Wednesday, 24 August 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: 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 utilizing 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred,Mr Cadman,Mr Chynoweth,Mr Coleman,Mr Dobie,Dr Everingham,Mr Humphreys,Mr Hunt,Mrs Kelly,Mr McVeigh,Mr Porter and Mr White. 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 Fry,Mr Goodluck and Mrs Kelly. 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-serviceman 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 Mrs Child,Ms Mayer and Mr Saunderson. 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 as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Child,Mr Chynoweth and Mr Fry. To the Honourable the Speaker and 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond,Mr Rocher and Mr Tuckey. 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: 1. That the unemployment benefit for minors aged sixteen and seventeen years has not increased in line with inflation and cost of living expenses and that it is impossible to obtain adequate food, transport, clothing and shelter on the current benefit of $40.00 per week. 2. That adequate food, clothing and shelter is the right of every human being and those people aged 16 and 17 years share the same costs for food, transport, clothing and shelter as those people aged 18 years and over. 3. That the unemployment benefit for minors is, at May 1983, $80.00 per week below the poverty line. 4. That the unemployment benefit for minors has risen by only $4.00 in eight years (since November 1975)-an increase of 11%-compared with an increase in the adult rate of $29.90, or 77%, over the same period of time. 5. That the Government is discriminating against those people aged 16 and 17 years by failing to maintain their unemployment benefit in line with those people aged 18 years and over. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: (1) Immediately increase the unemployment benefit for minors to establish equal parity to those rates existing in 1975. (2) Increase the unemployment benefit for minors to that of the unemployment benefit for adults in the next Budget. (3) Bring the adult unemployment benefit rate in line with the poverty-line level and maintain it at this rate thereafter. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys and Mr West. The Honourable the Speaker and Members 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 Mrs Child and Mr Scott. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled . The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showed 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 Hand and Mr Saunderson. 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: 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 R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherence 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. 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 permitting kangaroos to be commercially exploited when permissible cropping rates are unknown and the means of enforcing controls or protective laws are completely ineffective in this land, is allowing this unique animal to follow the path to rarity or extinction along which all wild animals have gone when subjected to exploitation in similar circumstances. We, Australians, have the right to see kangaroos in reasonable numbers on the landscape; we find the commercial slaughter of the kangaroo to be adhorrent and unjustified. We your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will; 1. Ban the export of products made from kangaroos. 2. Take action to see that State Governments prohibit the commercial shooting of kangaroos. 3. Enact legislation to give the Commonwealth Government responsibility throughout Australia for ALL native wildlife and habitat upon which it is dependent for survival. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Chynoweth. To the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth: In view of the increasing level of violence and the escalation of (officially admitted US-sponsored covert and overt attacks against the people of Central America, particularly directed against Nicaragua, and noting the political solution proposed by the governments of France and Mexico to the civil war in El Salvador, Therefore we humbly request that the government of the Commonwealth of Australia: 1. Recognise the Democratic Revolutionary Front/ Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FDR/FMLN) of El Salvador as a representative political force, 2. Support, in any way possible, the call of the FDR/FMLN for a ''direct dialogue [with the government junta] without previous conditions, based on establishing peace and social justice in El Salvador,'' 3. Support in the United Nations (and other international forums) the initiatives of the government of Nicaragua for ''direct negotiations with the United States government based on mutual respect and recognition of [the] right to self-determination'' to resolve the military conflict in the region, 4. Extend economic and humanitarian aid without strings to the governments of Nicaragua and Grenada for the purpose of economic and social reconstruction, 5. Place all possible pressure on the government of the United States to unconditionally withdraw all US military forces and facilities in the region, to end its support for anti-Nicaraguan forces in Honduras and Costa Rica, and to end all aid to the Salvadoran junta. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cunningham. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned wish to register our strongest protest against the following: 1. The damming of the Franklin and Gordon Rivers in South West Tasmania. 2. The continuation of logging in the Booloumba Creek catchment of the Conondale Range in Southern Queensland. We ask that you fulfil your obligation of office and voice and support the request of your electors to save these unique rainforest areas, so that our children and their children, may see what this beautiful world was like before it is all gone! We are prepared to curb our usage of timber and energy in order to preserve these priceless gems of nature. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Moore. 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 ratify the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth: That the current shortage of housing in the Australian Capital Territory is causing extreme hardship for low income earners to an extent never before experienced in the Territory, and that Havelock House provides ideal accommodation for these people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the decision by the Minister for Administrative Services to allocate Havelock House to the Australian Federal Police for use as office space be rescinded and that Havelock House be made available to the community for use as low-cost accommodation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fry. Petitions received. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns- (1) the senseless and vindictive destruction of the 3000 year old Huon pine at Warners Landing in South West Tasmania, and (2) the silence of the Tasmanian Liberal Government in the face of this act of vandalism. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Government of Queensland for its failure to establish a Public Accounts Committee. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's failure to provide just compensation for Tasmania following its decision to prevent the construction of the Gordon below Franklin Dam. 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 NEWMAN(Bass)(10.06) —Mr Speaker, following what can only be called a regrettable decision by the High Court of Australia, the Hawke Government has forced the Tasmanian Government to stop construction of the Gordon below Franklin Dam. That decision has been reluctantly accepted by the Tasmanian Government and by the Tasmanian people in general. But in accepting that decision there was a full expectation that the State and its people would be justly and fairly compensated. I think that that is a proposition that any fair minded Australian would accept. It is one that Tasmanians thought that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) also accepted, given his many public statements on the matter. It is difficult to quantify what the compensation should be. But there are four factors at least upon which compensation should be calculated. These factors provide the framework upon which the just compensation to which Tasmania is due should be calculated. The four factors are these: Firstly, the return of money for that work, whether it be research, planning, construction or the purchase of materials which has already been done on the Gordon below Franklin Dam; secondly, that employees and sub-contractors of the Hydro-Electric Commission who were put out of work because of this decision by the Government should be re-employed; thirdly, given that 70 per cent of the remaining hydro potential of Tasmania has now been blocked in its use and that any other scheme, whether it be further hydro power or a thermal power station, will mean higher costs of production, Tasmania should be compensated for the difference between what the price would have been from the dam that has been stopped and what it will be from any other means of producing this electricity; and fourthly, that the value of the resources that have now been locked up in the south west heritage area, timber, mineral or whatever they may be, should be calculated and paid for by the Australian people. It would appear that the Prime Minister in his many statements on this matter has accepted those propositions. To give honourable members some idea of what the Prime Minister has said, first of all in relation to providing alternative programs, on 28 June he said that the Commonwealth would accept in good faith Tasmanian cost estimates. He said: We are not going to be difficult about this. On 11 February he said: My government will be not only prepared but we will be wanting to negotiate with the Tasmanian Government to fund in the transition period and beyond construction work which would use the considerable skills of the HEC work force . . . On the guarantee of jobs, on 26 May Mr Hawke said: We accept responsibility to employ those who would otherwise be unemployed. On the third factor, future power requirements and the need for compensation to make up the difference between the price of power produced from any other scheme and that which would have come from the scheme that has been stopped, on 22 June his Minister Walsh said: I believe the Commonwealth would be agreeable to underwrite the difference between power which would have been generated with the GbF Scheme as against that which may be generated by some other project. Mr Hawke himself echoed that sentiment on 11 February. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bass knows that it is the custom of the House to refer to the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister or an honourable member by the name of his electorate. I have let him go a couple of times but I would ask him to observe that custom. Mr NEWMAN —I apologise. On 11 February the Prime Minister said: We will assist in the construction of (power) alternatives which will provide all the power and beyond which will be needed by Tasmania up to and beyond the end of this century. This is an unequivocal promise. They are clear promises. They are commitments made by the Prime Minister himself. But, unfortunately, there has been no action to parallel all these mighty words and heavy rhetoric. It is apparent that this is just one more deceit on the Australian people which this Prime Minister has perpetrated month after month after month. What are the facts? What sort of action matches this rhetoric by the Prime Minister? Let us look. First of all, there has not been one penny spent-not one penny given to the Tasmanian Government-to employ Hydro Electric Commission workers and subcontractors who no longer have jobs. The Tasmanian Government had been placing HEC members in other hydro schemes. That is well and good. But it means that other Tasmanians are missing out on jobs that would have been available in those schemes. How does that situation measure up against what the Prime Minister said? Let me give another example. On 28 June, he said: . . . programs for alternative work will match the timescale of the dam. Not one penny was given to Tasmania. That clearly is a broken commitment. Another element is the obvious attempt by Ministers of this Government to cloud the issue about what they really are doing to compensate Tasmania. There is a clear attempt to gloss over the commitments which they have made and to give the appearance that they are in fact providing just compensation. Let me give two examples. Senator Grimes in the other place trumpeted the fact that $3m was to be made available for the strengthening of the Hobart Airport. That promise was made two years ago, and the Tasmanian Government could reasonably expect to get that money in the normal course of events through Government appropriations. It