8,000 91,000 Shark Bay 8,000 15,000 8,000 91,000 Tambellup 12,000 23,000 11,000 138,000 Tammin 11,000 22,000 11, 000 132,000 Three Springs 15,000 29,000 14,000 174,000 Toodyay 15,000 29,000 14,000 174,000 Trayning 16,000 30,000 15,000 181,000 Upper Gascoyne 9,000 16 ,000 8,000 97,000 Victoria Plains 23,000 44,000 22,000 265,000 Wagin 26,000 50,000 25,000 301,000 Wandering 8,000 15,000 8,000 91,000 Waroona 16,000 32, 000 16,000 192,000 West Arthur 20,000 38,000 19,000 229,000 West Kimberley 24,000 46,000 23,000 277,000 Westonia 13,000 26,000 13,000 156,000 West Pilbara 22,000 43,000 22,000 259,000 Wickepin 18,000 35,000 18,000 211,000 Williams 15,000 29,000 14,000 174,000 Wiluna 13,000 25,000 12,000 150,000 Wongan-Ballidu 35,000 66,000 33,000 398,000 Woodanilling 9,000 18,000 9,000 108,000 Wyalkatchem 17,000 33,000 16,000 198,000 Wyndham-East Kimberley 20, 000 39,000 20,000 235,000 Yalgoo 8,000 15,000 8,000 91,000 Yilgarn 49,000 94, 000 47,000 566,000 York 24,000 45,000 22,000 271,000 Total Shire Councils 2,668,000 5,130,000 2,565,000 30,883,000 Total Allocations 3,574,000 6,848,000 3,424,000 41,238,000 Note: These are estimated allocations based on the anticipated fuel usage and accordingly each Council's actual entitlement of ABRD Local Roads Funds may be more or less than the estimate. Question No. 113 Mr Simmons asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 11 May 1983: Why does the Army Survey Corps need to provide a capacity for survey and mapping, given the existence of the Division of National Mapping and other specialist agencies such as the Central Mapping Authority of New South Wales. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Defence Force has a clear need to maintain a capacity for survey and mapping under combat conditions. This is achieved by retaining a training cadre as a basis for rapid response and expansion should the need arise. Additionally, the Australian Defence Force needs detailed specialist maps and charts at scales suitable for both strategic and tactical planning. However, with limited mapping , charting and surveying resources available to the nation, it is not possible to produce and fully maintain satisfactory maps and charts of Australian and all overseas areas of potential military significance. As a consequence, there are military priorities for map and chart production which do not necessarily correspond to civil priorities based on national development, commercial, cadastral, recreational and other requirements. The question posed by the honourable member has been considered and examined on a number of occasions. On the last occasion, following the Review of Commonwealth Functions during which the responsibilities of Commonwealth mapping , charting and surveying authorities were examined in detail, the previous Government in October 1981 agreed that merger of Commonwealth organisations undertaking survey and mapping was not warranted. The present Army Survey Corps organisation is considered the minimum necessary to retain a viable core force in this specialised activity. In view of the significant amount of mapping yet to be achieved, and the large and increasing task of maintaining currency by revision and resurvey of existing mapping, I am assured there is sufficient work to keep all personnel involved in these activities fully employed for many years to come. Question No. 117 Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 11 May 1983: (1) Can he say how many Vietnamese troops occupy (a) Laos and (b) Cambodia, and what is the role of these troops in each country. (2) Has the Government's attention been drawn to the announced withdrawal of 10 ,000 Vietnamese troops from Cambodia; if so, is there any substance to the announcement. (3) Can he also say whether a similar withdrawal was announced last year and subsequently failed to take place. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: (1) (a) It is estimated that approximately 40,000 Vietnamese troops are currently stationed in Laos. These troops, who perform for the most part a security role, are present under a Twenty-five Year Treaty of Friendship and Co- operation that has been in force between Laos and Vietnam since July 1977. (b) It is estimated that there are upwards of 160,000 Vietnamese troops in Cambodia. Vietnam and the People's Republic of Kampuchea regime claim that these forces are in Cambodia by invitation of the Phnom Penh government, in accordance with a Twenty-five Year Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Co-operation, signed in February 1979. The main role of these troops is to uphold the People's Republic of Kampuchea regime, which it installed in 1979, and to prevent the Khmer Rouge returning to power. (2) The Government has noted the announced troop withdrawal from Cambodia. It is also aware that foreign journalists were invited on 2 May to observe the departure of some two thousand troops and several tanks from Phnom Penh and that several hundred of these troops did arrive in Ho Chi Minh City on 4 May. It is not possible to be sure as yet whether the announced movement of troops represents a partial withdrawal or is only part of the normal rotation of troops . (3) I can confirm that a similar withdrawal was announced by Vietnam on 7 July last year. What occurred, however, was apparently a normal rotation of troops. Question No. 118 Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 11 May 1983: (1) Did the Thai Government request, through diplomatic channels, that Australia protest to Hanoi about Vietnamese incursions across the Thai border; if so, when. (2) Did the Government subsequently make representations to Hanoi; if so, (a) when and (b) what were the terms of the Government's representations. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) On 9 April Mr McCarthy, our Ambassador in Hanoi, informed officials from the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry of our concern at the situation on the Thai/ Cambodia border. He expressed our condemnation of Vietnamese military incursions into Thai territory and repeated our position that we found no justification nor excuse for the incursion into the sovereign territory of Thailand nor for the slaughter of innocent civilians where those things have happened. Question No. 119 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 11 May 1983: (1) What is the cost of Telecom Australia's advertising campaign directed at telling Australians that it costs so little to keep in touch. (2) Can he say if there are many people in Australia who do not know that they can keep in touch with their friends by using a telephone. (3) If the funds expended annually on this advertising campaign were used to subsidise a lowering of call charges, would it cost Australians significantly less to keep in touch. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice received from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) The cost of the STD usage campaigns during 1982-83 was $580,000 as at the end of May 1983. (2) No; however, research undertaken by Telecom has shown that the public at large believes that the cost of STD calls, particularly over longer distances, is much greater than it really is. (3) No. The cost of the advertising campaign amounts to less than 3 cents per quarterly account for each telephone service. Question No. 123 Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 11 May 1983: (1) Is it a fact that the recently established high-security quarantine unit and high-security laboratory at the Fairfield Hospital, Melbourne, cost about $ 3m, that is, about 2 per cent of that of the likely final cost of the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory (ANAHL). (2) What are the functions of the facilities at Fairfield Hospital. (3) Is it a fact that diagnosis of exotic viruses, such as Lassa, Ebola and Rift Valley fever, will be done at Fairfield without importing live viruses, using only inactivated reagents obtained from overseas laboratories. (4) Is it also a fact that the ANAHL wishes to import live Rift Valley fever viruses; if so, why. (5) Has CSIRO submitted a list of exotic viruses for importation in 1983-84; if so, what (a) viruses are listed and (b) reasons have been given for justifying each importation. (6) What diagnostic reagents for vesicular diseases of animals, and related pathogens, have been imported into Australia under licence. (7) Where are these reagents held, and for what purposes. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The National High Security Quarantine Unit plus the associated high security laboratory had cost an estimated $3.08m at the time it was officially opened in November 1982. This figure is a little under 2 per cent of the cost of ANAHL of $155m as at March 1983. (2) The functions of the facilities at Fairfield are to provide a national reference centre for the treatment of quarantine cases which cannot be safely or satisfactorily treated in existing State hospital facilities. The design incorporates the latest technology in the provision of microbiological security. (3) Yes. (4) I understand that ANAHL wishes to import live Rift Valley fever viruses. However, I am advised that no decisions, have been made by the CSIRO Executive, nor has CSIRO lodged applications with my Department for the import of live exotic pathogens for use at ANAHL. (5) No. (6) Antisera to foot and mouth disease types A, O, C, SAT1, SAT2, SAT3, and ASIA1 were imported under specified conditions in 1964 from the Animal Virus Research Institute, Pirbright, United Kingdom into the CSIRO Animal Health Laboratory at Parkville. They were to replace sera previously held at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, Melbourne. They were held frozen under lock and key for use in emergency. They were never used. (7) The antisera were destroyed by autoclaving and incineration in 1980. Question No. 132 Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy , upon notice, on 12 May 1983: (1) Further to the reply by the former Minister for National Development and Energy to my question No. 5817, on 17 January 1983, if there is no secret agreement between the Commonwealth and the Uranium Export Group of Australia ( UEGA) will the Minister disclose the detailed terms of the Government's authorisation of UEGA to conduct a feasibility study for the establishment of a uranium industry in Australia. (2) Is it a fact that (a) this authorisation includes agreements with technology holders to supply commercial-in-confidence information exclusively to UEGA, (b) the Commonwealth has accepted the recommendations of UEGA as stated in UEGA's final report; that the UEGA joint venturers be authorised to undertake a full feasibility study with Government support as outlined in section 6 in the final report, (c) the Commonwealth has accepted the further recommendation of UEGA as to URENCO-CENTEC technology being the choice for Australian application and (d) UEGA has signed detailed heads of agreement with URENCO-CENTEC to supply their technology and the necessary classified information upon the Commonwealth concluding the necessary intergovernmental agreement between Australia, the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (UK). (3) Does the Commonwealth's acceptance of the UEGA recommendations mean that the authority to UEGA will provide UEGA with the right to establish the uranium enrichment industry upon the signing of the international treaty between Australia, the FRG, the Netherlands and the UK. (4) Is the Commonwealth Government aware of the detailed proposals submitted by the South Australian Government to the previous Government in July 1980. (5) Does the Government acknowledge that proposals of this kind need to be considered along with any other proposals in relation to the UEGA proposals and recommendations. (6) Will the Government institute a full public inquiry into uranium processing in Australia, taking into account submissions from the public, the State governments and UEGA before either international treaties or agreements authorising commercial processing of uranium are concluded. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The authorisation given to the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia (UEGA) was contained in a letter from the former Minister for National Development and Energy to the Chairman of UEGA, the terms of which were conveyed in the former Minister's press release of 3 June 1981 on this subject. (2) (a) No. (b) The previous Government authorised UEGA to undertake the full feasibility study subject to satisfactory arrangements being finalised with a foreign technology holder and the Commonwealth Government. (c) On 6 October 1982 the previous Government announced that it had accepted UEGA's recommendation that the centrifuge technology offered by URENCO-CENTEC be the basis for further study by UEGA. (d) No. (3) No. (4) Yes. (5) In light of the ALP platform the Government is considering its position on uranium enrichment in the context of its general review of matters relating to uranium. Consideration of any such proposals will depend on the outcome of the review. (6) It would be premature to reach any decision as to the appropriateness or otherwise of a further public inquiry until the Government's current review has been completed. Question No. 133 Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy , upon notice, on 12 May 1983: Does the eastern boundary of the State of South Australia, in the context of clause 70, clause 72 (1) and clause 107 (b)(ii) of the new River Murray Waters Agreement, refer to the boundary between Victoria and South Australia or the boundary between New South Wales and South Australia, which is 11 km. further upstream along the River Murray. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The River Murray Commission has advised that, in giving effect to the provisions of the River Murray Waters Agreement in the context of the honourable member's question, it regards the eastern boundary of South Australia as being the boundary between New South Wales and South Australia. The question is one which directly concerns the three States rather than the Commonwealth. I am informed that the States do not dispute the Commission's interpretation. Question No. 134 Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 12 May 1983: (1) Will the Attorney-General consider the desirability and necessity of amending the definition of the phrase 'decision to which this Act applies' in section 3 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, as amended , so that the relevant decisions may cover administrative decisions made by the Governor-General in Council, having regard to (a) the assumption at the time the Act was passed that the grounds on which the decisions of the Governor-General could be reviewed by a court of law were limited, (b) the reversal of that assumption by the recent decisions of the High Court in (i) Re Toohey; Ex parte Northern Land Council (1981) 56 ALJR 164 and (ii) F.A.I. Insurance Ltd v. Winneke (1982) 56 ALJR 388 and (c) the need to consider whether the considerable procedural benefits created by the Act should now apply to administrative decisions of the Governor-General in Council including, in particular, the right of a person to obtain reasons for a decision under section 13 of the Act. (2) If so, will the Attorney-General seek advice from the Administrative Review Council on this matter. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2). Whether the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 should apply to decisions of the Governor-General is one of a number of important issues that have arisen in relation to the operation of the Act. The Act is a complex one and it was envisaged from the outset that the Administrative Review Council would be asked to report from time to time on its operation. In light of issues raised by recent litigation including the matter to which the honourable member refers, and information available on the usage of the Act, I have recently asked the Administrative Review Council to review the operation of the Act. I have indicated to the Council my wish that the Council's review be as wide-ranging as the Council considers necessary. I would expect the Council to consider, in the course of its review of the Act, the matters raised in the honourable member's question. Question No. 135 Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 May 1983: (1) What position does Mr Heng Samrin hold in the Vietnamese-sponsored regime known as the People's Republic of Kampuchea. (2) Was Mr Heng Samrin formerly a member of the Pol Pot regime known as Democratic Kampuchea; if so, what positions did he hold in the Pol Pot regime. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Mr Heng Samrin currently holds the position of President of the Council of State of the 'People's Republic of Kampuchea'. He is also the General Secretary of the Khmer People's Revoluntionary Party Central Committee. (2) Heng Samrin was a member of the Pol Pot regime when the latter was in power in Cambodia. He was a political commissar with the Khmer Rouge and Commandant of the Fourth Division. From 1976 he was Assistant Chief of the General Staff and a member of the Party executive committee for the eastern zone of Cambodia. In May 1978 he is believed to have participated in a rebellion against Pol Pot in the eastern region. When this was crushed he sought refuge in Vietnam. Question No. 136 Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 May 1983: (1) Are John Fairfax and Sons Ltd, the publishers of the National Times, signatories to the so-called D-Notices method of voluntary retraints. (2) Were any of the contents of the National Times of 6-12 May 1983, whether true or otherwise, covered by these D-Notices. (3) Can the Minister say how much the circulation of the National Times has dropped during the last 3 years. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) John Fairfax and Sons Ltd is represented on the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Committee, which issues D-Notices and monitors observance of them. (2) The Department of Defence has drawn the articles to the attention of members and the Committee has them under consideration. (3) The information sought by the honourable member should be available from the Audit Bureau of Circulations. Question No. 138 Mr Maher asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 12 May 1983: (1) Have the services of 16 Legal Officers, employed in the office of the Deputy Crown Solicitor, Sydney, been terminated. (2) Were the officers recruited for the purpose of relieving heavy workloads and for alleviating backlogs of legal work in the office. (3) What action is being taken to ensure that legal matters within the office are not subject to further delay. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answers to the honourable member's questions: (1) No. (2) Yes. (3) All 16 Legal Officers are employed in a temporary capacity. Interviews are being conducted for permanent staff. A number of these temporary employees are expected to be permanently appointed. It is intended to engage staff to the full extent of the staff ceiling of the office. Question No. 139 Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 May 1983: Can the Minister say which governments recognise the coalition government of Kampuchea led by Prince Sihanouk. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There are no universally accepted criteria by which we could assess whether countries have recognised the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea, either in its own right or as the successor to the Democratic Kampuchean Regime. However, six governments have accredited ambassadors to the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea led by Prince Sihanouk. These are: Malaysia, China, Bangladesh, The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Mauritania and Pakistan. Since 14 February 1981, Australia has recognised no government in Cambodia. Question No. 142 Dr Charlesworth asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 12 May 1983: Are pensions subject to a delay of almost 6 months between the announcement of CPI increases and the granting of a pension increase; if so, (a) why and (b) can this time be reduced. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) Under current indexation arrangements, the standard and married rates of pension are increased from the first pension pay days in November and May each year according to movements in the consumer price index (CPI) over the six months to the previous June and December respectively. Details of variations in the CPI are published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics approximately one month after the end of each quarter. Indexation increases therefore come into effect approximately three months after the announcement of the CPI figures for the relevant June and December quarters. (b) Determination of new rates cannot commence before the CPI figure is announced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. When the CPI is known, the effects on various categories of pension are determined and changes to computer programs are made. In view of the large amounts of public moneys involved, these changes have to be comprehensively tested. The minimum lead time for all these processes is some seven weeks from publication. To ensure that pensioners living in remote areas are not put in risk of receiving their pensions late, printing of the cheques is commenced approximately two weeks before the pension day. As an additional safety margin, a further period is allowed between the finalization of program testing and the printing of cheques, to cover unforeseen delays in distributing programs to all States. Question No. 152 Dr Charlesworth asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: Can he indicate (a) who or what organisation is responsible for the organisation of the 'Dial-a Sailor' scheme in Western Australia, (b) what the Government understands to be the intention of this scheme and (c) whether any Federal Government funding goes towards the organisation of this scheme, either through Government departments or statutory authorities. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (a) The 'Dial-a-Sailor' scheme in Western Australia is organised by a United States Navy representative in Perth. (b) The scheme's objective is to arrange hospitality for visiting US Navy personnel. (c) Accounts for normal Telecom Australia charges are rendered to the United States Navy Ships involved. Question No. 157 Dr Charlesworth asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: (1) What is the role of Migrant Resource Centres. (2) What level of funding is allocated to the Migrant Resource Centre in North Perth, Western Australia, and are any changes being considered to this level of funding. (3) Will these centres be expanded in the area of providing facilities for the teaching of languages. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The role of Migrant Resource Centres involves three complementary areas of activity. They provide a base for social, educational and cultural activities of ethnic groups; they are a service point for multilingual information giving, referral and counselling; and they assist the local community to better respond to the needs of migrants. (2) The original allocation for 1982-83 funds for the North Perth Migrant Resource Centre was $59,750. As part of the recent additional funding of $255, 000 for the MRC program the North Perth MRC was granted a further $8,000. Finally, a supplementary grant of $2,000 was made bringing its 1982-83 total to $69,750. The additional funding represents swift action by the Government to ensure that Migrant Resource Centres are adequately resourced. It effectively restores real funding levels which had been progressively eroded since the program was introduced in 1978. Current year funding levels will be determined in the context of the 1983-84 Budget. (3) In common with nearly all MRCs, North Perth MRC holds weekly community language classes, in addition to English classes. The programming of activities for MRCs is at the initiative of the individual centre but obviously 'Saturday Schools' and other classes for teaching community languages for both children and adults would be warmly supported. The recent infusion of extra funds for the MRC program should assist interested MRCs to purchase equipment to enhance the teaching of languages. Question No. 158 Dr Charlesworth asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: Are any ethnic groups in Perth being given grants-in-aid by the Government; if so (a) which groups, (b) what are the criteria used for determining eligibility and (c) has consideration been given to the allocation of a grant-in-aid to the Macedonian community in Perth. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. (a) The following ethnic organisations in Perth have grants-in-aid provided by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Free Vietnamese Fraternity Association, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, Italo-Australian Welfare Centre, Perth Asian Community Centre, Polish Women's Association and Yugoslav Clubs and Community Association. In addition, seven generalist community organisations administer grants which service a range of other ethnic groups in Perth. (b) Section (2) of the guidelines of the Grant-in-Aid Scheme outline the conditions of eligibility for an organisation to be considered for a grant. In summary, an organisation must be able to carry out a social welfare program that will directly benefit people from ethnic communities and responsibly and efficiently administer grant funds. The organisation must be registered as a legal entity under State or Territory legislation, show that its activities are consistent with the provision of social welfare services and be able to provide appropriate facilities for the delivery of welfare services. (c) The Macedonian Orthodox Church of St Nikola, W.A. applied for a grant-in- aid in 1982/83 to provide welfare services to the Macedonian community in Perth. Its application was not successful. Applications outnumbered available grants by more than 3 to 1 and strict priorities had to be applied. I understand that many meritorious applications could not be funded. The Government is committed to expanding the Grant-in-Aid Scheme and I expect that a number of additional grants could become available in 1983/84. Advertisements inviting applications for grants recently appeared in metropolitan, regional and ethnic newspapers. I would be pleased to consider an application from the Macedonian community in Perth. Question No. 160 Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: (1) Will he bring up to date the information given by his predecessor in answer to Question No. 3824 (Hansard, 17 March 1982, pages 1111-12) concerning (a) the movement of Soviet naval ships in the Indian Ocean, (b) the movement of Soviet naval ships in the North, West and South Pacific and (c) the movement of Soviet naval vessels in the (i) Persian Gulf, (ii) Gulf of Oman, (iii) Gulf of Aden, ( iv) Arabian Sea, (v) Red Sea, (vi) Eastern Mediterranean and (vii) Black Sea. (2) Further to his predecessor's answers to Questions Nos 4641 (Hansard, 24 August 1982, pages 879-80) and 2193 (Hansard, 18 August 1982, pages 678-9), can he now say whether significant development for Soviet naval purposes has occurred at Dahlak Island, Aden, Socotra or at the Bay of Turbah. (3) Will he take steps, in accordance with recommendation 14 of the 1976 report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence entitled 'The Middle East- Focal Point of Conflict', to appoint military attaches to appropriate diplomatic missions in the Middle East, in view of the geo-political and strategic importance of the Gulf of Hormuz, Bab-el-Mandeb, the Red Sea, and the Persian Gulf, within the Middle East. Mr Scholes — The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Monthly class/day figures of Soviet naval and naval-associated ships which operated in the Indian Ocean during the period 1st January 1982-30 April 1983 are shown in the following table. SOVIET NAVAL ACTIVITY INDIAN OCEAN (SHIP DAYS) JANUARY 1982-APRIL 1983 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Aircraft Carrier Kiev 9 31 17 Cruisers Kara 31 28 31 9 31 17 29 30 Kresta 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 Destroyers Kashin 8 29 30 Frigates Krivak 62 56 62 40 58 40 31 31 30 43 30 12 18 30 Submarines Charlie 31 28 18 11 30 31 31 7 Echo II 5 31 30 31 30 5 22 31 30 Victor 58 51 62 68 61 31 21 Foxtrot 62 56 60 4 11 30 11 Mine Sweepers T-58 31 28 31 30 18 22 31 30 31 30 31 11 Natya 10 31 39 31 31 30 31 59 43 31 28 31 38 Landing Ships Alligator 62 60 80 60 58 30 31 31 30 31 59 43 31 28 31 55 Ropucha 12 30 5 26 21 Auxiliaries Tugs 29 28 31 30 31 30 20 25 30 31 30 60 62 33 60 60 Barracks Ships 23 23 Oilers 56 37 31 26 77 30 31 31 30 50 42 44 17 8 27 30 Repair Ships 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 35 49 31 34 57 31 28 60 32 Sub Tenders 31 8 28 36 31 30 31 31 38 56 30 31 31 44 39 30 Tankers 62 55 60 62 66 67 55 30 48 60 62 42 28 54 60 Miscellaneous 244 225 232 255 346 314 255 192 201 154 120 149 170 215 268 231 Others Oceangraphic 62 56 59 30 39 4 31 30 31 27 31 Hydrographic 51 56 94 110 124 109 85 37 48 71 60 62 74 50 62 52 Int Collectors 31 28 49 33 39 73 86 33 30 56 39 42 31 28 31 30 (1) (b) Information on the movement of Soviet naval ships in the North and West Pacific is provided primarily by friendly nations on the understanding that its composition is protected. In the South Pacific, in October 1982, a Soviet Naval research ship and a FOXTROT-class submarine were noted west of Tahiti. This group was also seen east of New Zealand in December. (1) (c) It is not possible to provide a detailed analysis of Soviet naval activity specifically within the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea. However, the information provided on Indian Ocean activity in the above table, because of the geography of the area, takes in naval ship movements in these peripheral waters. Soviet naval movements in the East Mediterranean and the Black Sea, being of less direct strategic concern to Australia, are not analysed in detail. (2) The information given in response to Question No. 4641 and 2193 about developments at Dahlak Island, Aden, Socotra Island and the Bay of Turbah remains current. (3) The question of whether military attaches should be appointed to appropriate diplomatic missions in the Middle East is kept under review. Given the requirement for restraint in the growth of overseas staff, such appointments muct be carefully evaluated against existing and foreseen representational requirements in terms of the whole range of functions attaches are appointed to carry out, and relative priorities established. While the general strategic significance of the Middle East area is appreciated , permanent representation there does not have a level of priority that would warrant appointment of resident military attaches at present. Question No. 161 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 18 May 1983: (1) Is it a fact that equipment capable of itemising ISD and STD calls is in existence. (2) It is also a fact that this technology is not in use in Australia at present. (3) If so, does Telecom Australia intend to introduce these technologies in the case of (a) ISD, in 1983 and (b) STD, in the late 1980's. (4) In the interest of many people who lose track of their relative expenditure on STD and local calls, will he consider speeding up the introduction of these monitoring systems. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) Yes. Various exchange-based or customer-based equipments exist throughout the world to itemise ISD and STD calls. Their suitability for a particular country depends on the nature of the exchange system in that country. (2) No. Exchange-based equipment is being used by Telecom (see 3 and 4 below). Customer-based equipment which gives details of ISD, STD and local calls is also available in Australia, mainly for customer use in association with PABXs. (3) and (4) Since 1980, Telecom has been progressively introducing, as a standard facility, a system known as Call Charge Recording (CCR) for international calls, which enables subscribers to be given details of ISD calls made from their services. ISD/CCR will have been provided on almost 2 million services by the end of June 1983. Plans were announced some time ago for the provision of a CCR system for STD calls. Because of the substantial costs involved in this undertaking and the consequent tariff impact of these costs, Telecom proposes to offer the service on an optional basis. It is expected to be made available progressively from suitable exchanges commencing in mid-1984. Telecom has no plans to introduce a CCR system for local calls. Question No. 163 Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 18 May 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article 'The Scientific Basis for Carcinogen Detection and Primary Cancer Prevention' by Bernard Weinstein, Professor of Medicine and Environmental Sciences, at Columbia University, New York, in Cancer 1981, pages 1133-41, and reprinted in Ca-A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, November/December 1982, and distributed to clinicians by the NSW State Cancer Council. (2) If so, does table 4 'Chemicals and Industrial Processes that are carcinogenic for humans' contain 18 chemicals and industrial processes almost certainly carcinogenic and another 18 probably carcinogenic. (3) What proportion of his Department's expenditure has been concerned with protection of (a) human physical health, (b) animals and their welfare, (c) trees and other plants, and (d) scenery. (4) Is he satisfied that the position revealed in the answer to part (3) represents the correct priorities to be afforded to these matters. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) and (4) It is not feasible to present the Department's expenditure in the manner sought. Several activities of my Department are directed to protection of human health, for example, notification, assessment, and control of chemicals, air quality assessment, and environmental impact assessment. Certain of these activities are carried out with the aid and advice of the Commonwealth Department of Health. Question No. 169 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 May 1983: Will he consult with the Minister for Defence to (a) ensure that no military aid is given to Indonesia while it maintains its military role in East Timor, West Irian and elesewhere, and (b) divert funds allocated for military aid to constructive projects to increase security between Indonesia and Australia, such as promoting English Language studies in Indonesia and study of Indonesian culture in Australia. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The Government has paid considerable attention to Australia's relation with Indonesia. Our aim is to enhance the generally good relationship that has been built up between Australia and Indonesia over several decades. We want a productive relationship based on mutual respect and one which is given strength by its ability to constructively resolve the inevitable differences which will arise from time to time. During my visit to Jakarta in April, I had wide ranging discussions with President Soeharto and senior Indonesian Ministers. East Timor and Australian assistance programs, including the Defence Co-operation Program were among the subjects discussed. At the conclusion of my visit, I announced that existing programs, projects and exchanges in Indonesia would be maintained as we mutually explored our bilateral relations with the purpose of putting them on a firmer, more constructive and creative footing and sought to reduce causes for differences and misunderstanding. In respect of East Timor our primary concern is to ensure that we do all that we properly and reasonably can to help the East Timorese. (b) The Government fully supports the promotion of English Language studies in Indonesia as well as the study of Indonesian culture in Australia. I am happy to say that when he visited Indonesia in June, the Prime Minister opened the Australian Language Centre in Jakarta for which $5-7 million has been allocated for the first five years. You will also be aware that over the past five years the Defence Co-operation Program has been sponsoring a significant English Language instruction project with the Indonesian Armed Forces. As well as providing Language Laboratory equipment to improve English teaching resources, the project involves the exchange of English Language instructors to aid in improving Indonesian teaching techniques. Question No. 171 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: Does the Government intend to give assistance and encouragement to parents attempting to provide education in a normal school for their disabled children; if so, in what areas will this assistance be given. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Commonwealth makes funds available to support the integration of disabled children in government and non-government regular schools and pre-schools in all States and Territories. The program administered by the Commonwealth Schools Commission, began in 1981. In 1983 eligibility for this support has been extended to include handicapped children below school age. Grants are paid to schools, education systems or other approved authorities. They are not paid directly to parents. The priorities of the program are: (1) to facilitate the movement of handicapped children from special to regular schools; (2) to fund activities to assist in the education of handicapped children already fully or partially integrated into regular schools; (3) to assist enrolment into regular primary schools of handicapped children who are beginning their formal schooling; (4) to facilitate the enrolment into regular pre-schools of handicapped children below school age; (5) to provide services to enable isolated handicapped children to attend neighbourhood schools. Examples of provisions and services to which funds might be applied are: training for teachers and other members of the school community; equipment; the development of curriculum and other materials; speech therapy; special remedial programs; physical education; excursions; salaries of teachers (including visiting teachers), aides, therapists and other paramedical staff; transport; minor building and equipment projects; attendance of children at assessment centres; investigation of support services; and provision of advisory services to school principals and teachers. Administration For integration programs in government schools and pre-schools funds are advanced to State Education Departments which determine their own expenditure priorities. For integration programs in non-government schools and pre-schools applications are considered by State Planning and Finance Committees recommend grants to the Commission for approval. Funds available for 1983. Allocation Non- State/Territory Government Government $ $ New South Wales 375,000 107,000 Victoria 282,000 102,000 Queensland 166, 000 46,000 South Australia 103,000 19,000 Western Australia 97,000 22,000 Tasmania 35,000 7,000 Northern Territory 10,000 1,000 Australian Capital Territory 15,000 7,000 Total 1,083,000 311,000 The allocations shown in the above table are minimum amounts required by the legislation to be applied from the total amount of recurrent funding available for special education in schools. Additional amounts of special education recurrent funds may be applied to integration according to priorities determined by State Education Departments or recommended by State Planning and Finance Committees. Question No. 176 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: (1) What nutritional standards are required for Government subsidised meals for the aged. (2) In what ways are these standards enforced. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) It is assumed that the question relates to meals provided by meals-on- wheels services. The Delivered Meals Subsidy Act was introduced in 1970 to assist autonomous community-based organisations conducting meals-on-wheels services to establish, expand, improve and maintain their services. The Government seeks to encourage organisations to provide nutritious and satisfying meals for their clients by providing additional subsidy to organisations which provide an approved Vitamin C supplement with their delivered meals. The Department of Social Security also provides the booklets ' Welcome to Meals-on-Wheels', and 'Meals-on-Wheels Food Guide' produced by the Department of Health to delivered meals services. (2) Subject to the availability of resources the Department of Social Security aims to inspect each delivered meal service on an annual basis. Organisations are actively encouraged to liaise with the Department of Health on all aspects of nutrition. Question No. 178 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: (1) How many students were (a) enrolled and (b) receiving full Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme allowances at those tertiary institutions where some students have been receiving such allowances, in each year from 1980 to 1983. (2) How many students within the Electoral Division of Moore have been receiving (a) some allowance and (b) full benefits under the scheme, during the same years. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The total number of full time enrolments at universities, colleges of advanced education and technical and further education institutions, the number of students at these institutions receiving TEAS benefits and the number of students receiving the maximum rate of TEAS allowances are as follows: 1980 1981 1982 Full time enrolments* 233,920 238,840 250,449 TEAS recipients** 91,571 91,096 86,541 Students receiving maximum rate of TEAS allowances in the various categories of 'at home', 'away from home' and 'independent' 52,858 59,240 58, 121 * Enrolments are an estimate for 1982 since final figures for TAFE enrolments for that year are not yet available. The figures include enrolments in courses where TEAS is not relevant, for example higher degree courses. They do not however include enrolments in courses at some other institutions such as secretarial courses which are approved for TEAS. ** Figures include recipients in courses such as secretarial courses which are approved for TEAS. (2) Available statistics on student assistance schemes do not allow a breakdown according to federal electorate whether on the basis of domicile or location of educational institution attended. There will, of course, be recipients of TEAS benefits whose home address is in the electorate of Moore and who are attending institutions elsewhere. At the only tertiary institution in the electorate of Moore which has courses approved under TEAS, Carine Technical College, the numbers of students enrolled in courses who received assistance from 1980 to 1983 were 51 in 1980, 91 in 1981 and 100 in 1982. Information is not available however on the actual level of assistance received by these students. The proportion of students approved for TEAS on an Australia-wide basis receiving (a) partial allowances and (b) full benefits during the years 1980, 1981 and 1982 was: 1980 1981 1982 per cent per cent per cent (a) 42.3 35.0 32.8 (b) 57.7 65.0 67.2 Question No. 179 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: (1) Is it a fact that United States of America naval vessels are increasingly using the ports of Fremantle and Garden Island as rest and recreation bases. (2) How many US servicemen visited these ports during each of the years 1980 to 1982. (3) What were the names and dates on which US nuclear powered submarines visited HMAS Stirling during the same years. (4) Is he able to state whether any of the US submarines which visited HMAS Stirling called on other ports in the Indian Ocean region during the same years; if so, (a) which ports and (b) on what dates. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The number of United States Navy warship visits to Western Australian ports (principally Fremantle and HMAS Stirling) rose from an average of 22 ship visits a year during the years 1977-79 to 30 visits in 1980, 48 in 1981 and 51 in 1982. (2) The approximate numbers of United States servicemen who visited the port of Fremantle and HMAS Stirling in the years 1980-82 are as follows: 1980-11,500. 1981-34,500. 1982-30,000. (3) The names of United States nuclear powered submarines visiting HMAS Stirling in the period 1980-82 and the dates of each visit, are as follows: Serial Name Dates 1. USS Haddock 26 Mar.-8 Apr. 1980 2. USS Los Angeles 1-7 Apr. 1980 3. USS Guard Fish 16-21 May 1980 4. USS Puffer 18-25 July 1980 5. USS Baton Rouge 25-30 July 1980 6. USS Tautog 14-20 Aug. 1980 7. USS Groton 6-11 Sep. 1980 8. USS Permit 12-17 Sep. 1980 9. USS Omaha 10-17 Nov. 1980 10. USS Haddo 16-22 Dec. 1980 11. USS Philadelphia 23-29 Dec. 1980 12. USS Memphis 6-11 Feb. 1981 13. USS Gurnard 27-28 Feb. 1981 14. USS Cavalla 15-22 Apr. 1981 15. USS Pintado 20-27 May 1981 16. USS Bluefish 29 May-3 June 1981 17. USS Los Angeles 6-13 July 1981 18. USS Cincinnati 8-13 July 1981 19. USS Haddock 11-17 Aug. 1981 20. USS New York City 23-30 Sep. 1981 21. USS Bremerton 5-12 Oct. 1981 22. USS Flasher 22-28 Oct. 1981 23. USS Aspro 30 Nov.-7 Dec. 1981 24. USS Tautog 29 Jan.-5 Feb. 1982 25. USS Puffer 10-17 Feb. 1982 26. USS Sea Horse 19-26 Mar. 1982 27. USS Cavalla 14-21 June 1982 28. USS Indianapolis 26 July-2 Aug. 1982 29. USS San Francisco 11-18 Oct. 1982 30. USS Jacksonville 16-23 Nov. 1982 (4) Records of the movements of US submarines are not maintained by the Department of Defence. Question No. 180 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: (1) Can he say which local government municipalities have declared themselves to be nuclear free zones. (2) Do any of these municipalities include major port centres. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Department of Defence does not maintain records of local government municipalities that have declared themselves to be nuclear free zones or the terms of those declarations. I am aware, however, that a number of municipalities have made such declarations and that some of these include port areas. Question No. 182 Mr Jacobi asked the Leader of the House, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: (1) Does he intend to have brought before the Parliament for consideration a Parliamentary Witnesses Protection Bill as recommended by the House of Representatives Committee of Privileges in its 1980 report relating to the alleged discrimination and intimidation of Mr David E. Berthelsen in his Public Service employment because of evidence given by him to a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. (2) If so, will the proposed legislation provide for the prosecution of persons who tamper with, intimidate or discriminate against witnesses who give, or have given evidence before a parliamentary committee of the House and also provide a statutory cause of action in which witnesses, who have suffered intimidation or discrimination, would have the right to sue for damages those responsible for the intimidation or discrimination. (3) When is it intended that the legislation will be introduced. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) The Government intends to await the report of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, expected in the near future, before reaching its decision on the need for legislation such as a Parliamentary Witnesses Protection Bill. Question No. 187 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: Are statistics available on nursing homes in the Electoral Division of Moore; if so, (a) how many are there, (b) where are they located, (c) how many beds are provided, (d) what level of subsidy is given, (e) how is any subsidy determined, (f) what annual financial statements are produced and (g) if financial statements are available, what profit or loss do these statements indicate for each of the years 1980 to 1982. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) There are 3 nursing homes in the electorate of Moore. (b) & (c) Warwick Nursing Home-98 Ellersdale Avenue, Warwick, 6024-38 beds. Italian Community Nursing Home-Cabrini Road, Marangaroo, 6064-40 beds. Undercliffe Nursing Home-482 Great Eastern Highway, Greenmount, 6056-42 beds. (d) Warwick and Undercliffe Nursing Homes are approved under the National Health Act which provides for the payment of Commonwealth benefits in respect of qualified patients accommodated therein. There are two types of benefits payable , namely: (1) a basic benefit payable on behalf of all qualified patients; and (2) an extensive care benefit payable on behalf of patients requiring and receiving extensive nursing care. The maximum basic benefit payable in W.A. at present is $151.55 per week and the extensive care benefit is $42.00 per week The Italian Community Nursing Home is approved under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act which provides for the Commonwealth to meet the approved operating deficits and approved asset replacements of nursing homes conducted by religious, charitable, other non-profit organisations and local Government bodies. (e) Basic nursing home benefits payable under the National Health Act are reviewed each November. They are set at a level in each State which, together with a statutory minimum patient contribution, will cover fees charged for 70 per cent of beds in the State of non-government nursing homes approved under the National Health Act. Commonwealth payments towards the operating costs of nursing homes approved under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act are determined having regard to the actual expenditure incurred by the nursing home. (f) Proprietors of nursing homes approved under the National Health Act are required to lodge financial accounts showing income and expenditure for a financial year if they seek variations to the approved fees. Proprietors of nursing homes approved under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act are required to lodge audited accounts which show the operating receipts and operating payments for a financial year. (g) This information is obtained on a confidential basis and it is considered that the question would be more appropriately directed to the proprietors of the respective nursing homes. Question No. 195 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: Is the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission the highest industrial court in the land; if so, should decisions of the Commission be upheld by all parties. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is not an industrial court. The Commission is established under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. Awards of the Commission are binding on the parties. Question No. 199 Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: Further to my repeated questions regarding the urgent need to set up an Accounting Standards Review Board and further to my Question No. 4705 placed on the Notice Paper on 17 August 1982, could the Attorney-General now intimate (a) what decisions have been reached (i) by the Ministerial Council on this matter and (ii) following submissions from interested people in relation to Schedule 7 of the Companies Regulations, and (b) when this initiative will be implemented. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: At its meeting on 25 March 1983, the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities agreed in principle to the establishment of an Accounting Standards Review Board. The Ministerial Council has directed the Chairman of the National Companies and Securities Commission (NCSC) to enter into discussions with the Joint Accounting Bodies to seek their views on: the detailed proposals that have been put forward by NSW and the NCSC; and the various options that have been suggested for funding the Accounting Standards Review Board. I understand that these discussions have been held. Advertisements have been placed in national newspapers seeking expressions of interest in the position of Chairman of the proposed Accounting Standards Review Board. On 12 May 1982 the NCSC sought submissions on possible changes to the form and content of Schedule 7 to the Companies Regulations. I understand that, in the light of submissions received, the NCSC has prepared a 'Green Paper' on possible amendments to Schedule 7 and to the financial reporting requirements of the Companies Act which it released for further public comment on 14 June 1983. The Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities has not yet considered the issues raised in the 'Green Paper'. Question No. 200 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: Will he support (a) the introduction, by Qantas, of a regular air service between Perth and Mauritius, and (b) the use of Mauritius as a stop-over on existing Qantas flights between Perth and Zimbabwe. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) and (b) The Government is currently reviewing the whole question of air services between Australia and southern Africa. Careful consideration will be given to the adequacy of air services between Australia and Mauritius in the context of that review. Question No. 201 Mr Porter asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: (1) Did he make a statement on 17 March 1983 regarding the employment of Aboriginals in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs; if so, how many Aboriginals (a) have been employed by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs since he made the statement, and (b) are employed in positions created and newly advertised after 17 March 1983. (2) To what positions and at what salaries have Aboriginal appointments been made since that date and what percentage of his personal staff are Aboriginal. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) On 17 March 1983 at my first meeting with the Executive of the National Aboriginal Conference I expressed a wish to see more Aboriginals employed in my Department and suggested that if there was no other way than a system of preference, then I would consider approaching the Public Service Board with such a proposal. (a) Between 17 March and 30 June 1983 a total of 41 Aboriginals have commenced employment with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. (b) No positions have been created and newly advertised since 17 march 1983. (2) The 41 Aboriginals employed between 17 March and 30 June 1983 have been engaged at the following positions and salaries: 1 Typist, Grade 1 at $5,910 p.a. 1 Typist, Grade 1 at $8 274 p.a. 3 Typist, Grade 1 at $11 820 p.a. 1 Clerical Assistant, Grade 1 at $5 815 p.a. 1 Clerical Assistant, Grade 1 at $9,040 p.a. 2 Clerical Assistant, Grade 1 at $10,583 p.a. 6 Clerical Assistant, Grade 1 at $11 160 p.a. 1 Clerical Assistant, Grade 1 at $11,360 p.a. 5 Clerical Assistant, Grade 1 at $11,630 p.a. 6 Clerical Assistant, Grade 2 at $12,160 p.a. 1 Clerical Assistant, Grade 3 at $13,920 p.a. 3 Clerical Assistant, Grade 4 at $14,240 p.a. 1 Clerical Assistant, Grade 6 at $16,590 p.a. 1 Clerk, Class 1 at $8,715 p.a. 1 Clerk, Class 1 at $10,085 p.a. 2 Clerk, Class 1 at $12,450 p.a. 1 Clerk, Class 4 at $17,630 p.a. 1 Clerk, Class 5 at $19,830 p.a. 1 Clerk, Class 6 at $23,480 p.a. 1 Journalist, Grade A1 at $27,560 p.a. 1 Level 1, Second Division at $40,500 p.a. Selections of applicants to positions on my personal staff have not yet been finalised but, at present, one of the five positions (20%) on my personal staff is occupied by an Aboriginal. In addition, an Aboriginal Liaison Officer is employed in my office to facilitate communication between the National Aboriginal Conference and myself. Question No. 202 Mr Blanchard asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the claim at the recent Western Australian election, of considerable variation between the State and Federal rolls for similar electoral divisions; if so, can he say how these variations may have occurred. (2) Will he instruct the Australian Electoral Officer for Western Australia to supply, at regular and frequent intervals, to the Western Australian Minister for Electoral Reform, up-to-date divisional figures and other relevant information to assist the State Government in its pursuit of electoral justice. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am generally aware that there are differences between the Commonwealth and State electoral rolls in Western Australia. In the main these differences stem from the fact that the Commonwealth and the State maintain quite separate electoral rolls and electors need to complete both a Commonwealth and a State enrolment claim card in order to secure Commonwealth and State enrolment. There are also differences in the Commonwealth and State legislation which could be a contributing factor-especially the very restrictive witnessing provisions of the State legislation. However, all this will change in the near future. The Western Australian Minister for Parliamentary and Electoral Reform has announced a number of amendments to the State legislation-all designed to improve the State legislation and to facilitate a Commonwealth-State arrangement under which electors would be able to secure Commonwealth and State enrolment by the completion of a single claim card. A formal arrangement will need to await the passage of the Western Australian legislation. Preliminary discussions between the Commonwealth and State electoral officials are proceeding with a view to early implementation of joint enrolment once the State legislation is in place. (2) There is already an exchange of information between the Commonwealth and State electoral administrations. The Australian Electoral Office in Western Australia provides a weekly list of all new enrolments and roll alterations made by it to the State Department. Such statistical information as the State Department requires is supplied to it on request. These arrangements have been in operation for the last 18 months. Question No. 207 Mr Reeves asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: What are the total amounts of all expenditures and/or capital works programs undertaken by the Minister's Department in or related to the Northern Territory for each year from 1978-79 to 1982-83 which were not covered by general or specific grants to the Northern Territory. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: This Department has no capital works programs in the Northern Territory. Other expenditures are as follows: 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $ $ $ $ $ Regional Office Darwin (Salaries and Administration) . . 13,174 45, 641 41,454 49,712 Reimbursement to N.T. for regulatory services (other than environment) for uranium mining 15,330 205,064 317,775 . . . . Payments in lieu of Uranium Royalties (see note) . . . . . . 1,174,641 . . Total 15,330 218,238 363,416 1,216,095 49,712 The Export Development Grants Board makes payments under the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 and the Export Expansion Grants Act 1978. The former Act provides incentive to encourage firms to incur promotional expenditure overseas to develop markets for Australian exports and to incur expenditure in encouraging overseas tourists to Australia. The latter Act provides for the payment of taxable cash grants to eligible Australian exporters. This scheme is designed to encourage Australian firms to increase their export sales and actively pursue export opportunities. Determinations and payments under these Acts are made and recorded on the basis of the claimant's principal office. Payments therefore may or may not refer to activities undertaken in the Northern Territory by the claimant. The annual reports of the Export Development Grants Board show, in relation to each Grant year, determinations of claimants who are registered as having their principal office in the Northern Territory. NOTE: The Commonwealth's ownership of uranium throughout the Northern Territory was declared in Section 35 of the Atomic Energy Act 1953 and reaffirmed in the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978. The Commonwealth has agreed to pay the Northern Territory Government an amount in lieu of uranium royalties. Question No. 208 Mr Reeves asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: What are the total amounts of all expenditures and/or capital works programs undertaken by the Minister's Department in or related to the Northern Territory for each year from 1978-79 to 1982-83 which were not covered by general or specific grants to the Northern Territory. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 *1982-83 $ $ $ $ $ Salaries (including overtime) 1,319,393 1,454,288 1,710,776 1,983,220 2,262,000 Other Administrative Expenditure 504,368 540,318 637,448 650,567 780, 000 Petroleum Products Freight Subsidy Scheme Payments 5,123,947 7,347,871 11, 774,519 14,102,300 12,000,000 Bounty and Other Subsidy Payments (including New Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) 6,002 20,975 166,736 286,783 3,200,000 Australian Industry Development Corporation nil nil nil nil 600,000 6,953,710 9,363,452 14,289,479 17,022,870 18,842,000 * 1982-83 Estimate Only. Question No. 209 Mr Reeves asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: What are the total amounts of all expenditures and/or capital works programs undertaken by the Minister's Department in or related to the Northern Territory for each year from 1978-79 to 1982-83 which were not covered by general or specific grants to the Northern Territory. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Current administrative arrangements provide that most payments to persons in the Northern Territory are made using computing equipment installed in the Department of Social Security Adelaide and separate expenditure figures for the Northern Territory are not available for all types of payment. In particular this applies to about 75 per cent of Social Security Act payments which comprise 90 per cent of outlays. Similarly, administrative costs related to operations in States and Territories may be met by expenditure from the Central Office of the Department, or in one State on behalf of other States and the Territories. Available information about expenditure in or related to the Northern Territory (excluding amounts covered by general or specific grants to the Northern Territory) is tabulated below. Expenditure Program or purpose 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000(est.) Social Security Act- Unemployment benefits 1,600 6,604 12,890 19,026 30,522 Sickness benefits 454 532 1,022 1,326 1,385 Special benefits 252 387 903 1,437 1,879 Other Acts- Personal care subsidy 16 35 25 57 56 Delivered meals subsidy 3 4 4 6 8 Homeless persons assistance 9 25 46 127 170 Children's services program n.a. 858 890 867 1,091 Aged persons accommodation Nil Nil 107 Nil 250 Handicapped persons assistance Nil Nil 206 314 298 Rehabilitation services n.a. n.a. n.a. 299 426 Other Salaries (including overtime) 996 1,430 1,981 2,778 3,438 Administrative expenses n.a. 400 699 734 1,108 (n.a. denotes not available) Question No. 212 Mr Reeves asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: What are the total amounts of all expenditures and/or capital works programs undertaken by the Minister's Department in or related to the Northern Territory for each year from 1978-79 to 1982-83 which were not covered by general or specific grants to the Northern Territory. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 11 March to 30 June 1983-$816,000. Prior to 11 March 1983 the Department of Administrative Services was responsible for expenditures in respect of functions now within my portfolio. Question No. 213 Mr Reeves asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: What are the total amounts of all expenditures and/or capital works programs undertaken by the Minister's Department in or related to the Northern Territory for each year from 1978-79 to 1982-83 which were not covered by general or specific grants to the Northern Territory. Mr West —The table below provides the answer to the honourable member's question: 1982-83 Item Description 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 at 31.5.83 360-1-01 Salaries and Allowances 319,117(a) 392,104(a) 553,202(a) 650,246(a) 765,317(a) 02 Overtime 12,064(a) 25,506(a) 22,567(a) 24,877(a) 20,508(a) 2-01 Travelling and Subsistence 31,263(a) 26,169(a) 36,918(a) 40,001(a) 46,964(a) 02 Office requisites and Equipment Stationery and Printing 4,994(a) 7,909(a) 8,700(a) 13,997(a) 8,321(a) 03 Postage, Telegrams and Telephone Services 13,536(a) 47,619(a) 49,869(a) 56,503(a) 57,692(a) 04 Office Services 120(a) 2,296(a) 2,600(a) 1,790(a) 2,293(a) 08 Freight and Cartage 2,561(a) 758 (a) 1,665(a) 1,446(a) 1,999(a) 11 Telephone Interpreter Service-Fees and Expenses . . 7,979(a) 23,891(a) 26,679(a) 29 507(a) 12 Advisory Councils-Fees and Expenses 891(a) 8,545(a) 11,069(a) 2,374(a) 483(a) 14 Furniture and Fittings (b) (b) (b) 2,438(a) 1,139(a) 15 Incidental and other Expenditure 4, 438(a) 2,305(a) 2,000(a) 1,492(a) 1 536(a) 3-01 Detection, Custody and Deportation expenses 9,523(a) 13,064(a) 39,680(a) 17,224(a) 71,249(a) 02 Assistance for Migrant Resource and Information Centre . . 20,000(a) 67,400(a) 61,000(a) 38,000(a) 08 Reimbursement to Voluntary Agencies for Assistance to refugees . . . . 266(a) 3,065(a) 3,564(a) 360-3-09 Settlement Centres- Expenses . . . . . . 918(a) 28(a) 10 Special Orientation Activities- Indo-Chinese refugees . . 2,228(a) . . . . . . 4-02 Movements of migrants on disembarkation 1,078(a) 344(a) 817(a) 236(a) 3,454(a) 5-01 Adult Migrant Education Program 60,657(a) 109 289(a) 68,708(a) 54,979(a) 53,234(a) 02 Living Allowance for English as a second language course at Technical and Further Education Institutions . . . . . . . . 5,315(a) 902-1-02 Settlement Centres (Capital works) . . . . 92,593(a) 3,141(a) 2,279(a) 878-0-01 Orientation Activities at Settlement Centres . . . . 1,395(a) . . . . 360-6-01 Grants- In-Aid: Migrant Welfare Organisations . . . . . . 2,667(a) 19,332(a) 155-0-01 Payments for Accommodation for migrants and refugees including advances (c) ( c) (c) (c) 118,000(a) 811-7-01 Migrant Centres (Capital works) (c) (c) (c ) (c) . . (a) All figures represent expenditure recorded in the Darwin Ledger maintained by or on behalf of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs during the financial years shown. There may have been other expenditures recorded in the Central Office Ledger which were also related to the Northern Territory. It would not be possible to extract such details without an unacceptable amount of research work. (b) The appropriation for furniture and fittings over these years was controlled by the Department of Administrative Services (DAS). (c) The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs assumed functional responsibility for Migrant Centres operations from the Department of Administrative Services from 17 October 1982. Expenditure in relation to Migrant Centres operations prior to that date is the responsibility of DAS. Question No. 214 Mr Reeves asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: What are the total amounts of all expenditures and/or capital works programs undertaken by the Minister's Department in or related to the Northern Territory for each year from 1978-79 to 1982-83 which are not covered by general or specific grants to the Northern Territory. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Department's and some statutory authorities' costing and 'production' reporting is not maintained in terms of expenditure in or relative to individual States and Territories. Accordingly crude best estimates have been made by apportioning total Departmental expenditure. These estimates are based on a variety of broad indicators such as elapsed project time and the level of staff involvement as a proportion of total staff time. The estimated expenditure is as follows: 1978-79-$2,500,000. 1979-80-$2,000,000. 1980-81-$2,000,000. 1981-82-$1,600,000. 1982-83-$1,600,000. Question No. 215 Mr Reeves asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: What are the total amounts of all expenditures and/or capital works programs undertaken by the Minister's Department in or related to the Northern Territory for each year from 1978-79 to 1982-83 which were not covered by general or specific grants to the Northern Territory. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There was no expenditure incurred nor were any capital works undertaken in the Northern Territory during this period. Question No. 216 Mr Reeves asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: What are the total amounts of all expenditures and/or capital works programs undertaken by the Minister's Department in or related to the Northern Territory for each year from 1978-79 to 1982-83 which were not covered by general or specific grants to the Northern Territory. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Financial Year $m 1978-79 71.102* 1979-80 3.705 1980-81 2.122 1981-82 3.284 1982-83 4.385 * From 1 July 1979, the Northern Territory assumed responsibility for a range of State-type educational functions which had until then been funded by the Commonwealth. Question No. 220 Mr Reeves asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: What are the total amounts of all expenditures and/or capital works programs undertaken by the Minister's Department in or related to the Northern Territory for each year from 1978-79 to 1982-83 which were not covered by general or specific grants to the Northern Territory. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1978-79- $633,890 1979-80-$2,752,413 1980-81-$3,284,456 1981-82-$3,484,726 1982-83-$6,182,576 Question No. 222 Mr Reeves asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: What are the total amounts of all expenditures and/or capital works programs undertaken by the Minister's Department in or related to the Northern Territory for each year from 1978-79 to 1982-83 which were not covered by general or specific grants to the Northern Territory. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Expenditures in the Northern Territory not covered by general or specific grants and appropriated to or under the control of the Department of Housing and Construction in the years requested were as follows: $m 1978-79 16.827 1979-80 16.749 1980-81 21.950 1981-82 32.969 1982-83 ( Estimate) 24.304 These figures include expenditure on capital works and repairs and maintenance programs on behalf of Civil and Defence Departments and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation as follows: $m 1978-79 9.841 1979-80 13.784 1980-81 18.534 1981-82 28.595 1982-83 (Estimate ) 18.595 The value of new capital works commenced for Civil and Defence Departments and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in each of these years was as follows: $m 1978-79 8.112 1979-80 25.024 1980-81 10.639 1981-82 7.326 1982-83 (Estimate) 5.110 Question No. 224 Mr Reeves asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: What are the total amounts of all expenditures and/or capital works programs undertaken by the Minister's Department in or related to the Northern Territory for each year from 1978-79 to 1982-83 which were not covered by general or specific grants to the Northern Territory. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is set out in the following table: DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES EXPENDITURE, NORTHERN TERRITORY, 1978-79 TO 1982-83 Division 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $ $ $ $ $ 130/- Administrative (Department of Administrative Services) 4,226,000 4,082,000 5, 214,000 5,216,000 5,884,000 138/- Australian Federal Police . . 75,000 118,000 480,000 739,000 140/- Parliamentary and Ministerial Staff and Services 103,000 120,000 148,000 192, 000 139,000 155/- Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd . . 21,000 . . 15,000 . . 161/- Australian Electoral Office 118,000 142,000 270,000 163,000 410,000 250/- Department of Defence-Rent 19,000 13,000 37,000 58,000 324,000 252/- Department of Defence-Acquisition of Sites and Buildings . . . . 78,000 229,000 728,000 253/- Department of Defence-Furniture and Fittings 442,000 250,000 452,000 . . . . 811/- Capital Works and Services 10,000 96,000 863,000 6,329,000 1,618,000 TOTAL 4,918,000 4,799,000 7,180,000 12,682,000 9,842,000 Question No. 227 Mr Reeves asked the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: What are the total amounts of all expenditures and/or capital works programs undertaken by the Minister's Department in or related to the Northern Territory for each year from 1978-79 to 1982-83 which were not covered by general or specific grants to the Northern Territory. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is set out as follows: Expenditure in $000s Department of Science and Technology 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Space Projects Branch 1,018.0 110.0 116.0 145.0 194.0 Bureau of Meteorology 2, 116.2 2,201.2 2,611.5 2,954.4 3,151.0 CSIRO 1,540.0 1,490.0 1,650.0 2,210.0 2, 490.0 Much of CSIRO's other research activity, consistent with the role of the Commonwealth in a federal system, has application to Australia overall. It would be a difficult and time consuming task to attempt to quantify the extent of the applicability to the Northern Territory of each CSIRO research program. Question No. 231 Mr Reeves asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: What are the total amounts of all expenditures and/or capital works programs undertaken by the Minister's Department in or related to the Northern Territory for each year from 1978-79 to 1982-83 which were not covered by general or specific grants to the Northern Territory. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Defence Office of Service Australian Homes Veterans' War Graves Corporation Affairs Total $ $ $ $ 1978-79 8,912 154,418 880,558 1,043,888 1979-80 53,004 249,984 975,127 1,278,115 1980-81 10,521 218,399 1,187,914 1,416,834 1981-82 13,508 432,383 1,354,442 1,800,333 1982-83 (est.) 17,562 594,000 1,747,692 2,359,254 Notes: (a) The above figures exclude expenditure on Capital Works and Repairs and Maintenance. This information will be provided by the Minister for Housing and Construction. (b) It is not possible to identify precisely in my Department's records the expenditure incurred in or related to the Northern Territory. In some instances it has been necessary to estimate the expenditure. Question No. 237 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: Can he indicate (a) how many applicants are on the waiting lists for (i) rental and (ii) purchase of homes with housing authorities in each State and Territory and (b) what is the waiting period for different types of housing for the different categories of applicants in each State and Territory. Mr Hurford — The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) APPLICATIONS OUTSTANDING FOR RENTAL AND HOME PURCHASE ASSISTANCE New Australian South South Western Northern Capital Wales Victoria Queensland Australia Australia Tasmania Territory Territory Rental (1) 47,989 15,323 9,208 24,106 6,472 3,625 3,072 1,486 Home purchase (2) (3) 8,105 14,314 1,313 444 214 350 103 nil (4) (1) As at 31 December 1982. (2) For Queensland, Western Australia, Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory as at 31 December, 1982; for Victoria as at 18 February 1983; for Tasmania as at 31 March 1983; for New South Wales as at 30 April 1983; for South Australia as at 1 May 1983. (3) Some States do not place applicants on waiting lists until they have been interviewed and are in a position to proceed with a purchase. In South Australia a total of 3,120 applicants was listed and waiting call up. In Tasmania in the nine months to March 1983 there had been 1,546 applicants. In some States also the figures represent composite housing authority/State bank and co-operative housing society figures. (4) All applications were being processed at 31 December 1982, as there were no waiting lists. (b) The following information was obtained from the housing authority of each State and Territory and is based on waiting times as at 31 December 1982. Waiting times tend to vary, depending on type and location of dwelling and the needs of applicants (those in urgent need can be given priority accommodation). New South Wales Capital city Regional centres Rural areas Pensioners 43 months 32 months 33 months Families 42 months 39 months 31 months Victoria Pensioners Families Capital cities 3 to 48 months 12 to 40 months Regional 2 to 48 months 3 to 40 months Queensland Waiting times generally exceeded twelve months for all types of accommodation. South Australia Metropolitan Non-metropolitan Double units 24 months 16 months Cottage flats-single persons 21 months 35 months Cottage flats-two persons 4 months 27 months For villa flats and walk-up flats, waiting times varied from some months to two years. Western Australia Metropolitan Non-metropolitan Family and pensioner accom modation up to 2 years up to 2 years Tasmania 3 bedroom 2 bedroom Pensioner Hobart 6-12 months 24 months 24-30 months Launceston 24 months 24 months 30 months Devonport 27 months 27 months 30 months Ulverstone 24 months 24 months 30 months Burnie 18 months 24 months 30 months Northern Territory Darwin Alice Springs Katherine Tennant Creek 1 bedroom flat 18 months 13 months 7 months 1 month 2 bedroom flat 9 months 10 months 8 months 3 months 4 bedroom flat 24 months 11 months 15 months Australian Capital Territory House 22 months Family flat 1 month Bachelor flat 14 months Pensioner flat 36 months Question No. 238 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 25 May 1983: Can the Minister provide an estimate of the number of persons who are homeless in (a) the capital cities and (b) non-metropolitan regions in each State by (i) age group, (ii) sex, (iii) marital status and (iv) occupation. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: There are no reliable estimates of the number of homeless persons in Australia. Researchers have found, particularly in relation to homeless youth, that rates of homelessness fluctuate markedly from time to time and, currently, there is insufficient data to gauge the nature or extent of those who are homeless. In recognition of this, my Department is considering ways of improving the supply of information about this group. Question No. 242 Dr Charlesworth asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1983: (1) Can the Minister say if a national committee was formed recently in Perth by the Independent Teachers Federation to sponsor the introduction of peace studies in Australian schools. (2) Does the Minister support the inclusion of peace studies in school curricula; if so, (a) what is the Minister's assessment of the aims of peace studies in schools and (b) how will the content of a course of this kind be determined. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) The Minister for Education in each State has the ultimate responsibility for decisions about what is included in the school curriculum. However, I would advocate the inclusion in the curriculum of activities which would lead students to a more critical understanding of the global community, and the interplay of economic, political and military forces that have led nations into war. I would support studies which explore ways of settling differences other than by confrontation and armed conflict. (a) and (b) It is difficult to make any general assessment of the aims of peace studies in schools, since these matters are decided individually by each school generally within broad guidelines laid down by education authorities. The content of courses related to the study of peace is decided in different ways, according to the policy and guidelines of the school and of the State in which it is located. All States and Territories are aware of increasing interest in and support for Peace Studies. Education authorities claim there is provision within existing structures (basically within Social Science and Social Studies programs), for the introduction of the main themes embraced by Peace Studies, and that many of the issues are already incorporated in existing guidelines. As far as non- government schools are concerned a range of schools have Peace Studies programs. An outstanding example is the Australian International Independent School ( Sydney) which was established on a philosophy of non-violence. Peace Studies permeate the total curriculum of this school. In the Australian Capital Territory, the Schools Authority and the United Nations Association of Australia in October 1982 organised an in-service course for teachers from government and non-government schools and interested members on the theme 'Education for Peace'. A committee was formed to promote peace education. One Australian Capital Territory school provides a course entitled ' Conflict and Crisis' as part of the Social Studies program and another has prepared a course in Peace Studies for accreditation. However, Peace Studies can also be treated as a theme in existing subjects by such means as an emphasis on co-operation rather than competition. In an Australian Capital Territory school the content of such a course would need to be approved by the school board and in the case of Year 11 and 12 courses be accredited by the Accrediting Agency. Question No. 244 Mr Staples asked the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: Are the standards of microbiological security being built into the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong, Victoria, the highest in the world ; if so, are those systems already commissioned meeting the standards required for the safe operation of the laboratory. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. Commissioning has been in progress as parts of ANAHL have been structurally completed. Elements of the building that will be critical for security and which are commissioned have been the steam raising plant, which is essential for providing steam for sterilisation purposes; the diesel generators, which will provide power should power from the State Electricity Commission be discontinued for any reason; and the air compressors, which are vital to security because compressed air is used for sealing airtight doors, for moving automatic valves and for providing air to the fully-enclosed suits worn by personnel handling high-risk infective agents. All of these systems have performed to the high standards required of them. A microprocessor control system which was developed by the Department of Housing and Construction for controlling a regime of negative air pressures within the high-security areas of the laboratory has been adapted to control all of the major items of engineering equipment and has been patented worldwide. Considerable confidence in this control system was built up during eighteen months of testing on a prototype constructed at Port Melbourne, and this has been vindicated by the excellent results that have been obtained from its application to the steam raising plant, boilers, compressors and the plant for providing chilled water. CSIRO is very confident that ANAHL will provide a level of security over and above that determined to be necessary for the laboratory to operate continuously in a safe manner. Question No. 246 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: Can he indicate (a) when the next INTELSAT satellite will be launched, (b) if the organisations who have access to the current INTELSAT satellite will have access to the transponders; if not, who will have access, and (c) whether there will be any surplus capacity on the new satellite; if so, who has applied for this capacity. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (a) The next INTELSAT satellite is scheduled for launch on 25 August 1983. It will be located in the Indian Ocean region. Pacific Ocean region satellites will be replaced in early 1984. (b) All organisations with access to existing INTELSAT satellites will have access to the new satellites as may others that secure INTELSAT approval via an organisation that is a Signatory to the INTELSAT agreements. In the case of Australia the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) is the Signatory. (c) There will initially be some surplus capacity on the new satellites. To date, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia), has not received any formal applications from Australian organisations for additional capacity. Question No. 247 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: Is any action being taken to introduce AM stereo radio; if so, when will this new form of broadcasting be permitted in Australia. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Engineering investigations into the various systems of AM stereo sound broadcasting are being carried out by the Department in collaboration with the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters (FARB). This work is being undertaken over the next few months and no recommendations on the introduction of AM stereo sound broadcasting into Australia can properly be taken until the results of the engineering investigations are obtained and evaluated. Question No. 248 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: (1) What progress is being made with the Digital Radio Concentrator Service. (2) When will a decision be made on the general use of this development in remote areas. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice received from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) Telecom Australia, in conjunction with the contractor NEC Pty Ltd, is conducting field trials on the Digital Radio Concentrator System (DRCS) in Queensland and progress to date is satisfactory. Other field trials on the system are planned for South Australia and Northern Territory in July and August 1983, respectively. (2) Provided the trials continue to be satisfactory, Telecom expects to make decisions by early 1984 on the installation of the initial systems. Question No. 254 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: Has the Government made an announcement on the uses of the unallocated transponders on Australia's domestic communications satellite; if not, when will the Government make a statement on this subject. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No announcement has been made regarding the uses planned for the unallocated medium-powered transponders on the Australian Communications Satellite System. A statement will be made when the Government has completed a full assessment of the wide range of proposals received and the fundamental policy issues involved. Question No. 255 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: On what work is the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal presently engaged. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, is as follows: Public Inquiries: The Tribunal's known commitments in respect of public inquiries for the months of June and July 1983 are as follows: Date Location Nature of hearing Tuesday 14.6.83 Sydney Licence Grants: Gosford/Wyong Television Translators (Preliminary Hearings) Wednesday 15.6.83 Townsville Licence Renewals: 4AY Ayr and 4GC Charters Towers (Contemporaneous Inquiry) 4TO Townsville. Thursday 16.6.83 Townsville Joined Inquiries: Licence Renewals TNQ-7 Townsville and Translators/Share Transaction TNQ/FNQ Cairns 4AY/4GC/4LM Mt Isa Monday 20.6.83 Mackay Licence Renewal: 4MK Mackay Tuesday 21.6.83 Mackay Joined Inquiries: Licence Renewal/Share Transaction-MVQ-6 Mackay and Translators Wednesday 22.6.83 Cairns Licence Renewals: FNQ-10 Cairns and Translators 4CA Cairns Thursday 23.6.83 Innisfail Licence Renewal: 4KZ Innisfail Friday 24.6.83 Mareeba Joined Inquiries: Licence Renewal/Share Transaction 4AM Mareeba Monday 27.6.83 Coffs Harbour Licence Grants: Commercial Broadcasting and Translator Station licences to serve Coffs Harbour Monday 11.7.83 Brisbane Licence Renewal: TVQ Brisbane Tuesday 12.7.83 Brisbane Licence Renewal: QTQ Brisbane Thursday 14.7.83 Mt Isa Licence Renewals: 4LM Mt Isa ITQ Mt Isa Dates have not yet been set, but the Tribunal is also committed to hold inquiries into the following: (i) Review of the requirements for the broadcasting of Australian music performances; (ii) An application by the AMP Society to be registered as a lender under the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 ('The Act'). (iii) The acquisition of commercial television station MTN Griffith. The Minister has stated that he intends to ask the Tribunal to hold any Inquiry into the introduction of a Fairness Code for broadcasting. However, no formal reference has been made at this stage. The licences for the following stations expire on 31 August, 9 September and 30 September 1983, and reports are currently being prepared by the Program Services and Licensing Divisions on the operations of the stations. It is likely that public inquiries will be required for most, if not all of these licence renewals . 30 August 1983 COMMERCIAL TELEVISION TRANSLATOR STATION: TNT-7 St Helens COMMUNITY TELEVISION AERIAL SYSTEM: Bayview COMMERCIAL BROADCASTING STATIONS: 2OO Wollongong; 6KA Dampier/Karratha/Roebourne ; 6NW Port Hedland COMMERCIAL BROADCASTING TRANSLATOR STATIONS: 6KA Paraburdoo; 6KA Mt Tom Price PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATION: 6NEW Newman 9 September 1983 COMMUNITY TELEVISION AERIAL SYSTEM: Balmoral 30 September 1983 COMMERCIAL TELEVISION STATIONS: DDQ Darling Downs; SDQ Southern Downs; SEQ Wide Bay; RTQ Rockhampton COMMERCIAL TELEVISION TRANSLATOR STATIONS: DDQ-5A Toowoomba; RTQ-5 Cracow; RTQ- 10 Blackwater Bluff; RTQ-10 Gladstone; SEQ-1 Gympie; SEQ-5 Monto; SEQ-10 Nambour COMMERCIAL BROADCASTING STATIONS: 4AK Oakey; 4BU Bundaberg; 4CD Gladstone; 4GR Toowoomba; 4GY Gympie; 4HI Emerald; 4LG Longreach; 4MB Maryborough; 4NA Nambour; 4RO Rockhampton; 4SB Kingaroy; 4VL Charleville; 4WK Warwick; 4ZR Roma. COMMERCIAL BROADCASTING TRANSLATOR STATIONS: 4CD Biloela; 4HI Dysart; 4HI Moranbah PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATION: 4DDB Toowoomba Public Inquiry Reports The Tribunal has had an extremely heavy work load in recent months with inquiries having been conducted in Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia, the Riverina, Victoria and the Gold Coast. Some of the inquiries held in Perth and Kalgoorlie were very lengthy. Final reports in respect of all inquiries, details of which are set out below, are in the process of being completed. The decisions and reasons for decisions have been published for most of the inquiries. Date of inquiry (1) Licence Renewals: 7BU Burnie; 7LA Launceston; 7EX Launceston; 7SD Scottsdale; 7AD Devonport; 7THE Hobart February- March 1983 Licence Grant: Geeveston Public Broadcasting Station Licence Transfers: 7HT Hobart; 7LA Launceston; 7QT Queenstown (2) Licence Renewal/Share Transaction: 3CV Maryborough March 1983 (3) Licence Renewals: Adelaide commercial and public broadcasting stations March 1983 (4) Licence Renewals: All South Australian country stations, and stations 2BH Broken Hill and BKN Broken Hill April 1983 (5) Licence Renewals: Perth commercial broadcasting stations April 1983 (6) Licence Renewals: All Western Australia stations south of and including Geraldton. April 1983 (7) Licence Renewals: 2WG Wagga; 2AY Albury; 2QN Deniliquin; RVN-2 South Western Slopes and Eastern Riverina, and AMV-4 Upper Murray April/May 1983 (8) Share Transaction: Station 3YB Warrnambool May 1983 (9) Licence Renewals: Victorian country commercial stations 3BO Bendigo; 3CS Colac; 3CV Maryborough; 3MA Mildura; 3SH Swan Hill; 3WM Horsham; 3NE Wangaratta; 3SR Shepparton; 3TR Sale and 3UL Warragul; BCV-8 Bendigo; GMV-6 Goulburn Valley; GLV-8 Latrobe Valley; STV-8 Mildura; Public broadcasting station 3GCR Churchill May 1983 (10) Licence Renewal: Public broadcasting station 3MBS Melbourne May 1983 (11) Licence Grant: Gold Coast public broadcasting station. May 1983 Other Licensing Matters During the period July 1982 to May 1983, the Tribunal considered some 150 transactions requiring approval pursuant to the provisions of sections 90J or 92F of the Act. In addition, the Tribunal granted its approval pursuant to section 89A of the Act for the transfer of 5 commercial broadcasting station licences and 1 commercial television station licence. A further 8 ownership or control transactions requiring approval, as well as a status report on some 40 transactions on which decisions are pending, will be considered by the Tribunal at its meeting on 10 June 1983. Program Matters In addition to its ongoing evaluation of, and reporting on, the program services of commercial and public stations, including reporting on compliance with the requirements of the Act and the Tribunal's program and advertising standards, and investigation of complaints regarding programs and advertising, the Program Services Division is currently engaged in studies related to the complete review of the Television Program and Advertising Standards. This follows the overall revision of the Broadcasting Program and Advertising Standards completed and promulgated in 1981. As part of the current review, discussion papers have been released for comment by the industry, public interest groups and individual members of the public. The discussion papers released to date are: Advertising Time Standards, Program Classifications, Religious Matter, Alcohol Advertising and Australian Content, as well as a report prepared by the Children's Program Committee containing recommendations related to Children's Program Standards, Children's Drama Standard and Children's Advertising Standards. Those submissions received on these documents have been analysed and, together with submissions awaited, will be considered by the Tribunal in the Review. Research Specific current research projects include the neuro-physiological effects of television, public attitudes to program classification and children's reactions to the television drama series A Country Practice. The Research Branch, in addition, continues its ongoing program of assembling information about the broadcasting and television industries. Public Meetings This year the Tribunal has adopted the concept of holding public meetings to provide an opportunity for discussion of various broadcasting issues which are not addressed appropriately within the context of public hearings of inquiries. To date, there have been meetings in Devonport, Adelaide and Perth, and the next is planned for Brisbane on 11 July 1983. The meetings have been well attended by both public and the industry, and have been particularly valuable during the present review of the television program standards. Newsletter The Tribunal publishes a fortnightly newsletter-'abtee'-which is distributed to approximately 800 individuals, organisations and institutions interested in broadcasting and broadcasting regulations. The newsletter contains information on the Tribunal's functions and activities, notices of hearings, licence renewals, and frequently contains information about the activities of related bodies such as the Councils for Children's Films and Television. It is distributed free of charge. ABT Manual The Legislations Section is currently engaged on the preparation of the ABT Manual, which will be a loose-leaf updated service comprising policy statements, practice notes, commentaries and other useful information related to the administration of the requirements of the Act, the Broadcasting and Advertising Standards and the Television Program and Advertising Standards. It is expected that the Manual will be published in the first quarter of 1984, and will be distributed free of charge to licensees, interested groups, and libraries, and made available to the public. Annual Report The Secretariat and Public Relations Branch is at present engaged in the co- ordination and preparation of the Tribunal's 1982-83 annual report. Management Services On-going administrative support is provided by the Management Services Branch which is responsible for the selection and appointment of staff, finances of the Tribunal, personal matters, accommodation, office services and other matters of an administrative nature. Question No. 257 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: (1) Is it the Government's intention to proceed with a scheme for supplementary licences for television and radio; if so, what is the timetable for the introduction of the scheme. (2) Has he made a detailed statement on the implementation of the scheme for supplementary licences for television and radio; if not, when will he make a statement on this matter. (3) Has a special task force of officers been established within his Department to work on the supplementary licence scheme, if so, (a) how many officers have been appointed as part of that task force and who are actually on duty in the Department and (b) on what actual work are these officers presently engaged. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) I propose to make a comprehensive statement in Parliament on the implementation of the Supplementary Licence Scheme in due course. (3) A special task force has been established within the Corporate Policy and Projects Division of my Department, specifically to deal with the development and implementation of the Supplementary Licence Scheme and a number of projects related to broadcasting planning. (a) The Broadcasting Planning Task Force is multi-disciplinary in nature and presently has a staff ceiling of twenty-two positions. Currently twenty-one positions are occupied and these staff are on duty in the Department. (b) Task force staff are presently engaged on the following projects: preparation of planning guidelines for the implementation of the supplementary licence scheme; the specification and determination of service areas for all existing services; the development of a national UHF-TV assignment plan; public education about the reception of UHF-TV services; the automation of broadcasting engineering planning; and the introduction of planning based on interference limited services. Question No. 258 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: What consultation did the Government have with- (a) Telecom Australia and (b) the Australian Telecommunications Employees' Union, prior to its announcement on 19 May 1983 of the increase in the interest on Telecom's interest bearing capital. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Senior Telecom officials were involved in a study of the proposal. (b) The views of the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association in relation to possible additional demands on Telecom by Government had been made known to me in earlier representations. Question No. 260 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: Has his attention been drawn to a statement by Senator Button, on 21 September 1981, that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation should be given the only licence for subscriber television; if so, does that statement represent Government policy. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government is at present considering a number of options in relation to the introduction of radiated subscription television in Australia. These options include the involvement of the ABC and private enterprise. I hope to be in a position to announce the Government's policy on RSTV in the near future. Question No. 263 Mr Gayler asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: Has he received advice from the Royal Australian Navy concerning the proposal that a further 5 patrol boats be built for surveillance of Australia's northern coastline; if so, what was the advice and has action been taken to conclude contracts with North Queensland Engineers and Agents of Cairns, Queensland, for their construction. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The requirements of surveillance of Australia's coastline are determined by national considerations and priorities which include, but are not confined to defence. As announced on 9 May last, Mr Beazley, as Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence is to conduct a wide-ranging review of the Commonwealth's current coastal surveillance arrangements which will deal, amongst other matters with the question of increased patrol boat numbers. This review was jointly requested by the Minister for Transport and myself and we expect to receive Mr Beazley's report by the end of the Budget session of Parliament. The question of the timing of placement of orders is dependent on the availability of funds, existing commitments and priorities within Navy and Defence requirements. Question No. 264 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: (1) Can he indicate what is the (a) present stage of development of and (b) services provided by Intelpost. (2) Is a domestic equivalent being considered; if so, what services will be provided. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice received from the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: (1) (a) The international postal facsimile service known as Intelpost is at an early stage of development and is currently provided by nine countries. Australia Post and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) are consulting on plans to link Australia to the international Intelpost network. (b) International Intelpost will provide for the collection, transmission and physical delivery of international facsimile messages. (2) Australia Post already provides a limited domestic facsimile service in co- operation with Telecom Australia. The service provides for the lodgment, transmission and physical delivery of facsimile messages within Australia. Arrangements are in hand to upgrade the quality and extent of the existing service. Ultimately, the upgraded domestic facsimile service will link with the international Intelpost service. Question No. 267 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communi- cations, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: (1) Is mandatory quiet base equipment to be introduced by his Department; if so (a) when, (b) why and (c) at whose request. (2) Will it be fitted (a) on all existing equipment, (b) only on equipment purchased after introduction of the requirement and (c) bring cost savings to his Department; if so how and by what sum. (3) Can he indicate whether the fitting of such equipment is optional rather than mandatory in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Mandatory Quiet Base Station operation in the Land Mobile Radio Service is being introduced by the Department of Communications from 31 July 1993. (b) As a means of significantly improving spectrum usage of shared channels by reducing the nuisance caused to base station operators having to listen to mobile and portable operators from organizations outside their network but who share the same frequency. Fitting of quiet base station equipment will also protect country base station operators sharing the same frequency in the VHF bands. This facility will enhance frequency re-use aspects of VHF mobile services. (c) The introduction is a Department of Communications initiative and has been co-ordinated with the Australian Electronics Industry Association. (2) (a) The facility is not required to be fitted on existing equipment licensed for operation. (b) The facility is to be fitted to all mobile portable and base station equipment sold after July 1983. (c) Cost savings are difficult to quantify. The incidence of interference investigations required to resolve problems within the Land Mobile Radio Service will be reduced, permitting scarce man power resources to concentrate on other important investigations, such as interference to sound and television broadcasting services. (3) I am not able to describe with precision the legal arrangements in the United Kingdom or the United States of America. Question No. 270 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: Has his attention been drawn to a statement by Senator Button on 28 February 1983 to the effect that the advertising of tobacco products should be treated in the same way as liquor advertising; if so, is it the intention of the Government to act in this manner; if not, (a) why not and (b) in what way will advertising requirements differ. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am aware of Senator Button's statement of 28 February 1983. However, I am also aware of Senator Button's media release of 1 March 1983 which states, inter alia: 'A Labor Government will not change the current provisions relating to cigarette and tobacco advertising . . .' It is not the intention of the Government that advertising of tobacco products and alcoholic beverages be treated in the same way because, from a health perspective, these products are not the same. Tobacco consumption at any level is harmful to health. Indeed, it is estimated that more than 16,000 deaths resulted from tobacco-related diseases in Australia last year. However, alcohol- when consumed in moderation-has not been demonstrated to be harmful to health: it becomes so only when abused. The Government's stated health policy on tobacco and alcohol consumption recognises these differences. Whereas the Goverment is committed to take further action to inhibit the promotion of cigarettes, it acknowledges that alcohol, in moderation, is acceptable. Therefore, my Department will continue to do what it can to promote in the community an awareness of safe patterns of alcohol consumption. With regard to the honourable member's question on how advertising requirements will differ, I can only reply in terms of my objectives as Minister for Health. The measures I propose will reflect my concern for each product's potential for harm and will be in accord with the Government policy I have outlined. Question No. 271 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communi- cations, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: (1) Has the Australian Postal Commission taken action as a result of a consultant's report to the Public Inquiry into the Monopoly Position of the Australian Postal Commission referring to inadequacies in the procedure for testing mail path performance; if so, what action has been taken; if not, why not. (2) What is the current quality of performance for standard articles compared with that (a) 12 months and (b) 5 years ago. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Prior to the public inquiry into the Monopoly Position of the Australian Postal Commission, Australia Post management had engaged the services of consultants to review and recommend potential improvements to its mail service performance testing systems. The review was referred to in Australia Post's submission to the inquiry. Final reports were received from the consultants in February 1982 and these identified a need for system and procedural improvements on some aspects of performance testing. Based on the review results, Australia Post is progressively refining its performance testing systems. (2) Standard articles: Percentage Period delivered (financial year) on time (National) 1982-83 94.6 (a) 1981-82 87.3 (b) 1977-78 83.3 Question No. 272 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: Has action been taken to meet user requirements for insurance arrangements for postal articles, following the report of the Public Inquiry into the Monopoly Position of the Australian Postal Commission; if not, will the action be taken. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: Australia Post is presently examining ways of implementing the recommendation of the Committee. Australia Post agrees with the comment in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Monopoly Position of the Australian Postal Commission that a need exists for an insurance option in the postal service. Question No. 276 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the fact that frequent changes to the free pharmaceutical list cause elderly people inconvenience and stress due to the removal of certain medications which they have taken for long periods for chronic conditions. (2) Is he able to say why each of the following medications was removed from the free list (a) Dolobid, (b) Tabasan, (c) Linctus Tussinol, (d) Cascard, (e) Paraffin oil, (f) Doloxene and (g) Digesics. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The main reasons for removal of drugs and medicinal preparations from the pharmaceutical benefits list are- (a) when the manufacturer ceases to market the drug in Australia; (b) on the recommendation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee ( PBAC), which is the independent statutory body established under the National Health Act to advise the Minister for Health on the listing of pharmaceutical benefits (the PBAC makes its recommendations primarily on medical considerations ); and (c) where a price disagreement between the manufacturer and the Government cannot be resolved. (2)- (a) Dolobid has never been listed as a pharmaceutical benefit. (b) Tabasan has never been listed as a pharmaceutical benefit. (c) Linctus Tussinol has not been removed from the list. (d) Cascard-there is no record of a product of this name having been listed as a pharmaceutical benefit. ('Cascara' was deleted due to concern by the PBAC over the abuse of laxative drugs and the view that there should be greater reliance on diet and exercise). (e) Paraffin oil was deleted due to concern by the PBAC over the abuse of laxative drugs and reports that prolonged ingestion may interfere with the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins, particularly vitamins A and D. (f) Doloxene has never been listed as a pharmaceutical benefit. (g) Digesic was removed as a benefit due to the incidence of misadventure and death associated with the apparent misuse of dextropropoxyphene, an ingredient in Digesic, and the view that dextropropoxyphene has no therapeutic advantage over other analgesics. Question No. 280 Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: (1) Will he take urgent steps to implement those recommendations which relate to the need for comprehensive drug legislation between the States and the Commonwealth contained in the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, Book D, as set out on pages D119-120. (2) Does he propose to take action in relation to the recommendations calling for the Commonwealth Parliament and the legislatures of the States and Territories to form a national code to deal with drug trafficking, to ensure (a) that a uniform drug trafficking code should give wide powers to law enforcement, (b) a Drugs of Dependence Act should be enacted in each State and Territory, and (c) that the Drugs of Dependence Act should govern import and export of drugs and other related matters; if so, what action will he take. (3) Does he propose to take legislative action to support a national strategy against drug abuse; if so, what action is intended. (4) Is it a fact that the scheduling and classifying of drugs should be uniform throughout Australia; if so, will he ensure that early action is taken to implement these recommendations. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Commonwealth is taking action through the Ministerial Committee on Drug Strategy (MCDS) and the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) to implement the recommendations of the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs (ARCID) in relation to the preparation of model drug legislation. It is expected that development of draft legislation, which ARCID suggested could be in the form of a uniform Drug Trafficking Act and a uniform Drugs of Dependence Act , will form the basis of a National Code to deal with drug trafficking. The detailed content and form of the legislation will not be finally decided until examination of the 218 ARCID legislation proposals has been completed by the Commonwealth and States in the forums of the Ministerial Committee on Drug Strategy and through the organs of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. It will be a matter for each State and Territory to determine , in co-operation with the Commonwealth, the form and content legislation will take in their jurisdiction. (3) The basis of the national strategy which has been endorsed in principle by the Commonwealth in the forum of the MCDS is outlined on page D28 of the ARCID Report. Those aspects of the National Strategy on page D28, which ARCID suggested would require legislative action e.g. statutory recognition of the difference which the community recognises between the trafficker and the pedlar/ user, and minimisation of the impact of the criminal law upon illegal drug experimenters by allowing the expunging of convictions, are matters which are being taken up in the context of the development of model drug legislation. (4) The ARCID recommendations relating to the uniform scheduling and classifying of drugs throughout Australia, have been examined by the Australian Health Ministers' Conference which resolved on 28 April 1983 that the National Health and Medical Research Council be asked to review the definition of Schedule 8 drugs and examine appropriate Schedules in the Uniform Poisons Standard to see how they relate to the controls proposed under the Drugs of Dependence Act. Question No. 286 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: Will the Minister provide an analysis of funding for War Service Homes in the Electoral Division of Stirling for 1982-83. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Records of expenditure for Defence Service Homes loans are not maintained for electoral divisions. A comparison of post codes within the Electoral Division of Stirling with the addresses of properties on which loans were made in 1982-83 indicates that about $2.46m has been expended in the Division to 31 May 1983. Question No. 287 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: Will the Minister provide an analysis, for the Electoral Division of Stirling, of funding for (a) primary and (b) secondary schools for each year from 1974- 1975 to 1981-1982 with respect to capital and recurrent funds. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourble member's question: The details of grants prior to and including calendar year 1981 are contained in annual reports to Parliament of expenditures under States Grants (School Assistance) Acts. Figures for grants to non-government schools for 1982 are shown on the following table: In general, direct Commonwealth grants for Government schools are provided to State systems on a block grants basis. The details of funding for particular groups of government schools can be obtained from the Western Australian Department of Education. Capital Library Recurrent School Grants Grants Grants $ $ $ St Lawrence's Primary Balcatta . . . . 