was made clear yeterday by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and by the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) in the Budget Papers that this was a Commonwealth program of $90m-odd to upgrade airports all over Australia, and Tasmania could reasonably expect to have Hobart included in that program. It is a sham to say that somehow that is compensation. Again, the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John Brown) announced that certain office blocks were to be constructed in Hobart and Devonport. Once again the claim was made that somehow this was to be a special payment for compensation to Tasmania. We saw in the Budget Papers yesterday that again this is a Commonwealth program spread right across every State, and Tasmania would have justly expected to receive its fair share of that money which was being spent on the construction of office space. It had nothing to do with special compensation for Tasmania. Now I turn to the Budget itself. This Budget has treated Tasmania most shabbily . It is a mean Budget as far as Tasmania is concerned. Worse, in the longer term , it may well be that this Budget is extremely destructive to the Tasmanian economy. Why do I say this? Let us consider a few facts one by one. In 1977, an investigation by Sir Bede Callaghan into the economy of Tasmania found that there were special disabilities that warranted special assistance from the Commonwealth. As a result of that, the Commonwealth put in place the so-called Callaghan plan. Since 1977, $40m has been spent on special assistance to Tasmania-tourism, special industries, roads and all the rest-to try to overcome those disabilities so clearly defined by Sir Bede Callaghan. There was a clear commitment by the last Government that $5m to $8m would have been spent on upgrading Tasmanian fishing ports to aid the fishing industry. What has happened ? In this Budget, there is no provision for the Callaghan plan. It has been axed . This special program which existed for the last six years has disappeared. So much for a climate in which the Government was to have kept its promise to help and compensate Tasmania. Freight equalisation, which was introduced by the previous Government, is the key to the Tasmanian economy. It allows producers in Tasmania to compete fairly by compensating them for the special costs of moving produce over the waters of the Bass Strait. What is the result of the Budget? It has slashed last year's appropriation of $32m to $23m this year. The effect that this will have on the Tasmanian economy is almost incalculable. It will have an extremely destructive effect because the existing rates of assistance need upgrading; they are out of date. The proposed appropriation will prevent such an upgrading occurring. One must suspect that the Government is to review the whole scheme anyway. It will destroy the confidence of manufacturers, farmers and everybody else who benefits from this program and have an extremely bad effect on Tasmania. So much for the compensation that the Government is giving the State. It has destroyed one of the major special assistance programs to Tasmania and has dealt the State a savage blow. I turn now to the development of the South West. The previous Government promised a $50m program of expenditure over five years to turn the South West national park into a major park of world renown and reputation. Not one cent has been provided in the Budget for the special development of the South West park. The Government promised $5m over the next two years for the development of Queenstown, but nothing has been provided for the park, not a cent. What of all the grand rhetoric of the Minister at the table (Mr Cohen), who has talked about the development of that park? He has provided not one dollar. Even worse is the amount that has been provided in the Budget for compensation to Tasmania-$30m. Its paltriness is breathtaking. The minute amount of money the Government has provided is outrageous. The situation worsens when we look at how the $30m stacks up. The Government knows-it has been warned already-that the Tasmanian Government is to seek reimbursement for work done on the HEC scheme and the dam site. A $60m claim is coming forward. The Government expects to receive the claim in a month. How will it assess and meet that claim out of $30m ? A better basis for comparison is that the HEC in 1983-84 was to have spent $ 54m on work on the dam. How does $30m in compensation stack up against that figure? The picture becomes worse still when we look at what the Government has taken away from Tasmania. I refer to the $5m to $8m that it should have received under the Callaghan plan, the $9m lost under the freight equalisation scheme and the fact that $10m is not now to be spent on Wynyard airport development. My colleague, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom), will have a few words to say about that, I am sure. What the Government has really done has been to give Tasmania $30m on the one hand and take it all away on the other by way of its destructive policies on these important special assistance programs for Tasmania. It is an absolute sham. Worse, when we reflect on what the Prime Minister has said over all these months, it is an absolute reflection on his honour. In a Nationwide program recently, he said: I want to get on with the job of honouring the commitment. That's what I'm about -that's what my Government's about. And it is about time Mr Gray and others stopped playing politics on this. Playing politics! This Prime Minister has dishonoured every promise and commitment that he has made to Tasmania. The Government in this Budget, is not being fair to Tasmania. The Prime Minister is not honouring the promises that he has made on so many occasions. As a matter of urgency let this government now rethink its Budget and make proper provision for Tasmania both in its special assistance programs and its compensation measures. Let the Government enter into a real and practical discussion with the Tasmanian Government. Let the Government put in the hands of the Australian people the real cost of its action in stopping this dam enabling them to assess the real and just compensation that is due. Finally, let the Government honestly and fairly meet its obligation to provide just and reasonable compensation for the people of Tasmania. If this obligation is not met let me warn this Government of what will happen. This Prime Minister will go down as a man without honour; he will go down as a cheat; and, worse than that, the result may well be that the Tasmanian people will start to query the value of staying in the Federation. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment)(10.21) —This debate, as has been the practice over recent months, is now getting into the category of cloud cuckoo land. In recent days the Premier of Tasmania has claimed that all he wants for compensation for the dam is $3,500m. As I have said, cuckoo land, Fantasyland or Disneyland, that is the way in which the debate is going. I give credit to the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman); at least he did not go into the rhetoric that we have been getting from the Tasmanian Premier in recent days. I repeat, $3,500m. That is a reasonable request, one would suggest. That is $8,000 per person in Tasmania. For a family of five that is a gift of $40,000 or a new home. That is a reasonable offer of compensation! Mr Fraser offered $500m which is one-seventh of what the present Premier is now claiming. The Hawke Government promised that no Tasmanian would be disadvantaged or be out of work as a result of the stopping of the Gordon below Franklin Dam and that Tasmania's power needs would be taken care of. For weeks prior to the judgment of the High Court of Australia this Government tried to negotiate with Tasmanian officials on the basis that the Commonwealth might win. Many people-I will not say all-believed we would win, and that was the final result. In the weeks before the High Court decision the Tasmanian officials refused point blank to negotiate or discuss the matter with the Commonwealth Government. A few days before they suddenly realised that they would lose and they started to panic. I find it absolutely incredible that members of this Parliament-many of them experienced both in the House and in government-seriously believe that in a matter of weeks we, that is, the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments working together, can put together a full , long term plan for Tasmania's power needs; that we can plan it all, cost it all and put it all together in a matter of weeks and say: 'There you are; it is done'. It is great politics; it is great rhetoric; it sounds great down at the grass roots. Honourable members opposite know as well as I do that it cannot be done that quickly; it is impossible. They know it is a ridiculous claim and while it is good politics-I congratulate them on their sharpness-they know it is nonsense; so let us get down to solving the problem which is Tasmania's problem. Mr Burr —Why didn't you pay the workers? Mr COHEN —I will come to that if the honourable member will control himself. I am surprised at his interjection because he has been the only rational Tasmanian member in the debate. On the day of the High Court judgment, in fact when the Premiers Conference was being held in Canberra, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) wrote to the Premier of Tasmania with an initial offer of financial assistance and alternative employment for Hydro-Electric Commission workers and contractors . Mr Goodluck —We did not want that; we wanted to be left alone. Mr COHEN —The honourable member should make up his mind. Does he want some help or does he want to be left alone? In his case I will make an exception; I will leave him alone. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Franklin has been consistently interjecting both during the speech of his colleague and that of the Minister. I ask him to desist. Mr COHEN —Given the lack of co-operation from the Tasmanian Government in the weeks leading up to the High Court judgment, our action was no mean achievement. We contacted it immediately. During the following weeks it received a draft of a financial agreement, prepared by Commonwealth officials, under which payments of financial assistance would be made. That agreement has been the subject of extended discussion and is now ready for completion. But who has refused to sign the agreement? Not the Commonwealth Government. For weeks and weeks since the High Court judgment that financial agreement has lain with the Tasmanian Government and its officials who have refused point blank to resolve the problem . The Tasmanian Government has not yet signed the agreement. We are hopeful that it will do so in the near future. It still refuses to sign that financial agreement. That is the reason why no funds have been provided. It is very simple . One does not hand money over to people unless one has a financial agreement. But in the interim the Commonwealth has agreed to fund a considerable number of projects. This includes $4.3m for the Strahan-Zeehan Road, $13.3m for the Zeehan -Lower Pieman Road, $3.3m for Hydro-Electric Commission maintenance projects, $3 .6m for the Crotty Road consolidation and stabilisation, $1.1m for the Heritage area and stabilisation works in the Warner's Landing area, $0.2m for the King River railway deviation-- Mr Goodluck —This is chicken feed. Mr COHEN —I will come to that in a moment. The Commonwealth has also offered to fund $5m for assistance for development of tourist facilities, $1.7m for Queenstown sewerage and $3m for Hobart airport upgrading. Mr Hodgman —All already programmed. Mr COHEN —That is nonsense. Let me deal with one project with which I have been very familiar. Some few weeks ago when I was in Alice Springs I met with the Tasmanian Minister for National Parks and Recreational Lands and Minister for Tourism, Mr Geoff Pearsall. We had a long discussion. I told him it was my intention to go down to Tasmania when a trip could be arranged between our two departments. He was very agreeable. May I say this: I commend the Minister. He has been most co-operative, recognising that the future lies in co-operation between our two departments. He has been most amenable. He arranged an excellent tour of South West Tasmania. I might add that this assistance has not been added to by the gutless and cowardly behaviour of two honourable members opposite. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will withdraw those words. Mr COHEN —Yes. By trying to-- Mr Groom —You are the coward. You would not come to that meeting. Mr COHEN —I was not asked. At least I did not have to do something as dishonest- - Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. Mr COHEN —My office was never told about it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The Minister will withdraw the remark he made about the two members opposite. Mr COHEN —I did. Mr SPEAKER —I am sorry, I did not hear you withdraw that remark? Mr COHEN —I will withdraw it again if you did not hear it. Mr SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member for Braddon to withdraw his accusation by interjection. Mr COHEN —I will answer the accusation, if I may, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —If the Minister does not mind, the Speaker is in control of the chamber. He is in control of discipline in the chamber. The honourable member for Braddon will withdraw the remark he made about the Minister. Mr Groom —Yes. Mr COHEN —I will deal with that incident, Mr Speaker, because it is one of the most cowardly-- Mr SPEAKER —As long as it does not offend. Mr COHEN —actions taken against members of Parliament that I have ever heard. Mr Goodluck —Don't call me gutless. You are twice my size but don't call me gutless. Mr COHEN —Twice your intelligence too. Mr Goodluck —And don't say it was a cowardly act either. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr COHEN —The trip was arranged to Tasmania through Mr Pearsall's department. The itinerary was provided to me 10 days before by Mr Pearsall's department. On the Saturday I saw in a paper that I was to speak at Queenstown. My Department contacted Russell Schneider, who wrote the article, and he said that he had been told about it. I said that it was not our itinerary, that no one had suggested a trip to Queenstown at that time and that we were due there the following day. On the Sunday night I contacted Ken Wreidt because I was told that I had been invited. I said: 'Do you know anything about an invitation?' He said: 'No, I have been invited but you have not'. Mr Groom —Oh! Mr COHEN —Well, that may be all very well but nobody contacted my office. Nobody wrote to me. There is no letter, no telex, no telegram-nothing-in my office. Mr Groom —It is your word against someone else's. Mr COHEN —I ask the honourable member to show me a telex that went to my office. He knows where I am; he has a phone. Why did he not phone me if he were going to invite me? Mr Groom —I did not organise the meeting. Mr COHEN —Oh, the honourable member did not organise it. Who invited me? Mr Groom —Your office. Mr COHEN —That is right. So having not been invited I was then set up by these two members and the local union member. They organised it. Knowing I was not going to be there they then accused me of not having the guts to be there. They did not have the guts to invite me in the first place. As I said, a number of projects have been agreed to and I have dealt with them. I was talking about the $5m specified in regard to tourism recreation. The two departments and the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service have worked closely together over the last six to 10 weeks and have already put together a package of proposals which will add significantly to the tourist and recreation facilities of the South West. I have inspected a number of them myself. We will be announcing the details of those projects, which are very exciting projects. Mr Hodgman —When? Mr COHEN —In the next few days, I hope. We now propose to develop a long term plan for the tourist and recreational development of that region. I am sure that honourable members would know and would honestly admit that we do not put together a proposal like that in a matter of days or weeks. We took with us some people from Lend Lease who are experienced in the development of tourist facilities-honourable members know of that company's work in the Thredbo area- just to get some advice as to how they thought we might proceed with improving the facilities of that region. They have spoken to other people and they are going to come forward with some proposals to the Government. We are going to work in conjunction with the Tasmanian Government; everything is being done together. But of course we are not going to come up with a definitive plan for the tourist development of Tasmania or the south west in a matter of days. I will give an instance. The Yulara Tourist Village is due for completion. That project took something like 13 or 14 years. I hope what we are proposing will not take that time. Admittedly, Yulara was stopped and started at different times. But the type of planning in which we are engaged takes a long time. We hope to put proposals forward in the foreseeable future, but in the meantime we are going to have jobs on the ground throughout the whole of the South West in Strahan and in Queenstown. Honourable members will be hearing about those very shortly. Let us come to the question of power. Mr Newman —What about the Budget? Tell us about that. Mr COHEN —A total of $30m has been allocated in the Budget, which is all that is required in the short term to provide income maintenance for HEC workers and contractors. The other projects that I have just been talking about, such as tourism, will be the sorts of things that have to be worked out in discussions and negotiations with the Tasmanian Government. I have listened to the honourable member patiently and I did not interject. If he wants to hear what I have to say, why does he not shut up and let me speak? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) — Order! The House will come to order. I ask the Minister to resume his speech. I will look after the order of the House. Mr COHEN —I do not think anyone in this House is not aware of the fact that the question of Tasmania's power needs was one of the main components of the debate about whether the dam should go ahead. Frankly, the Department of Home Affairs and Environment, which the honourable member for Bass was in charge of when he was a Minister, disputed those power claims, and those officials still do. Evidence from all the inquiries we have made also disputes those needs. We are saying to Tasmania: 'Get together with us. We will have a joint study between the Federal and Tasmanian governments and we will decide in the next year or so the power requirements of Tasmania'. We are not going to accept any bill that Premier Gray sends to us. Honourable members do not really believe that is a serious proposal. We have to look at other hydro projects and fuel fired generation. There certainly will not be nuclear power generation, as Mr Gray has been hinting. Whatever the proposals, they will come from a study between the two governments. This is a political chamber and we are playing politics. We can expect over the next few months and years the sort of rhetoric that we have heard in the past. It is part of the game. If Opposition members from Tasmania seriously want to benefit the people of Tasmania, how about talking to us, how about co-operating with us and how about showing the attitudes of people such as Mr Pearsall? Maybe then we will finish up with what we all want-a prosperous Tasmania-without a Gordon below Franklin Dam. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(10.35) —I represent the west coast and the north-west coast of Tasmania. I represent the workers of the west coast of Tasmania. I am very proud to be their representative. This is not a frivolous issue; this is a very deep human issue. The sad fact is that the Australian Labor Party, all honourable members opposite, and the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment ( Mr Cohen) who has just spoken, have been conned by the radicals in the Tasmanian Wilderness Society and have turned their backs on the ordinary, decent working people of Tasmania. Honorable members opposite can laugh all they want to and joke all they want to but that is the real fact of life. If they do not understand how the people of Tasmania feel about this issue then I suggest that they should go down there, talk to those people and find out what makes them tick, what is in their hearts and what this issue is all about. I think it is disgraceful that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the 24 weeks since the election on 5 March has not had the courage and the guts-the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment used that word 'guts'-to go to Tasmania and to talk to the people. The reason the Minister was not prepared to go to that meeting at Queenstown organised by a lot of decent ALP supporters was that he did not have the guts to attend that meeting. Mr Cohen —I was not asked, and you withdraw that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I ask the honorable member to use some restraint during the debate. Mr GROOM —I apologise for those words but it is a very serious issue. I feel very deeply about it and that is why I am saying the things that I am saying. The Australian Labor Party and the Prime Minister in particular have made two mistakes. Firstly, they used the device of an international treaty to trample on States' rights and to ignore the wishes and the will of the people of Tasmania which have been expressed on a number of occasions. It is an interesting fact that in this House of the people, the House of Representatives, we have only five members from one of our original States and they are all on the Opposition benches. There is not one member of this House from Tasmania, an original State of the Federation, sitting on the Government side. There is a reason for that. The reason is that the people were not prepared to support the Labor Party's view in Tasmania. That message has not come through. We had that pitiful sight during the election campaign when Bob Hawke came down to Hobart. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honorourable gentleman knows that that is not the term to use when referring to the Prime Minister. Mr GROOM —I am sorry, sir. When the Prime Minister came to Hobart he had morning tea and scones with Bob Brown. Mr Goodluck —The Mad Hatter's tea party. Mr GROOM —The Mad Hatter's tea party, as it was described by the media in Tasmania. This was published in all the Tasmanian papers. As far as the Tasmanian people were concerned at that time it was clear evidence that the Prime Minister-he was then the Leader of the Opposition-had been conned by this elite group, the Tasmanian Wilderness Society. That is a misnomer because it really is not a Tasmanian organisation. Most of its members live on the mainland . Democracy suffered a blow when the Australian Labor Party accepted the view of this elite pressure group supported by the Communist Party of Australia. Honourable members opposite can laugh about that. They should read the Vanguard. I have all the copies of the Vanguard in my office if honourable members opposite want to see them. They should read the Vanguard and see what it said about the conservation movement and the Tasmanian Wilderness Society. The Labor Party supported the feelings and the views of this elite pressure group which was able to manipulate feelings on the mainland by effectively using the media and by writing lots of letters. We have heard a lot about that. The Australian Labor Party slapped in the face the ordinary, decent people of Tasmania. The second big mistake that has been made is that we are now offered what really amounts to trinkets and beads in an attempt by the Labor Party to buy off Tasmania. The Prime Minister said: 'We will fully compensate Tasmania. We will provide just compensation for all the loss suffered'. What have we got? So far not one cent has been spent in Tasmania, as the honourable member for Bass said. There has been no real compensatory element in any of the offers that have been made so far. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment talked about the Zeehan to Strahan road. I do not know whether he has driven along that road. There is a road at the moment, of course. For many years that road has been under construction. Yet the Minister, with no local knowledge, says in the House today: 'We will finance the construction of the Zeehan-Strahan road'. That is the problem. He has not been there long enough and often enough to understand what this offer is all about. I can see what the Minister is going to do. He will try to soften up the people of Tasmania by wandering around the small centres, offering to pay for a sewerage scheme here, a bit of roadway there and something else somewhere else to try to persuade the Tasmanian people that he is very generous. The Prime Minister, who was a tropical Santa Claus in north Queensland, wants to do the same thing in Tasmania. As the local member, I have suffered the loss of a great project-the dam in the South West. I will argue until the end of my days that, environmentally and economically, it was the best option, despite what the greenies say. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment might finish up with a nuclear power station in Tasmania. Is that what he wants? I can tell him now that a feeling is developing among very many informed people in Tasmania that the best option now is to have a nuclear power station. Where will that be? Someone said it should be at Liffey. Mr Goodluck —Where is that? Mr GROOM —That is where Dr Bob Brown lives. If we look at the Budget we see that we are offered this token gesture of $30m. Mr Goodluck —Peanuts. Mr GROOM —It is peanuts. That is on the so-called credit side. But I ask honourable members to look at the debit side. The honourable member for Bass mentioned the Callaghan plan. Between $5m and $8m was to be spent on port development around Australia. This was promised by the previous Government and dishonoured by the Prime Minister and his Government. We have the sorry story of Wynyard Airport. The Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, looked Mr Loane of the Burnie Marine Board right in the eye during the election campaign. Mr Loane said: 'Will the Wynyard Airport go ahead if you win office, Mr Hawke?' The Prime Minister looking him right in the eye, said: 'Do not worry about that. I can promise you that the Wynyard Airport will go ahead'. We have heard all this baloney about the $9.6 billion. Anyone with any sense knew that there would be a budgetary problem this coming financial year. Everyone knew that. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister knew it. The Prime Minister should have realised, when he looked Mr Loane in the eye, that that was subject to the financial situation. Now he is trying to crawl out of his promises. He is not a man of honour. His word is not worth two bob because he has broken all these promises to the people of Tasmania. The end result, when we look at the freight equalisation scheme, is that we have lost $ 9m. I hope that is a typographical error in the Budget. The figure has been reduced from $32m in the previous year to $23m. The figures have changed round. I hope it is a typographical error because Tasmania cannot afford to lose that $ 9m. We can look also at the $50m that was offered by the previous Government for the development of a great national park in the South West. Honourable members should have no doubt that there could have been a terrific compromise in the South West with an excellent environmentally clean dam-the best form of power we could have-and a magnificent, beautiful national park in the South West. The trouble is that this Government has not been prepared to compromise. It has been conned by the greenie element. The tragedy in politics is that, unless one is prepared to compromise in some way, one will finish up the big loser. I believe very sincerely that the biggest mistake the Prime Minister has made so far is that he was prepared to trample on the rights and feelings of ordinary, decent Tasmanians and to prefer the feelings of this extreme group. When one does that sort of thing eventually one will suffer. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.45) —Before I comment on this rather ludicrous debate I shall refer to one or two of the points raised by the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom). First of all, he referred to the Zeehan to Strahan road. The Commonwealth is funding part of its construction, and that is being done at the express request of the Tasmanian Government. He also talked about the $30m allocated in the Budget for employment creation. That $30m is for employment creation only-other claims by Tasmania must first be detailed by the State. He mentioned the Wynyard Airport. Let me point out that the Wynyard Airport has only been deferred, because other projects are more pressing. It has not been abandoned, as the honourable member for Braddon claimed. He made mention of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) not having been to Hobart or to Queenstown or Strahan. The Prime Minister is going there. Honourable members should realise that his first commitment has been to the Budget and because of that he has been unable to get down there. He has the South Pacific Forum next week and as soon as that is over he will be going to Hobart, Queenstown and Strahan. That will be next week. This debate is absolutely ludicrous. It is ridiculous to claim that the Government has failed to provide just compensation for Tasmania because the Gordon below Franklin Dam is not to go ahead. The Tasmanian Premier has claimed $3,500m in compensation. Let us look at that. He claims $3,000m to cover the difference between generation electricity by thermal means and hydroelectric generation over the anticipated 60 year life of the cancelled project; $385m to provide a similar generating capacity to that of the cancelled project; and $60m for reimbursement of costs already incurred on the Gordon below Franklin scheme- that is despite the fact that we told him to wait until there had been more discussion between the Federal and Tasmanian governments. He went ahead with it spending money as though it was water. I have visited the area on three occasions, so I do know something of what I am talking about. It is true that I was not able to spend as much time there as I would have liked; nevertheless, I did see the desecration that was occurring from Warner's Landing down the Crotty Road. They were just tearing through the undergrowth, getting rid of the beauty of the area, including the beautiful trees. They did not care about those things. The honourable member for Braddon tries to interject. He mentioned the fact that he represents the workers in that area. When I was there I discovered that many of those people are itinerant workers; they come from other parts of Tasmania and not necessarily from his electorate. All they want are jobs. That is what they are interested in; they are not interested in the dam for the dam's sake. The Premier called for $500m from the previous Government for compensation for the halting of the scheme. Why this sudden escalation? It is a seven-fold increase in seven months. The Premier has pulled the figures out of the air. His attitude towards the Gordon below Franklin Dam has always been one of political expediency, in the same way that it is for the members of this House who represent Tasmania. The Premier has never made any attempt to look at the proposal in a realistic manner. Instead he has concentrated on playing on the emotions of the Tasmanian people. Figures with no real meaning are bandied around. There are no constructive ideas about the future direction of the manufacturing and tourist industries, which have the potential to provide huge increases in employment opportunities for Tasmania. All the Premier and his Government are concerned about is holding government at all costs. When I was in Tasmania, only a few months ago, I had the opportunity, along with other members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, I was an observer, to attend a meeting with the commissioners in the Hydro- Electric Commission offices. One of the things we asked them was to give us some indication of why they thought they needed this increased electricity capacity. Amongst other things, they told us that they had sent out a survey to all the big users of electricity asking them what their electricity requirements would be for the year 2000. Naturally the figures which came back indicated that huge increases were necessary. I put it to honourable members that the reason the hydro-electric commissioners made that request to those big users of electricity was that they knew the answer they would provide, and they provided that answer. I for one was not at all convinced that that electric power was needed-- Mr Newman —What was the growth rate? Mr MILTON —I do not have time to go into the figures now; I have been given only 10 minutes to speak on this item. What happened to the offer by the Victorian Government to provide cheap electricity by marine cable to Tasmania. What did the Premier do? The Premier of Tasmania just dismissed it out of hand. He is not prepared to co-operate with other States. He is interested only in trying to make political capital out of this situation. The Federal Government has said that it is prepared to talk to the Tasmanian Government about the compensation schemes. We are still talking. It is totally false to claim in this House that the Government has failed to provide just compensation when the discussions are continuing. The tourist industry in particular has a great potential for growth. The Federal Government expected that the Tasmanian Government would have provided by now a management plan for the western Tasmanian wilderness national parks. There should be at least 50 rangers by Christmas. But where is a State government plan for such employment? On the contrary, there are continuous newspaper reports that vandals are threatening to burn out the world heritage area next summer. I will quote from a newspaper report about the sort of thing that is happening in Tasmania and which is being encouraged by the Premier and the members representing Tasmania on the other side of the House. The report states: Despite a High Court ruling confirming the protection of South-West Tasmania's World Heritage area, an enormous 3,000-year-old Huon pine tree beside the Gordon River has been doused with oil, burnt and cut up. All that remains of one of the world's most ancient trees, is less than a metre of charred stump and some smashed trunk nearby. The tree, which was given wide publicity during the Franklin blockade, stood at Warner's Landing outside the perimeter of the Hydro-Electric Commission works area opposite the Sir John Falls, at the turning point of river cruises up the river. These ruffians are being encouraged by the Premier. Dr Bob Brown-I am sure honourable members know Dr Bob Brown, the Director of the Tasmanian Wilderness Society-has revealed that some of these people are threatening to dynamite Kutakina Cave. That cave is one of the six best archaeological limestone cave sites in the western Pacific. The value of these caves has been acclaimed by eminent experts from all over the world. It is worth reading about these things because these sorts of claims are being completely ignored by the members on the other side of the House. It beats me that the member for Braddon says that he represents such an area, yet he has never made mention of these things in this House. The cave is 10 metres above the present level of the Franklin River. Its mouth is about 12 metres wide and opens in to a spacious, well-lit entrance chamber. A small pilot excavation in this chamber shows that it is one of the richest prehistoric sites ever found in Australia. This is the cave that these ruffians are threatening to destroy. There has been a deafening silence from the Tasmanian Government about the richness and tourist potential of this area. Yet this area was nominated by the Tasmanian Government as a world heritage area. It seems to me that honourable members on the other side of the House should be reminded of what the Tasmanian Government had to say about the area. It referred to the area as comprising: . . . most of the last great temperate wilderness remaining in Australia and one of the last remaining in the world. The nomination claimed that the region satisfied all four criteria required for the nomination to the World Heritage List. It claimed that it had many geological sites of local, State, national and international significance and unique, rare and superb natural features and area of exceptional natural beauty. I wish I could go on. The Opposition seems to be blissfully unaware of these matters. The Opposition came into this House with a ridiculous assertion about the Government which is plainly not true. In my view, this matter of public importance is one of the most nonsensical in which I have ever had the misfortune to have to take part. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The discussion is concluded. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters)(10.56) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The primary purpose of this Bill is to facilitate the introduction of the Government's community employment program in the Public Service. The community employment program is the Government's major job creation program which, when fully operational, is expected to create up to 70,000 new jobs nationally in a year on worthwhile community projects. Project jobs will have a duration of between three months and 12 months, with an average job duration of around six months. Nationally, $300m of Federal funds is to be made available for the community employment program during 1983-84. Two hundred and fifty million dollars of this is to be apportioned to voluntary organisations, local authorities and State government departments and authorities, with the balance of $50m being made available to Federal departments and authorities. Thus, whilst the major part of expenditure for the program will be through State, local government and voluntary agencies, it is the Government's intention that a leading role will be played by Commonwealth departments and authorities. The aim of the community employment program is to provide employment for those most in need of it, preference being given to those who have been registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service for nine months or more. Particular attention is also being given to ensure that the community employment program provides employment opportunities to women, Aboriginals, migrants, the disabled and other disadvantaged groups in the community. The amendments proposed in this Bill will enable the temporary employment provisions of the Public Service Act to be used for the purposes of the community employment program and will ensure that those most in need of work are able to gain employment in the Public Service for the purposes of this program. Similar amendments are also proposed in relation to the national employment strategy for Aboriginals and the Commonwealth work experience program. The opportunity has also been taken to make a technical amendment to the Public Service Act relating to the definition of 'Department' to give full effect to amendments made to that definition by the Public Service Acts Amendment Act 1982 . Honourable members are referred to details of this amendment included in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(10.59) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to allow for an increase in the maximum charge imposed on the slaughter of livestock in export establishments. This charge was first imposed on 1 July 1979 in order to recoup 50 per cent of the cost to the Commonwealth of inspecting meat for export. This Government has carefully reviewed the policy of charging for export inspection and has concluded that there are good grounds for re-endorsement and implementation of the existing policy. It is the Government's view that cost recovery principles should apply for commercial type activities, especially where major beneficiaries of export inspection services are overseas consumers. However, in setting a recovery rate of 50 per cent from industry for the provision of export inspection for all primary produce commodities, the Government has been mindful of the fact that further efficiencies in the delivery of these services are possible of being achieved and therefore considers that industry should not be expected to pay the full cost of operating the current service. The Government is aware that despite initiatives taken to date in the Meat Export Inspection Service which have enabled us in 1982-83 to increase productivity, there are still changes in policy that, subject to acceptance by overseas countries, may be made to improve efficiency and reduce costs. It has been decided that the cost of special training programs for inspection staff and other costs associated with achieving efficiencies in inspection practices will be excluded from the cost base on which the levy is determined. Since 1979 the fees charged have fallen far short of recovering half of the costs of export inspection due to inflation, changes in the services provided and reduced throughput. It is now estimated that, in 1983-84 the current rate of charge based on $1.80 for adult cattle would recover only $13m or 17 per cent of costs. Accordingly, it has been decided to lift the effective rate for each class of livestock to the equivalent of $5.40 for adult cattle, which would recoup 50 per cent of costs in a full year. In fact, because the new rate will apply for only part of the year, the recovery will be in the order of $30.9m representing 39 per cent of the costs of operating the meat inspection service. The current maximum rates of charge specified in the Live-Stock Slaughter ( Export Inspection Charge) Act 1979 prevent operative rates of meat inspection charges being increased to a level which would allow 50 per cent recovery. Accordingly, it is proposed that the maximum rates of charge for slaughter of livestock for export be set as follows: Cattle, including buffalo, $10.80 per head; calves 40 to 90 kilograms dressed weight, and pigs, $3.60 per head; bobby calves to 40 kilograms dressed weight, sheep-that is lambs-and goats, $1.08 per head; and other, for example, horses, donkeys and mules, $10.80 per head. The maximums have been set at twice the operative rate. Operative rates will be established by amendments to the Live-Stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Regulations, effective from 1 October 1983. This will allow for amendments from time to time of the amounts charged on the slaughter of livestock in export establishments in accordance with changes in the cost of the service provided. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.03) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is associated with other export charge Bills just introduced. The purpose of this Bill is to allow for an increase in the maximum charge imposed on the export inspection of wheat, oats, barley and sorghum. This charge was first imposed on 1 July 1979 in order to recover from exporters approximately half of the total export inspection costs of these products in 1979-80. This Government has carefully reviewed the policy of charging for export inspection and has concluded that there are good grounds for re-endorsement and implementation of the existing policy for 50 per cent recovery of costs. The fees currently charged for grain have remained unchanged since 1981 and would fall far short of meeting half the current costs of inspection due to inflation, changes in the service provided and changes in throughput. It is estimated that the current rates of charge would recover some $1.3m or 32 per cent of costs. Accordingly, it has been decided to lift the effective rate of charge for bulk and containerised grain and reduce the rate for bagged grain in line with changes in the costs of inspection. Although the new rates of recovery will apply for only part of the year they will cover the larger part of the crop and the recovery is expected to be in the order of $1.9m or 48 per cent of the cost of providing the service. The current maximum rate specified in the Grain (Export Inspection Charge) Act 1979 would not allow the operative rate necessary to recoup 50 per cent of costs to be established in the Grain (Export Inspection Charge) Regulations. Accordingly, it is proposed to amend the maximum rate in the Act. The proposed new operative rates to be established by regulation are: Grain shipped in export in bulk, 16.3 cents/tonne; grain shipped for export in bags, 19 cents/tonne; grain shipped for export in containers, 73 cents/tonne. These compare with existing operative rates of 9.6 cents/tonne for bulk, 40 cents/tonne for bags and 40 cents/tonne for containerised grain. Currently the Act specifies a maximum rate for all grain. In view of the disparity in the cost of inspecting grain shipped in bulk, in bags and in containers it is now proposed to set separate maximums for each mode of shipment. The maximums proposed are: Grain shipped for export in bulk, 33 cents/tonne; grain shipped for export in bags, 40 cents/tonne; grain shipped for export in containers, $1. 46/tonne. The maximums have been established at approximately twice the proposed operative rate. This will allow for regulatory amendments from time to time of the amounts to be charged for inspection in accordance with the changes in the costs of the service and other factors such as the volume of exports. The Bill also provides for a definition of a container in order to ensure that the higher charges associated with inspection for this mode of transport apply only to what is commonly known as a reusable container. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.07) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is associated with other Bills just introduced to amend certain export inspection charge Acts. Its purpose is to allow for an increase in the maximum charge imposed on the inspection of eggs other than eggs in shell. The charge was first imposed on 1 January 1983 in order to recoup 50 per cent of the cost to the Commonwealth of inspecting eggs for export. This Government has carefully reviewed the policy of charging for export inspection and has concluded that there are good grounds for re-endorsement and implementation of existing policy. It is the Government's view that cost recovery principles should apply for commercial type activities, expecially where major beneficiaries of export inspection services are overseas consumers. However, in setting a recovery rate of 50 per cent from industry for the provision of export inspection for all primary produce commodities, the Government has been mindful of the fact that further efficiencies in the delivery of these services are possible of being achieved and therefore considers that the industry should not be expected to pay the full cost of operating the current service. On the basis of expected exports of eggs in 1983-84 the operative fees specified under the Eggs (Export Inspection Charge) Regulations would recovery more than half the cost of inspecting shell eggs and less than half the cost of inspecting other eggs. Overall, it is estimated that the existing rates of charge would recover $97,000 or 33 per cent of costs. Accordingly it has been decided to lift the effective rate for eggs other than in the shell from $8 per tonne to $16 per tonne and reduce the effective rate for eggs in the shell from $11 per 1,000 dozen to $10 per 1,000 dozen. These new rates should recover half of the costs in a full year. Because the new rate will apply for only part of the year, the recovery will be in the order of $129,000 or 45 per cent of costs. The change in charges must be seen in the context of rapid changes in inspection procedures. These are being reviewed in conjunction with industry. It is hoped to commence trialling of revised procedures early in 1984. The objective is to achieve efficiency in the use of resources and to reduce costs. The current maximum rates of charge specified in the Eggs (Export Inspection Charge) Act 1982 prevent the operative rate for eggs other than eggs in the shell being increased to a level which would allow 50 per cent recovery. Accordingly, it is proposed that the maximum rate of charge for inspection of eggs for export, other than in the shell be set at $33 per tonne. It will allow for amendments from time to time of the amounts charged for inspection in accordance with changes in the cost of the service provided. I commend this Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.11) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is associated with other export charge Bills just introduced. The purpose of this Bill is to allow for an increase in the maximum charge imposed on the export inspection of edible oils. The charge was first imposed on 1 January 1983 in order to recover from exporters approximately half of the total export inspection cost. This Government has carefully reviewed the policy of charging for export inspection and has concluded that there are good grounds for re-endorsement and implementation of the existing policy for 50 per cent recovery of costs. The fees currently charged for edible oils would fall far short of meeting half the current costs of inspection. It is estimated that the current rates of charge would recover some $5,000 or 15 per cent of costs. The unit cost of inspection for edible oils was initially underestimated due to the volume of throughput and the work effort involved. Frequent changes in unit export costs are common particularly where the product is minor in terms of effort and the volume varies with the season. The annual change in costs can of course be down as well as up, as is illustrated by bagged wheat export charges. Accordingly it has been decided to lift the effective rate of charge for edible oils from $1 per tonne to $3.30 per tonne. The new rate of recovery will apply for only part of the year and the recovery is expected to be in the order of $13 ,000 or 38 per cent of the cost of providing the service. The current maximum rate specified in the Edible Oils (Export Inspection Charge) Act 1982 would not allow the operative rate necessary to recoup 50 per cent of costs to be established in the Edible Oils (Export Inspection Charge) Regulations. Accordingly, it is proposed to amend the maximum rate in the Act from the current rate of $2 per tonne. The proposed maximum rate for inspection of edible oils is $6.60 or twice the operative rate in order to allow for amendments from time to time of the amounts charged, in accordance with changes in the cost of the service provided, and other factors such as the volume of exports. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(11.14) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Act 1964 and the Television Stations Licence Fees Act 1964, which are both in the nature of taxing Acts, prescribe the annual licence fees which are payable by companies operating commercial radio and television stations licensed under the Broadcasting and Television Act . A flat fee of $500 is payable on the grant of any new station licence. Thereafter, each station is required to pay, on the anniversary of the grant of its licence, a fee calculated on the basis of a rising percentage of its annual gross earnings-AGE-from radio or television transmissions during the immediately preceding financial year. When the current progressive fee scale was set in 1981 , the amending Acts prescribed ceilings upon the maximum fee rates payable by television stations, 7.5 per cent, and by radio stations, 5 per cent. The main purpose of imposing a fee on companies licensed to earn income from broadcasting is to contribute to overall Commonwealth revenues. Changes contained in this Bill and its counterpart, the Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill, which I will introduce shortly, will raise an additional $2.4m in 1983-84. Forty thousand dollars of this increase will result from changes to the fee schedule for broadcasting stations. The Government is concerned that due notice is taken of the ability of the broadcasting industry to pay. Accordingly, the measures contained in this Bill will affect only one station-the station with the highest turnover out of a total of 134. The proposed changes to the fee scales consist of a small increase in licence fee rates for radio stations with average gross earnings in excess of $9m and an increase in the maximum licence fee rates payable from 5 per cent to 5.5 per cent of average gross earnings. These changes will be effective from 1 September 1983. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Dr Harry Edwards) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(11.17) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill, the companion measure to the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill, will increase revenue from licence fees by about $2.36m in 1983-84. The Government is concerned that due notice should be taken of the ability of the television industry to pay. Accordingly, the measures contained in this Bill will affect the 16 stations, out of a total of 50 commercial television stations, with the highest turnovers. The proposed changes to the fee scales consist of a small increase in licence fee rates for television stations with average gross earnings in excess of $9m and an increase in the maximum licence fee rates payable by television stations from 7.5 per cent to 8 per cent of average gross earnings. These changes will be effective from 1 September 1983. The Government is concerned to achieve the maximum possible Australian content in respect of films and television programs. The Government will be considering proposals to encourage production of Australian programs, particularly proposals which are in the nature of offsets to the licence fee increases. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Dr Harry Edwards) adjourned. Debate resumed from 26 May, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(11.19) —It is a pleasure to be leading for the Opposition on the River Murray Waters Amendment Bill which is the result of a number of years of very complex negotiations conducted between the previous Fraser Government and the governments of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia with the object of bringing the 1914 River Murray Waters Agreement up to date with the realities of the problems facing the river, the people living on its banks and the region as a whole. The most important provision in the redrawn Agreement is the extension of the responsibilities of the River Murray Commission, which were established by the former Agreement with respect to water quality matters in particular. The earlier agreement of 1914 was based principally on the responsibility for water flows through the river-and not water quality. These amendments, therefore , are specifically related to the question of water quality as well as quantity. The significance of this rests on the fact that in the River Murray region people have become very conscious of the fact that with higher levels of salinity and turbidity the future of the river system is under some doubt. It was for that reason that the Fraser Government established the Maunsell investigation with the full agreement of the State governments. In September 1979 the Maunsell report on Murray Valley Salinity and Drainage was tabled in this House. For the benefit of honourable members I wish to draw their attention to some of the key recommendations in that report. It emphasised that the study was based on the major objective of developing a co-ordinated plan of action for the entire region, recognising that the main irrigation problems are high water tables, land salination in the riverine plains and high salinities in the Mallee zone. In tackling these problems on a number of broad fronts the report recommended a plan of action which provided for, firstly, works to intercept saline drainage and ground water flows; secondly, drainage works to reduce waterlogging and high water tables; thirdly, on-farm measures to improve irrigation practices and mitigate the effects of waterlogging and river salinity ; and, fourthly, river regulation. These measures were to be supported by a range of program for monitoring and investigation and research contained in the report. The plan of action includes measures for implementation over a 25-year period at an estimated total cost of $123m and on indicative program over the next five years costing $75m. Of this program, projects totalling $35m were classified as being of first priority. The Maunsell report emphasised that the basic problems of the Murray Valley were clearly identified in an earlier major study of 1970 and still require immediate attention. It emphasised furthermore that delays in implementing improvement works in the intervening years had led to further deterioration in some areas which, although not alarming, nevertheless was regarded by the investigators as being of some concern. The investigation, as I noted, followed the meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers back in 1977. On that occasion the Ministers emphasised the need for more co-ordinated action in relation to the problems of the River Murray system. The Maunsell report noted that the interception and drainage priorities should be established on a valley-wide basis and that the problems-namely, high water tables, land salination and river salinity-needed to be emphasised. The review proposals to overcome these problems encouraged the determination of project priorities as well as a long term co-ordinated plan of action. The main irrigation problem in the Murray Valley, put quite simply, is that high water tables and land salinity in the riverine plains have been increasing over the years. This is demonstrated by high river salinities, especially in the Mallee zone. The high water tables effectively affect plant growth and agricultural productivity. Where this has taken place the impact it has had on the farmers, the quality of their land and, above all, the productivity of the soil is quite obvious. Where ground water is heavily saline in areas such as Kerang and Wakool the problem is worse. The levels of salinity in the Murray system have over the years tended to vary between about 1.4 million tonnes per annum and over four million tonnes per annum, depending, among other things, on the quantity of the water passing down the river at any specific time. The high river salinities affect not only irrigators, their productivity of their land, the turn-off of their herds and the yield of their crops, but also those who depend on the river water for municipal and industrial purposes, especially in metropolitan Adelaide and the towns within the Iron Triangle of South Australia. The ecology of the Murray region has also been adversely affected by salinity. This has affected much of the natural red gum forests. The flow of the river, now largely man controlled, has seriously impaired the growing cycle of the Barmah Forest areas and the future of the wet lands along the river which are the traditional breeding grounds for numerous bird varieties, including the ibis rookeries. Therefore, the implications for Australia are very serious indeed. That is why this River Murray Waters Bill is so important. It demonstrates, and hopefully not too late, that agreement between the Commonwealth and the States may result in significant steps being taken to enable the River Murray Commission, which comprises the three States and the Commonwealth, acting as equal partners, having the capacity to influence to a greater degree than in the past the future viability of the river system. We must remember that the Murray- Darling system is in fact Australia's major river system. It covers one-seventh of the entire land mass. The water resources of the Murray are virtually fully committed at present, and certainly more so than any other river in Australia. In fact it is currently estimated that 91 per cent of the Murray water is fully committed. The basin accounts for 46 per cent of Australia's agricultural production, 15 per cent of its wood products and 6 per cent of its minerals. In fact half the value of Australia's primary production sold overseas is contributed by farmers in the River Murray region. Furthermore it is estimated that the resources in the Murray-Darling basin support directly and indirectly some 2 million people, with the total value of primary and secondary production estimated at over $7,000m a year. South Australia is particularly dependent upon the Murray. Some 49 per cent of its water, on average, for domestic and industrial purposes comes from that source. Adelaide alone receives between 20 and 80 per cent of its water supply from the Murray, depending, of course, on climatic conditions. The Murray is the most important waterway in Australia and great demands are being placed on the soil and the water of the basin. Land and water use tends to conflict and land degradation and water pollution are common national problems. However, since the Murray-Darling basin covers four States, self-interest and parochialism have tended to be problems in this area since well before Federation. To help overcome that, recently a group of my colleagues and I established in this Parliament the River Murray Committee and brought into a relationship with it the Opposition spokesmen for the States of New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria representing both water and environmental matters. A few weeks ago this Committee conducted a major investigation into the river travelling from Albury down to Adelaide. We investigated step by step the problems which were brought to our attention by organisations and interest groups along the river. What impressed us most was that, while there may be variations from place to place in the suggestions put forward to solve some of the regional problems, there is a very deep seated concern for the long term viability of the Murray system. I was impressed by the deep affection for the river which we found in the people who saw year by year a gradual deterioration in its capacity; changes in lifestyle which have resulted because of this and, of course, the fundamental changes in the ecological structure of the region as a whole. This is seen in the diminished fish population generally while on the other hand, until fairly recently at least, there has been a substantial increase in the number of European carp found in parts of the river. They, in turn, have had a major impact on the turbidity of the river as well as its quality. This has become a serious problem for a number of towns along or near the river, such as Deniliquin, where we were told of the major effects on tourism because of the poor quality of the water. The River Murray Commission officer who travelled with us emphasised that in recent years, possibly because of the drought there may have been a reduction in the effect of the European carp. But one thing is quite clear: We have to improve the quality of the river to the stage where once again Australian fish species will be able to travel freely in the river and to breed in it. The main irrigation problems in the Murray Valley are, as I have noted, the high water tables and land salination in the riverine plains and the high river salinities in the Murray region. High water tables adversely affect plant growth and agricultural productivity where the ground waters tend to be very saline. High river salinities affect not only agricultural producers but also the waters used for irrigation and those who have to live along the entire course of the river. In the Kerang region, for example, two-thirds of the area is underlain by a highly saline water table within two metres of the surface. People tend to forget that many thousands of years ago this region was part of a massive inland sea. When the ground rose and the sea was cut off from the ocean the effect was that the salt remained. Now, because of the rising water table brought on principally by the distribution of substantial quantities of water through irrigation, we have seen the rise of the water table, in some areas such as Kerang. The table has probably stabilised. With the implementation of a number of new techniques such as laser beam levelling there are indications which would suggest that in the Kerang area at least there is a stabilisation of land degradation. We hope to see a further improvement in this area. The Barr Creek and its tributaries represent the main drainage outlet for the Kerang region. That creek alone adds about 150,000 tonnes of salt a year to the Murray. In fact, this is the largest source of salt entering the river system. It represents about 13 per cent of the salt load flowing into South Australia. The Shepparton region currently is also underlain by high water tables but it is not known accurately at this stage what proportion