145,439 Majella Primary Balga . . . . 65,310 St Gerards School Balga . . . . 135,453 Holy Rosary School Doubleview . . 7,000 187,384 St Dominic's School Innaloo . . . . 109,905 Our Lady of Good Counsel School Karrinyup . . 2,000 128,522 Our Lady of Lourdes Convent School Nollamara . . . . 151,648 Our Lady of Grace School North Beach . . 1,000 228,420 St John's School Scarborough . . . . 41,204 St Kieran's School Tuart Hill . . . . 298,363 Newman College Junior School Churchlands . . . . 22,308 Mercy College Junior School Koondoola . . . . 131,716 Churchlands Activity School Churchlands . . 3,000 12,246 Newman College Churchlands 226,000 . . 710,745 Newman Sienna College Doubleview . . . . 378, 097 Mercy College Senior School Koondoola 121,000 13,000 374,229 Servite College Tuart Hill . . . . 722,349 St Mary's Anglican Girls School Inc. Karrinyup . . . . 352,517 Nollamara Christian Academy Nollamara . . . . 20, 464 Hale School Wembley Downs . . . . 397,005 Question No. 290 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: Will he provide details of environmental impact statements that have arisen under Commonwealth legislation in each year from 1980 to 1982. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 22 environmental impact statements (EIS's) were directed under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act during 1980-1982. Details of these EIS's are given below: Proposal Date Directed 1980 Establishment of aluminium smelter in Hunter Valley, New South Wales (Aluminium Pechiney Aust. Pty Ltd) Tomago 25 January 1980 Project Stormfury 30 January 1980 Establishment of aluminium smelter in Hunter Valley, New South Wales (Hunter Valley Aluminium Pty Ltd) Lochinvar 6 March 1980 Rundle Oil Shale Project, near Gladstone, Northern Queensland (Southern Pacific Petroleum N.L. and Central Pacific Minerals N.L.) 19 March 1980 Development of uranium deposit at Honeymoon, South Australia (Mines Administration Pty Ltd) 20 March 1980 Mereenie Oil/Gas Project, Northern Territory (Oilmin/Magellan) 16 April 1980 TV Translator Facility, North Head, Sydney Harbour New South Wales (Department of Communications) 9 June 1980 Aerial Gondola, Black Mountain Australian Capital Territory (Black Mountain Cable Car) 17 July 1980 Establishment of aluminium smelter, Goodwood, Queensland (Alcan) 15 August 1980 Ben Lomond Uranium Project Townsville, Queensland (Minatome Australia Pty Ltd) 25 November 1980 Cooper Basin Oil/Gas Project South Australian (Port and Terminal facilities at Stony Point, South Australia) (Santos) 30 November 1980 1981 Lake Way Uranium Project Western Australia (Delhi International Oil) 2 April 1981 Olympic Dam Project, South Australia (Roxby Mangement Services) 14 July 1981 Pilot Coal Liquefaction Plant Morwell, Victoria (Brown Coal Liquefaction ( Victoria) Pty Ltd 20 July 1981 Beverley Uranium Project, South Australia (South Australia Uranium Corp Pty Ltd) 29 December 1981 1982 Amphibious Training Area, North West Cape, Western Australia (Department of Defence) 1 February 1982 Great Barrier Reef City (Tourist Development by Mr D. Tarca) 70km offshore from Townsville, Queensland 4 March 1982 Perth Airport Master Plan, Western Australia (Department of Aviation) 9 March 1982 Adelaide Airport Master Plan South Australia (Department of Aviation) 29 April 1982 Alice Springs-Darwin Railway Northern Territory (Department of Transport) 5 August 1982 Vickery Coal Project, near Boggabri, New South Wales (Coal Cliff Collieries Pty Ltd) 24 August 1982 Tianjara Training Area-To seek New South Wales approval for continued use of area for military training purposes (Department of Defence) 20 October 1982 Question No. 294 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: (1) What Australian industry participation and/or offset purchase arrangements are presently in force with (a) Government, (b) statutory authority or (c) private sector contractors within his area of responsibility. (2) Can he indicate (a) who are the parties to these contracts, (b) what (i) level of technology and (ii) value they are, (c) what is the present stage of progress and (d) what new arrangements, are presently being negotiated. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) It is Commonwealth policy that, for all major purchases of goods and services by departments and authorities which are totally or partly imported ( that is valued above $1m, with an imported content exceeding $500,000) the overseas supplier is required to provide Australian industry with acceptable offset work. The Offset Program seeks to secure workload which will broaden the capabilities of Australian industries which are of technological or defence significance and stimulate technology advancement in Australian industries. Communications portfolio authorities are required by their respective legislation, and AUSSAT Pty Ltd by its Memorandum of Association, to obtain ministerial approval before entering into contracts exceeding a specified amount -$500,000 for Telecom Australia, Australia Post, AUSSAT Pty Ltd, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, $250, 000 for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, and $100,000 for the Special Broadcasting Service. Compliance with the Government's offsets policy is a normal pre-requisite to ministerial approval. (2) Information on tenders invited and contracts arranged by Communications portfolio authorities is published in general issues of the Gazette of the Commonwealth of Australia. Details of Australian industry participation for particular purchases are usually available from the authorities and any offset arrangements against those purchases could be sought from the Department of Defence Support, which is responsible for administering the Offsets Program. Information on the present stage of progress of tenders invited and offsets arrangements being negotiated are generally of a commercial-in-confidence nature . Question No. 295 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: (1) Has the Government made a decision on the introduction of Radiated Subscription Television (RSTV). (2) Are legislative amendments necessary before RSTV is permitted in any form in Australia; if so, (a) which Acts require amendment and (b) when will they be amended. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government has made no decision on the introduction of RSTV. (2) Legislative amendments would be necessary to permit RSTV in Australia. If RSTV is introduced it will be necessary to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942. Should a decision be made to involve the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in the provision of RSTV, it would be necessary to amend the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983. No such decision has yet been made . Question No. 296 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: What is the definition for Telecom Australia's purpose of common interest for such things as the use of leased lines or networks. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice received from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: For any group of persons (individual or corporate) to constitute a 'common interest' group to operate a Telecom facility (including a private network), the group must have a common interest or business and must meet the following criteria: (i) the prime business or interest of the group must be something other than operating a telecommunications facility or service; (ii) the operation of a telecommunications facility or service by the group must be no more than ancillary to, or facilitating, the group's primary business or interest; (iii) the relationship between a company and its subsidiaries is sufficient to constitute a common interest group, subject to (i) and (ii) above; (iv) the relationship between a company and its shareholders, by itself, is insufficient to constitute a common interest group. It should be noted that the concept of common interest groups who share or operate telecommunications facilities or services is a limited exception to the Commission's role of national common carrier, and the exception is, for that reason, strictly administered. Question No. 299 Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 26 May 1983: (1) Has the Australian Law Reform Commission been given a reference for the consideration of a new public assemblies ordinance for the Australian Capital Territory; if so, (a) when, (b) what are the terms of reference; if not, when does he anticipate being in a position to make a reference. (2) Has his Department prepared a paper entitled 'Consequences of Repeal of the Public Assemblies Ordinance'; if so, (a) will he make that paper publicly available and (b) can he indicate whether the paper suggests that the repeal of the Public Assemblies Ordinance could be viewed as a retrograde step, in conflict with the Government's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Only the Attorney-General may initiate references to the Australian Law Reform Commission. I have not requested the Attorney-General to refer the matter of appropriate public assemblies legislation for the Australian Capital Territory to the Commission. (2) A paper entitled 'Consequences of Repeal of the Public Assemblies Ordinance 1982' was prepared by my Department and I have made a copy available to the honourable member. As I stated at the time the Public Assemblies Ordinance 1982 was repealed, there were aspects of that Ordinance which I believe constitute a serious infringement of civil liberties. I gave a commitment at the time that I would introduce new public assemblies legislation for the Australian Capital Territory which would guarantee the right of peaceful assembly in accordance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and I reaffirm that commitment. Mr Beazley —Mr Spender asked me a question without notice on 11 May 1983 ( Hansard, page 415) concerning losses incurred by airlines due to traffic congestion and delays at Sydney Airport. The following is the answer to the honourable member's question: Airlines using Sydney Airport are incurring losses caused by traffic congestion and traffic delays at the airport. Delays at Sydney Airport were estimated to cost operators about $7m in the 1982 calendar year. These were direct operating costs only; they exclude losses due to consequential delays at other airports and costs to passengers. New traffic management procedures are expected to reduce the delay costs for the year 1983. Question No. 137 Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 May 1983: Will the Government, in light of the developments in Lebanon in which several hundreds of Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila refugee camps were massacred on 17 and 18 September 1982, (a) condemn unequivocally and publicly in the strongest terms the parties responsible, (b) recognise that (i) this episode has further reduced the prospect of progress being made in the foreseeable future towards resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict through President Reagan's plan announced on 1 September 1982 and (ii) the alleviation of the human suffering of Lebanon cannot await the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, (c) examine, with a view to adopting and promoting, a new initiative to solve Lebanon's problems, (d) call for the internationalisation of Lebanon by creating a neutral disarmed Lebanon, backed by UN guarantees and a multinational force for as long as it is needed and (e) support any moves which would (i) ensure that Lebanon would be free from external interference in its internal affairs and (ii) permit the Lebanese people to achieve a national reconciliation free from the consequences and complexities of disputes that arise elsewhere, and which are not of Lebanon's doing. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: My predecessor stated on 20 September 1982 that the then Australian Government was appalled at the massacres which took place at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. The present Government shares that attitude. When I raised the issue in Parliament on 22 September 1982 I referred to the 'appalling slaughter' which had taken place on 16, 17 and 18 September and likened it to a 'slaughter which has all the appearance of a premeditated attempt at human extermination'. The Australian Government strongly believes that Lebanon should be free from outside interference and that it should remain a sovereign and independent State . We would support moves which would enable the Lebanese authorities to regain sovereignty over the whole of their territory. We would agree that the alleviation of the human suffering of Lebanon cannot await the resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict. On 18 may 1983 the Government welcomed the conclusion of an agreement between Lebanon and Israel on the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon. I subsequently wrote to the Lebanese and Israeli Foreign Ministers to welcome the agreement and to express Australian support for the concept of negotiations to resolve the problems of the area. On 27 June I wrote to the Syrian Foreign Minister to express the hope that Syria, through negotiations with the Government of Lebanon, would agree to withdraw its troops from Lebanon. I said the withdrawal of all external forces would contribute to a reduction in tension and the lessening of the potential for conflict in the region. The suggestion is noted that an initiative should be taken to call for the internationalisation of Lebanon by the creation of a neutral disarmed Lebanon, backed by UN guarantees and a multinational force. Australia supports in principle arrangements which would give Lebanon, and its neighbours, confidence that their security would be assured. However, Australia is not a party principal to the negotiations for the withdrawal of external forces from Lebanon . Any initiative such as that proposed would have the most chance of success if it were to come from one of the parties directly involved, and it would certainly seem to require the concurrence of the sovereign Lebanese government. The Australian Government has already provided $10m to assist towards the reconstruction of Lebanon. Question No. 181 Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: (1) Did he recently state that the new Ansett Boeing 757 aircraft will be unique in the world in having a flight deck configuration for a flight staff of 3. (2) If so, having regard to massive advances in technology available to assist a pilot, the fact that Australian flying conditions are amongst the best in the world and the low traffic densities that exist relative to overseas, why was this action thought necessary. (3) What is the (a) capital (b) hourly operating cost of the aircraft to the airline. (4) Will he call on the Independent Air Fares Committee to remove specifically a calculated amount from the cost structure of the airline to ensure that the Australian public does not bear the burden of this act of featherbedding. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am not aware of any proposal by Ansett to acquire Boeing 757 aircraft. However, Ansett has recently taken delivery of its first Boeing 767 aircraft and it is configured for a flight deck crew of three persons whilst all or most other operators using this aircraft type around the world will crew it with two pilots. (2) So long as my Department's minimum safety requirements are met, as is the case in this instance, the question of staff numbers employed in any area of company activity is a matter for the discretion of the company itself. (3) The information sought is not in the possession of my Department. Cost data such as this is confidential to the airline. (4) The Independent Air Fares Committee Act makes no provision for the Minister for Aviation to direct the Committee on such matters. Question No. 218 Mr Reeves asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: What are the total amounts of all expenditures and/or capital works programs undertaken by the Minister's Department in or related to the Northern Territory for each year from 1978-79 to 1982-83 which were not covered by general or specific grants to the Northern Territory. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Expenditures made by the Department of Defence in the Northern Territory and not covered by general or specific grants for the period in question were: 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $m $m $m $m $m 10.933 12.976 17.909 27.634 33.056 These expenditures must necessarily represent estimates since some disbursements may be for services or suppliers domiciled outside the Northern Territory and likewise some material and services utilised in the Northern Territory would be paid for elsewhere. The above figures include expenditures from Appropriations made by the Department of Defence with the exception of: (a) Expenditures for capital works and repairs and maintenance of buildings ( Appropriation Divisions 245 and 246) controlled by the Department of Housing and Construction and included in the response provided by the Minister for Housing and Construction. (b) Expenditures for rent and acquisition of land and buildings (Appropriation Divisions 250 and 252) controlled by the Department of Administrative Services and included in the response provided by the Minister for Administrative Services. (c) Expenditures on furniture and fittings (Appropriation Division 243) for the period 1978-79 to 1980-81. These have been included in the response provided by the Minister for Administrative Services. The Department of Defence assumed control of this Appropriation item in 1981-82 and furniture and fittings expenditure for that year and 1982-83 are included in the above figures. (d) Expenditures for Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits (DFRDB). These are included in the response provided by the Minister for Finance. Question No. 219 Mr Reeves asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: What are the total amounts of all expenditure and/or capital works program undertaken by the Minister's Department in or related to the Northern Territory for each year from 1978-79 to 1982-83 which were not covered by general or specific grants to the Northern Territory. Mr Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Details (a) 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 (1) Advances to the Australian National Railways Commission for specific Railway Works in the NT Tarcoola-Alice Springs Railway 32,900 36,200 18,000 2,000 . . Darwin-Alice Springs Railway (Preliminary Investigation) . . 98 280 1,919 3,000 (2) Subsidy to Australian Shipping Commission for East Coast-Darwin Shipping Service . . . . 