of the total region has been affected. However, without effective drainage works there is little doubt that this could increase threefold by the year 2000, according to the Maunsell report . It is a matter of great concern that the previous Government's bicentennial water program was one of the first casualties of the Hawke Government. Whilst I was pleased to note in the Budget tabled in this House last night that there was an increase in funding for the national water program, but only $1m was allocated for soil erosion. It is a matter of great concern to my colleagues, expecially those with electorates along the river, that a number of major projects, which were specifically noted in the bicentennial program, have not been funded. Therefore, there is every reason to suggest that at least another decade will be lost-10 years which we cannot afford-before we attack some of these fundamental problems. I refer specifically to the stage I piping of stock and domestic water through the Mallee; to the establishment of two water purification plants on the Murray which would have improved significantly the quality of the water going to the people of Adelaide and to the Iron Triangle and, of course, further storage in the upper reaches of the river. On this third point there are ecology problems which must be recognised and faced but there is no question that the problems of the other two areas which I have noted, especially the Mallee and the water quality for Adelaide, cannot wait another 10 years to be solved. The other major issue worth noting, of course, is the fundamental problem of information deficiency. We regarded this as being an issue which ultimately has to be solved by the Commonwealth and State departments working much closer than they have in the past. For the benefit of the Parliament, I would now like to read into Hansard the 10 -point program which the representatives of this Parliament on the River Murray Committee, with the support of our colleagues from the State parliaments of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia have developed and which we are recommending to our respective party organisations, as the basis for a long term 25-year development program for the entire River Murray system. First, we believe that the River Murray Commission should, in association with the State and local authorities, prepare a draft management plan for the River Murray. This draft plan should be considered by a ministerial council comprising representatives from the Federal and State governments, all of which were signatories to the River Murray Waters Agreement. The River Murray Commission should co-ordinate with the State authorities on the implementation of an agreed management plan in five-year stages over a total planning period of 25 years in accordance with the recommendations of the Maunsell report. Discussions with Queensland on water resources in relation to the Darling's tributaries are also recommended. This is a matter which, I should add, is of considerable importance for the future. Second, a co-ordinated national soil conservation program, also over 25 years, should be developed, in consultation with the States, to meet the identified reclamation, waterlogging and salinity problems found in the dry and irrigated areas of the basin. Third, programs which affect the River Murray should not be initiated prior to full consultation between the States and the River Murray Commission. For example, water and soil conservation programs which may affect the River Murray and its tributaries should, as far as possible, be uniform in their objectives and application. Fourth, we are dismayed at the Hawke Government's failure to support the bicentennial water resources program and, on regaining office, we shall review these programs to ensure that the water quality and quantity problems of the river system will be satisfactorily overcome. Fifth, we recognise that improved water quality and quantity may require the construction of additional water storages in the Murray-Darling system, the diverting of saline water out of the valley, and the upgrading of the Menindee Lakes storage system. In the meantime, in accordance with the Maunsell report recommendations we agree that government financial assistance should be directed at encouraging the individual farmer to improve irrigation management efficiency. Measures at this level are seen as complementing publicly funded major engineering works and may in some cases be a substitute for them. Sixth, the ecological welfare of the River Murray must be protected. Accordingly, the River Murray Commission should ensure that sufficient water is provided to maintain the unique red gum forests, native fisheries, and ibis and other bird rookeries. Seventh, major tree planting and regeneration should be integrated into desalination and soil conservation programs for the River Murray and its tributaries, and local government and farmers must be encouraged to plant appropriate species. Eighth, we recognise the damaging effects of nutrient flow into the river and recommend off-river municipal sewage disposal and treatment plants be constructed. Ninth, the River Murray Commission should be responsible for co- ordinating research priorities with regard to the River Murray system. Tenth, the River Murray Commission should conduct an extensive public awareness campaign at the national level with the assistance of State authorities, community groups and schools and organisations such as the Murray Valley League. We believe that this 10-point program is unique, in that, for the first time in Australia's federal history, it has been possible in opposition to get together representatives of the four Parliaments involved and have their agreement to the principles upon which they will be enunciating policies for the development of this region in the future. We cannot underestimate the fact that 2 million Australians at least are directly associated with the welfare of the River Murray system. Equally, we have to take the long term view that should this area be permitted to deteriorate any further, every Australian will suffer because of the severe impact on our quality of life, in terms of the region specifically, and, equally as important, the impact that it will have on our balance of payments. We believe that the problems of the region, while they should be seen in terms of a 25-year development program, must also be seen in the context of the specific irrigation communities and regions along the river. For this reason, it is absolutely imperative that State governments and local water user organisations be fully co-ordinated within a national program. It is not satisfactory that one farmer in four, for example, co-operates. All farmers must be encouraged to utilise the resources made available by local, State and Federal governments to implement land programs which are for the long term benefit of the individual farmer and certainly for his colleagues and for the region as a whole. Anyone who inspects this region will be struck by the fact that on one side of the road you can see a farmer who has applied modern techniques of agriculture, has done his best to control salinity and has implemented the program that I noted earlier of laser levelling, while on the other side of the road one sees a semi-desert because the farmers there have failed to apply modern technology and the opportunities available to them. This opens up the question whether the level of funding which was provided in yesterday's Budget for the national water resources program will in fact be applied to these problems. The traditional arrangement in the past was that the funds were provided through the State governments on a dollar for dollar basis. We were told by many farmers in Victoria in particular that, whilst promises are made on these matters at the parliamentary level, at the point of delivery, when they actually apply for the funds, they usually are told that they have run out. Quite clearly this is not the basis for a long term co-ordinated program. We recommend that a number of farms in a specific region should be identified, as recommended in the Maunsell report, and that funds be allocated on a guaranteed annual basis over a five-year rolling program. So, every five years, a specified number of farmers-whether they be in the Wakool region, the Kerang region, the Mallee or Sunraysia regions or other parts of the River Murray system-will know in advance what their likely financial commitments will be and the likely availability of funds from the Government. They will be able to plan on that basis. When governments are dealing with farmers who are to a large degree dependent on the vagaries of seasonal fluctuations, as we have seen in the last three very difficult drought years, it is quite clear that any program must take these climatic realities into account and give farmers the prospect of some certainty in terms of the provision of government funded assistance or support measures, through as low interest loans, long term loans et cetera, so that they are given every opportunity to implement new technology and new farming techniques as they become available. There will always, of course, be the odd farmer who, for various reasons, does not wish to change his system of farming. These problems must be faced at the local and regional level. I have seen similar schemes in South East Asia for example, where massive funds from the World Bank or even, on some occasions, from Australia, have been applied, and I have noted with surprise in some cases the effect upon individual farmers-even the recalcitrant ones-if all their neighbours suggest that they have to mend their ways. There is a tendency, I think, for governments to believe that the only way to overcome these problems is by regulations, controls and other measures of that type. We believe, as noted in our recommendation No. 10, that we have to put tremendous emphasis on education. Not only do we need to make every Australian aware of the national significance of Australia's one and only major water resource but also, within the region itself, the educational program must be directed to the individual farmer through extension programs conducted principally at the State level to ensure that all known help is available, what support facilities can be provided for the farmer and why the farmer should utilise these resources when they are available. It has been suggested by some State Ministers that the new arrangements which have now been entered into will solve all the problems because they have signed a letter of agreement which is in the process of passing through this Parliament . I regret to suggest that that is not the case. It has been suggested, for example, that we should go down the road followed by the United States and Canada and look for a totally co-ordinated riverine context for policy so that control measures will in fact be vested in the River Murray Commission and, therefore, the States will effectively hand over to the Commission a degree of sovereignty. On the basis of a study of the United States and Canadian river basin management, I see no reason to believe that course is necessarily the answer to these problems. For a number of reasons the principal one because in New South Wales, for example, over two-thirds of the entire land mass of the State would in terms of land, water use and soil conservation policy, be effectively outside the control of the State Government. I believe that is an impractical suggestion and it would certainly not be entertained by any party in power in New South Wales; and I think a similar attitude would be taken by the Parliaments of South Australia and Victoria. If that is accepted one has to face the reality that the co-ordination of policy at the Federal level, through the River Murray Commission utilising the resources and, hopefully, the support of the States is really the only way in which we will be able to solve these problems. At present, through both specific purpose grants, as well as the general purpose financing arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States, there are a number of programs such as soil conservation and water control measures which are part funded, controlled and implemented at the State level. We believe that the States must be fully involved in the application of and decision-making process on policy. We also believe that the authorities responsible for implementing these programs will also be at the State level. However the question which must be examined is whether it will be in the interests of the River Murray for the States, parties to the agreement, to specify the regional areas which will be covered by the Agreement and whether the Commonwealth could, through section 96 grants, give funds in the first instance to the River Murray Commission for application with the support and co- ordination of State authorities within the region. The introduction of this financial measure will be necessary to ensure a reduction in the salinity levels within the Murray River system by the introduction of farming techniques and other major