1,500 1,500 1,500 (3) Technical Capital Equipment for Marine Navigational Aids 25 15 30 15 315 Footnote: (a) Departmental administrative costs are not readily available and are not included. Question No. 221 Mr Reeves asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: What are the toal amounts of all expenditures and/or capital works programs undertaken by the Minister's Department in or related to the Northern Territory for each year from 1978-79 to 1982-83 which were not covered by general or specific grants to the Northern Territory. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Expenditure incurred by the Department and the former Department of Transport on the maintenance and operation of airport and airways facilities in the Northern Territory for the years 1978-79 to 1981-82 was as follows: 1978-79, $8,186,000; 1979-80, $10,015,000; 1980-81, $9,989,000; 1981-82, $11, 731,000. Expenditure by the Department of Aviation and the former Department of Transport on aviation capital works in the Northern Territory for the years 1978 -79 to 1981-82 was as follows: 1978-79, $554,000; 1979-80, $409,000; 1980-81, $382,000; 1981-82, $759,000. Details of expenditure for 1982-83 are not yet available. The Department of Aviation Regional Office in Adelaide is administratively responsible for both South Australia and the Northern Territory. A division of administrative costs between South Australia and Northern Territory is not available. Expenditure as advised by Trans Australia Airlines in or related to the Northern Territory was as follows: 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Operating Costs (est.) $3,500,000 $3,852,000 $4,200,000 $4,555,000 $4,950,000 Capital Costs (est.) $106,000 $62,000 . . . . . . Question No. 229 Mr Reeves asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: What are the total amounts of all expenditures and/or capital works programs undertaken by the Minister's Department in or related to the Northern Territory for each year from 1978-79 to 1982-83 which were not covered by general or specific grants to the Northern Territory. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $ $ $ $ $ Department of Home Affairs and Environment Administrative 1,346,836 3,248,611 2,971,505 234,204 304,020 Capital Works Programs 86,300 . . 44,936 . . . . 1,433,136 3,248,611 3,016,441 234,204 304,020 Australia Council Administrative 239,573 350,216 393,190 383,049 435,655 Capital Works Programs . . . . . . . . . . Australian Bicentennial Authority Administrative . . . . . . 37,550 41,000 Capital Works Programs . . . . . . . . . . Australian Film and Television School Administrative 2,646 15,912 1,929 16,509 24,332 Capital Works Programs . . . . . . . . . . Australian Heritage Commission Administrative 1,957 582 792 620 23 Capital Works Programs . . . . . . . . . . Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service Administrative 490,997 774,594 1,029,974 1,085,996 1,310,000 Capital Works Programs 578,273 1,876,219 3,425,163 2,513,803 2,000,503 1,069,270 2,650,813 4,455,137 3,599,799 3,310,503 Office of the Supervising Scientist Administrative 179,960 377,871 580,736 903,998 1,349,294 Capital Works Programs 279,469 400,764 186,357 1,530,319 395,924 459,429 778,635 767,093 2,434,317 1,745,218 Summary Administrative 2,261,969 4,767,786 4,978,126 2,661,926 3,464,324 Capital Works Programs 944,042 2,276,983 3,656,456 4,044,122 2,396,427 3,206,011 7,044,769 8,634,582 6,706,048 5,860,751 Question No. 235 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 25 May 1983: (1) What property is (a) owned and (b) leased by the Commonwealth in the following subdivisions of the Electoral Division of Moore; (i) Duncraig, (ii) Gingin, (iii) Girrawheen, (iv) Greenwood, (v) Mundary, (vi) Pearce and (vii) Wanneroo. (2) In each of the cases referred to in part (1), to what purpose is the land or property put and by which organisation. (3) Where the Commonwealth is leasing property or land, from whom is it being leased. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) (i) Subdivision of Duncraig: (owned properties) Lot 61 Leach Street, Marmion: Marine Research Laboratory-CSIRO. (ii) Subdivision of Gingin: (owned properties) Lot 5 McNamara Road, Badgingarra: Automatic Exchange-Telecom Lot 13 Great Northern Highway, Bindoon: Automatic Exchange-Telecom Melbourne Location 3952, Bibby: Springs, Dandaragan Automatic Exchange-Telecom Escape Island: Lighthouse-Transport Swan Location 8011, Gingin: Airfield- Defence Lot 123 Brockman Street, Gingin: Post Office-Postal Commission Lot 124/5 Brockman Street, Gingin: Line Depot-Telecom Pt. Lot 1 Weld Street, Gingin: Exchange and dwelling-Telecom Lot 1 Gingin Brook Road, Gingin: Automatic Exchange-Telecom Lot 238 Bashford Street, Jurien: Automatic Exchange-Telecom Lot 1 Black Arrow Road, Jurien Bay: Depot-Telecom Melbourne Locations 1,309, 3,989, 4,004, Lancelin: Gunnery Range and Training Area-Defence Lot 451 King Street, Lancelin: Automatic Exchange-Telecom Lot 435 Walker Avenue, Lancelin: Navigation Direction Beacon-Aviation Lot 3 Glover/Wells Road, Mooliabeenie: Automatic Exchange-Telecom Lot 6 Road No. 6,486, Muchea: Automatic Exchange-Telecom Lot 1 Road No. 2,062, Wannamal: Automatic Exchange-Telecom Lot 1 Road No. 4,413, Waddi Forest: Automatic Exchange-Telecom (iii) Subdivision of Girrawheen: (owned properties) Lot 23 Girrawheen Avenue, Girrawheen: Exchange-Telecom Pt. Lot 1 Gnangara Road, Gnangara: Radio Transmitter-OTC (iv) Subdivision of Greenwood: (owned properties) Lot 300 Whitfords Avenue, Kingsley: Telephone Exchange-Telecom (v) Subdivision of Mundaring: (owned properties) Part Lot 39 Great Eastern Highway and Nichol Street, Mundaring: Post Office Site-Postal Commission Lot 24 Darlington Road and Montrose Avenue, Darlington: Telephone Exchange- Telecom Lot 20 Railway Parade and Hardey Road, Glenforrest: Automatic Exchange-Telecom Lot 38 Innamincka Road, Greenmount: Telephone Exchange-Telecom Lot 106 Margolin Road, Greenmount: Outer Marker Beacon Site-Aviation Lot 10 Marquis and Evan Streets, Mount Helena: Automatic Exchange-Telecom Lot 49 Great Eastern Highway, Mundaring: Telephone Exchange-Telecom Lots 73 and 74 Hodgson and Craig Streets, Mundaring: Observatory and House- Resources and Energy Lot 1, off Beacon Road, Parkerville: Outer Locator Beacon Site-Aviation Lot 136 Owen and Byfield Road, Parkerville: Automatic Exchange-Telecom Pt. Lot 1 Great Northern Highway Toodyay Road, Viveash: Line Depot-Telecom Lot 1 Linley Valley Road, Wooroloo: Automatic Exchange-Telecom (vi) Subdivision of Pearce: (owned properties) Lots 6 and 7 Bullsbrook Road, Bullsbrook: Telephone Exchange/Trunk Line Equipment Store-Telecom Lot 1/124 Great Northern Highway, Bullsbrook: Unallocated House-Admin. Services Lot 2/124 Great Northern Highway, Bullsbrook: Unallocated House-Admin. Services Swan Location 1, 565 West Road, Bullsbrook: No. 3 Telecommunications Unit- Defence Lot 1 Swan Location 2,466, Pearce, East Bullsbrook: Bore Sites-Defence Lot 153 Caporn Street and Great Northern Highway, East Bullsbrook: Vacant Residential Site-Army and Airforce Canteen Service Swan Location 8,652 Chittering Road, East Bullsbrook: Water Supply Tanks- Defence Pt. Lot 1 Chittering Road, East Bullsbrook: Operations Site-Defence Lot 2 Smith Road, East Bullsbrook: Surplus Gravel Pit-Admin. Services Ptn. Swan Location 1,467 West Road, Pearce: Radar Site-Defence Ptn. Swan Locations G1 and H Bounded by Harrow Street and Youle Dean Road Caversham: Transmitting Signal Station-Defence Lot 77 Caversham Avenue, Caversham: ILS Locator Site-Aviation Ptn. Swan Location K (Lot 41), Coast Road, West Swan: ILS Outer Marker Site- Aviation Ptn. Swan Locations 1,336, 5,304, 5,462, 7,162, 91, 1,337, 1,352, 1,396, 2,736, East Bullsbrook: Pearce RAAF Base-Defence (vii) Subdivision of Wanneroo: (owned properties) Lot 89 Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo: Vacant land-Postal Commission Lot 53 Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo: Exchange and Microwave Tower-Telecom Lot 23/25 Marmion Avenue, Craigie: Exchange- Telecom Swan Location 7,501, Wanneroo Road, Neerabup: Automatic Exchange-Telecom (1) (b) (i) Subdivision of Duncraig: (leased properties) Whitford Shopping Centre, Hillarys: Shop 7 Post Office Suit T Senator's Office- Postal Commission Special Minister of State Suites L and M Electoral Office. Lessor: National Mutual Life Association- Special Minister of State (ii) Subdivision of Gingin: (leased properties) Coomallo Hill, Badgingarra: Automatic Exchange. Lessor: State of Western Australia-Telecom Swan Location 2,062, Beermullah Road West, Beermullah: Automatic Exchange. Lessor: B. J. and L. D. Duffy-Telecom Reserve 34,040, Road No. 15,599, off Beach Road, Cervantes: Navigation Beacon. Lessor: State of Western Australia-Transport Lot 339 Seville Street, Cervantes: Automatic Exchange. Lessor: State of Western Australia-Telecom Lot 3 Chittering Road, Chittering: Automatic Exchange. Lessor: Glengairn Pty Ltd-Telecom Pt. Lot 92 Market Street, Coorow: Automatic Exchange. Lessor: J. and H. Loveridge-Telecom Ptn. Victoria Location 10,498, Road 8,607, Coorow: Rifle Range. Lessor: L. C., B. J. and E. M. West-Defence Ptn. Victoria Location 10,852, Warradarge, Coorow: Automatic Exchange. Lessor: R. C. Clausen-Telecom Ptn. Victoria Location 9,277, Greenhead Road, West Coorow: Automatic Exchange. Lessor: T. Ingram- Telecom Ptn. Melbourne Location 2,777, Moora Caro Road, Dandaragan: Automatic Exchange. Lessor: C. J. and R. L. Cook-Telecom Ptn. Melbourne Location 3,550, Three Chain Road, East Dandaragan: Automatic Exchange. Lessor: Mr and Mrs J. Wachs-Telecom Pt. Lot M 2,089 Caro Road, West Dandaragan: Automatic Exchange. Lessor: Cataby Holdings-Telecom Swan Location 283, track of Gingin Brook Road, Gingin: Radio Telephone Site. Lessor: A. W. Edgar and Co.-Telecom Ptn. Swan Location 3,314, Bennies Road, Bidaminna Farm, Gingin: Automatic Exchange. Lessor: M. J. and C. B. Borwick-Telecom Ptn. Swan Location 2,324 and Ptn. Swan Location 5,295, Lot 2 Red Gully, Gingin: Automatic Exchange. Lessor: Lakeview Nominees-Telecom Ptn. Swan Location 2,144, Lancelin Road, Guilderton: Automatic Exchange. Lessor : Roman Catholic Archbishop of Perth-Telecom Victoria Location 11,418, Jurien Road East, Jurien Bay: TV Broadcasting Site. Lessor: State of Western Australia-Communications Victoria Location 11,037, Three Chain Road, Jurien Bay: Automatic Exchange. Lessor: R. J. Edmonds and C. Fitch-Telecom Melbourne Location 3,988, Lancelin: Gunnery Range and Training Area. Lessor: J. F. Downsborough- Defence Pt Melbourne Location 3,914, Lancelin: Gunnery Range, Air Safety Marker. Lessor : B. Higginson- Defence Melbourne Location 4,502, Lancelin: Air Safety Marker Site. Lessor: State of Western Australia- Defence Victoria Location 11,469, Leschenaultia Road, Leeman: Radio and Television Communications. Lessor: State of Western Australia-Telecom Lot 315, Leschenaultia Road, Leeman: Automatic Exchange. Lessor: State of Western Australia-Telecom Reserve 27,161, Mooliabeenie Road, Mooliabeenie: Rifle Range. Lessor: State of Western Australia- Defence Ptn Avon Location 115, York Road, The Lakes: Automatic Exchange. Lessor: P. Stallwood-Telecom (iii) Subdivision of Girrawheen: (leased properties) 38 residences at the following addresses leased from the State Housing Commission of Western Australia for Defence personnel: 18 Manolas Way, Girrawheen 25 Manolas Way, Girrawheen 9 Manolas Way, Girrawheen 3 Seaton Place, Girrawheen 50 Allison Drive, Girrawheen 57 Allison Drive, Girrawheen 12 Butterick Place, Girrawheen 16 Butterick Place, Girrawheen 15 Butterick Place, Girrawheen 9 Butterick Place, Girrawheen 18 Liddell Street, Girrawheen 6 Buntine Way, Girrawheen 10 Buntine Way, Girrawheen 38 Templeton Crescent, Girrawheen 11 Innes Place, Girrawheen 12 Templeton Crescent, Girrawheen 14 Templeton Crescent, Girrawheen 1 Allison Drive, Girrawheen 5 Templeton Crescent, Girrawheen 23 Oldfield Road, Girrawheen 24 Greville Way, Girrawheen 16 Keeley Way, Girrawheen 20 Keeley Way, Girrawheen 22 Pointer Way, Girrawheen 18 Pointer Way, Girrawheen 20 Buntine Way, Girrawheen 39 Pointer Way, Girrawheen 10 Pointer Way, Girrawheen 33 Buntine Way, Girrawheen 42 Buntine Way, Girrawheen 13 Shortland Way, Girrawheen 26 Mereworth Place, Girrawheen 19 Keeley Way, Girrawheen 10 Warwick Place, Girrawheen 16 Warwick Drive, Girrawheen 18 Warwick Place, Girrawheen 15 Burnham Way, Girrawheen 47 Gummow Way, Girrawheen (iv) Subdivision of Greenwood: (leased properties) Charlie Carter's Warwick Centre, Warwick: Shop 15 Post Office. Lessor: Charlie Carter Pty Ltd-Postal Commission Greenwood Village Shopping Centre, Greenwood: Shop 21A Commonwealth Employment Service-Employment and Industrial Relations Shop 19 Post Office. Lessor: Greenwood Village Pty Ltd-Postal Commission (v) Subdivision of Mundaring: (leased properties) Great Eastern Highway, Chidlow: Rifle Range. Lessor: State of Western Australia -Defence Lot 349 Thomas Street, Chidlow: Automatic Exchange. Lessor: State of Western Australia-Telecom Swan Location 1,388 Allen Road, Mundaring: Geophysical Observatory. Lessor: State of Western Australia-Resources and Energy Ptn State Forest No. 7, Sawyers Valley: Microwave Repeater Site. Lessor: State of Western Australia- Telecom 12 residences at the following addresses leased from the State Housing Commission of Western Australia for Defence personnel: 3 Brown Street, Middle Swan 5 Dickson Drive, Middle Swan 44 Dickson Drive, Middle Swan 38 Dickson Drive, Middle Swan 36 Dickson Drive, Middle Swan 20 Dickson Drive, Middle Swan 18 Dickson Drive, Middle Swan 16 Dickson Drive, Middle Swan 8 Dickson Drive, Middle Swan 6 Dickson Drive, Middle Swan 4 Dickson Drive, Middle Swan 2 Dickson Drive, Middle Swan (vi) Subdivision of Pearce: (leased properties) Reserve C425, Bullsbrook: Bombing Range. Lessor: State of Western Australia- Defence Pt Lot 3, East Bullsbrook: Obstruction Light 1 and Access. Lessor: Shire of Swan-Defence Pt Lot 8, East Bullsbrook: Obstruction Light 3 and Access. Lessor: Mrs O. M. Poultney-Defence Pt Swan Location M1,154, East Bullsbrook: Obstruction Light 2 and Access. Lessor: Martindale Pty Ltd- Defence Ptn Swan Location 1,316 (Lot 1), East Bullsbrook: Obstruction Lights 4 and 5. Lessor: Yarrimbah Pastoral Co.-Defence Ptn Swan Location 1,316 (Lot 33), Corner Reserve Road and Berry Road, Glenroyd: Automatic Exchange. Lessor: Maureena Downs Pty Ltd-Telecom 169 residences at the following addresses leased from the State Housing Commission of Western Australia for Defence personnel. 7 North Avenue, Pearce 16 North Avenue, Pearce 18 North Avenue, Pearce 20 North Avenue, Pearce 22 North Avenue, Pearce 24 North Avenue, Pearce 26 North Avenue, Pearce 28 North Avenue, Pearce 30 North Avenue, Pearce 32 North Avenue, Pearce 34 North Avenue, Pearce 36 North Avenue, Pearce 13 Bowman Street, Pearce 11 Bowman Street, Pearce 9 Bowman Street, Pearce 7 Bowman Street, Pearce 5 Bowman Street, Pearce 3 Bowman Street, Pearce 1 Bowman Street, Pearce 2 Bowman Street, Pearce 4 Bowman Street, Pearce 6 Bowman Street, Pearce 8 Bowman Street, Pearce 10 Bowman Street, Pearce 12 Bowman Street, Pearce 14 Bowman Street, Pearce 17 Brearley Street, Pearce 15 Brearley Street, Pearce 13 Brearley Street, Pearce 11 Brearley Street, Pearce 12 Brearley Street, Pearce 14 Brearley Street, Pearce 16 Brearley Street, Pearce 18 Brearley Street, Pearce 20 Brearley Street, Pearce 22 Brearley Street, Pearce 5 North Avenue, Pearce 9 North Avenue, Pearce 11 North Avenue, Pearce 13 North Avenue, Pearce 15 North Avenue, Pearce 17 North Avenue, Pearce 19 North Avenue, Pearce 23 North Avenue, Pearce 25 North Avenue, Pearce 27 North Avenue, Pearce 29 North Avenue, Pearce 31 North Avenue, Pearce 33 North Avenue, Pearce 35 North Avenue, Pearce 37 North Avenue, Pearce 39 North Avenue, Pearce 41 North Avenue, Pearce 43 North Avenue, Pearce 45 North Avenue, Pearce 8 North Avenue, Pearce 10 North Avenue, Pearce 12 North Avenue, Pearce 14 North Avenue, Pearce 11 Sheen Way, Pearce 9 Sheen Way, Pearce 7 Sheen Way, Pearce 5 Sheen Way, Pearce 3 Sheen Way, Pearce 1 Sheen Way, Pearce 9 Brearley Street Pearce 7 Brearley Street Pearce 5 Brearley Street Pearce 38 North Avenue, Pearce 44 North Avenue, Pearce 46 North Avenue, Pearce 48 North Avenue, Pearce 50 North Avenue, Pearce 52 North Avenue, Pearce 54 North Avenue, Pearce 56 North Avenue, Pearce 58 North Avenue, Pearce 60 North Avenue, Pearce 62 North Avenue, Pearce 43 Bowman Street, Pearce 41 Bowman Street, Pearce 39 Bowman Street, Pearce 37 Bowman Street, Pearce 35 Bowman Street, Pearce 33 Bowman Street, Pearce 31 Bowman Street, Pearce 29 Bowman Street, Pearce 27 Bowman Street, Pearce 21 Bowman Street, Pearce 19 Bowman Street, Pearce 17 Bowman Street, Pearce 15 Bowman Street, Pearce 16 Bowman Street, Pearce 18 Bowman Street, Pearce 20 Bowman Street, Pearce 30 Bowman Street, Pearce 32 Bowman Street, Pearce 5 McKay Place, Pearce 4 McKay Place, Pearce 3 McKay Place, Pearce 2 McKay Place, Pearce 1 McKay Place, Pearce 34 Bowman Street, Pearce 36 Bowman Street, Pearce 9 King Street, Pearce 7 King Street, Pearce 5 King Street, Pearce 3 King Street, Pearce 42 Brearley Street, Pearce 41 Brearley Street, Pearce 39 Brearley Street, Pearce 37 Brearley Street, Pearce 35 Brearley Street, Pearce 33 Brearley Street, Pearce 29 Brearley Street, Pearce 27 Brearley Street, Pearce 25 Brearley Street, Pearce 23 Brearley Street, Pearce 21 Brearley Street, Pearce 19 Brearley Street, Pearce 24 Brearley Street, Pearce 26 Brearley Street, Pearce 54 Brearley Street, Pearce 56 Brearley Street, Pearce 58 Brearley Street, Pearce 51 Caporn Street, Pearce 49 Caporn Street, Pearce 47 Caporn Street, Pearce 45 Caporn Street, Pearce 43 Caporn Street, Pearce 41 Caporn Street, Pearce 39 Caporn Street, Pearce 37 Caporn Street, Pearce 35 Caporn Street, Pearce 33 Caporn Street, Pearce 31 Caporn Street, Pearce 23 Caporn Street, Pearce 21 Caporn Street, Pearce 19 Caporn Street, Pearce 17 Caporn Street, Pearce 15 Caporn Street, Pearce 13 Caporn Street, Pearce 11 Caporn Street, Pearce 9 Caporn Street, Pearce 7 Caporn Street, Pearce 5 Caporn Street, Pearce 3 Caporn Street, Pearce 2 Caporn Street, Pearce 4 Caporn Street, Pearce 6 Caporn Street, Pearce 8 Caporn Street, Pearce 10 Caporn Street, Pearce 12 Caporn Street, Pearce 14 Caporn Street, Pearce 16 Caporn Street, Pearce 18 Caporn Street, Pearce 20 Caporn Street, Pearce 22 Caporn Street, Pearce 28 Caporn Street, Pearce 30 Caporn Street, Pearce 32 Caporn Street, Pearce 34 Caporn Street, Pearce 36 Caporn Street, Pearce 38 Caporn Street, Pearce 40 Caporn Street, Pearce 42 Caporn Street, Pearce 44 Caporn Street, Pearce 46 Caporn Street, Pearce 48 Caporn Street, Pearce (vii) Subdivision of Wanneroo: (leased properties) Swan Location 8,377 Gnangara Road, Gnangara: Automatic Exchange. Lessor: State of Western Australia-Telecom Wanneroo Shopping Centre, Conlan Avenue, Wanneroo: Shops 7 and 27 Post Office. Lessor: Equity Trustees Executors and Agency Co. Ltd-Postal Commission Reserve 24,148 Plantation Road, Gnangara: Geophysical Observatory. Lessor: State of Western Australia-Resources and Energy Ptn. Swan Location 1,370 Two Rocks Road, Two Rocks: Automatic Exchange. Lessor: Yanchep Sun City Pty Ltd-Telecom Wangara Gate Centre, Wangara: Shop 9 Parliamentary. Lessor: Parin Nominees Pty Ltd-Special Minister of State (2) and (3) See (1) above.