measure in the fastest possible manner. This could overcome a problem that we have seen in the past where the Commonwealth has part funded programs on a dollar for dollar basis such as soil conservation in, for example, Victoria and New South Wales, but there has been no evidence that the same priority was given to the level of funding on both banks of the Murray nor in a reasonably co-ordinated manner. Because of that there is quite clearly a fundamental problem, especially for South Australia, where turbidity and quantity problems are manifest. These fundamental problems will not be solved unless they are tackled on a truly co-ordinated basis. It is not important whether the job is being done, for example, by the New South Wales Department of Agriculture or the Victorian Department of Agriculture. What is relevant is that they are both applying the same principles with the objective of achieving the same level of results in a specified period. It is for that reason that we suggest in our 10-point program that, in the context of 25 years when the program should be in operation, five-year periods should be set aside for a specific range of priority programs. For example, the fact that some five towns along the Murray are still putting their sewage into the river is obviously a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation. However, in recent years some of those towns have implemented new sewerage programs costing them many millions of dollars. Obviously to assist them to rebuild off-river schemes will clearly be a matter for State and Federal intervention, full co-operation and, of course, funding. Programs of that type, if applied on a co-ordinated basis, will be able to help solve the problems of the River Murray system. I am optimistic that there is a very deep concern by the vast majority of farmers and certainly reflected by all the Federal members who have electorates along the river who fully co-operated in our policy recommendation to make sure that Australia's major water resource will not be permitted to become any worse than it has in recent years. A lot is said in the Press about the River Murray which is inaccurate. Contrary to such reports, the river is not dead, but the river may die if we do not implement the right co-ordinated policies. In various areas, such as the Kerang area, we saw significant improvements. We can argue that the improvements have not been fast enough or general enough but one thing is clear. We will be able to solve these problems if the Commonwealth and the States are prepared to show a closer degree of concern and co-ordination towards the long term solutions than we have seen in the past. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Mr Jacobi) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology)(11.50) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Government has a clear national responsibility to prepare contingency plans against any foreseeable national emergency. The fundamental objectives of a national response to a major fuel shortage should be to minimise the total impact on the community-in terms of maintaining essential services and minimising economic dislocation-and to ensure that available supplies are distributed as equitably as possible. The purpose of this Bill is to equip the Commonwealth Government with the authority needed to prepare for and handle a national liquid fuel supply emergency. This would be done in close co-operation with the governments of the States and the Northern Territory. In the event of a serious shortfall of fuel supplies it could be expected that fuel prices would tend to rise substantially as purchasers competed for available supplies. This would be exacerbated by panic buying, and consequently normal market operations may break down. Such a situation could cause severe economic dislocation and hardship throughout the community. Government intervention to ensure a fair distribution of available fuel supplies may be required. For example, in a severe shortfall governments may need to implement quantitative allocation methods to achieve a satisfactory balance between supply and demand. Governments will require flexibility in meeting an emergency. It is important to recognise that the most available response would be determined in the light of prevailing conditions. The provisions of this Bill will enable this to occur. Together with existing legislation in the States and the Northern Territory, its enactment will enable the Commonwealth to take action in a fuel supply emergency situation with the effectiveness and authority that the Australian community is entitled to expect. The passage of this Bill will represent a major step forward in the Commonwealth Government's preparations against a national liquid fuel supply emergency. This Bill is one of the outcomes of a major effort by Commonwealth and State governments to improve their preparedness against a fuel shortage. It has its antecedents in the events of 1979, when the Iranian oil crisis triggered a condition of turmoil in world oil markets that forced an accelerated recognition of the need to prepare measures for dealing with an emergency situation. It was in this climate that member countries of the International Energy Agency became acutely aware of the possibility of having to implement the IEA's emergency oil sharing system and to invoke cut-backs in the consumption of liquid fuel in accordance with their obligations as IEA members. Australia, although a member of IEA, does not have the appropriate legal basis for handling a supply cut. As a result of the concern of all Australians about the possible impact of uncertain supplies, in September 1979 Commonwealth and State Ministers with responsibility for energy matters agreed to form the National Petroleum Advisory Committee-NPAC-to advise governments on the appropriate arrangements and priorities for the allocation of liquid fuels during any period of supply shortfall. NPAC members are drawn from the agricultural, fishing, manufacturing, mining, shipping and transport industries, the oil industry, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and motorists' organisations as well as the Commonwealth , State and Northern Territory governments. NPAC completed its report ' Management of a National Liquid Fuels Supply Emergency' in October 1981 and after acceptance by Commonwealth, State and Territory governments as a basis for proceeding with emergency planning, the report was tabled in the Parliament on 16 September 1982. The proposed Bill is in accordance with the NPAC recommendations and is based closely on the powers proposed in the report. Together with current legislation in the States and the Northern Territory, it will enable all governments to work together in preparing for and managing a national liquid fuel emergency. In order to meet, as far as possible, the concern expressed by some States that the proposed Bill may inhibit the operation of their own emergency legislation, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) has agreed that the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory shall work together to develop alternative Commonwealth and State legislation. To provide a specific timeframe for this exercise the Minister has also agreed to include in the proposed Bill a three-year sunset clause. This will enable discussions to proceed without jeopardising the Commonwealth's ability to act decisively in any emergency situation in the immediate future. I recognise that agreement with the States on alternative legislation cannot be guaranteed within the three-year period. In this event, it would be necessary to extend the Act beyond the currently proposed sunset date. It is our intention to work in conjunction with the State and Territory governments. The Bill requires that consultations occur between the Commonwealth and State and Territory energy Ministers before declaration by the Governor- General of a national liquid fuel emergency. Consultation is also required before the Commonwealth Minister may make certain determinations or issue certain instructions under this Bill. These include actions under the contingency planning and the emergency control clauses of the Bill. Further, the Bill enables the Commonwealth Minister to delegate powers to the State and Territory Ministers where this is appropriate. The primary mechanism for consultation will be the establishment of a high level committee of Commonwealth , State and Territory officials as the National Fuel Emergency Consultative Committee. This was recommended by NPAC and the Minister has taken steps to establish this committee through an exchange of correspondence with his State and Territory colleagues. In essence, the Bill provides arrangements for nationally uniform proportionate reductions in the level of supplies of scarce liquid fuels, ensuring that the burden of a shortage is shared equitably as far as possible throughout Australia . This will be achieved by means of a bulk allocation system for bulk consumers and, in extreme conditions, a rationing system for retail purchasers. It is intended that the bulk allocation system will operate with sufficient flexibility to meet special needs-such as seasonal and regional fluctuations in fuel requirements-and will take account of economic efficiency. This will ensure the maximum possible equity and efficiency in the distribution of fuel to consumers. In addition to making supplies available to all users on a uniform basis, the Bill will also provide extra supplies of fuel to users whose activities are classified as 'essential' or 'high priority'. These will be identified by State and Territory energy Ministers for users in their regions and by the Commonwealth Minister for a limited range of Commonwealth responsibilities, such as defence. To ensure consistency in the identification of essential and high priority users, and in the calculation of their allocation quantities, guidelines will be specified by the Commonwealth Minister. The formulation of these guidelines will be a subject of consultation between the State and Territory energy Ministers, and the guidelines will be presented to the Parliament for approval. The Bill includes certain provisions for pre-emergency contingency planning, and this will be undertaken in co-operation with the appropriate State and Territory authorities, Ministers, and governments, with inputs from the oil industry and fuel users. Included in the contingency preparations are provisions for the maintenance of minimum stock levels to be held by the oil industry in normal or non-emergency conditions. In order to ensure that fuel is available to supply users during an emergency, the Bill provides powers to direct the movement, production, release or retention of liquid fuels if this becomes necessary. Directions under these powers can only be made after consultation with State and Territory energy Ministers. In accordance with recent Government legislation in related areas, the Bill contains provisions for the reconsideration and review of certain ministerial decisions. These include the determination of bulk customers, the identification by the Commonwealth of essential or high priority users, and directions on strategic stock levels. This protection of individuals and corporations is encompassed in provisions requiring the Minister to reconsider such decisions, and for their subsequent review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Bill also provides appropriate protection for the operation of consistent State or Territory laws. In conclusion, I will return to an earlier theme. The Government has a clear responsibility to prepare contingency plans against a foreseeable national emergency. There can be no argument that in today's uncertain world a major oil supply crisis is a real possibility and it is equally certain that such a crisis would have potentially serious social and economic consequences for us as Australians. This Bill, based on the recommendations of a high-level committee arrived at after two years consideration of expert advice, will provide the Commonwealth with the means of fulfilling its role as a co-operating partner with the States and the Territories to ensure that the impact of such a crisis is minimised. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Dr Harry Edwards) adjourned. Mr PEACOCK —My question was to be directed to the Treasurer. Is he to attend Question Time today or is he to be like the Prime Minister and hide elsewhere? As the Treasurer has now arrived, I direct my question to him. Firstly, I ask whether he agrees with the comment in Budget Statement No. 2 that: . . . it is crucial that wage and price developments be constrained within the broad guidelines set by the Prices and Incomes Accord. Secondly, is it not a fact that, even if the prices and incomes accord holds, interest rates and unemployment will rise and inflation will continue at high levels? Thirdly, given recent wage settlements, for example in relation to building workers and food processors, how can he continue to pretend that the accord will hold? Mr KEATING —There seems to be a simplistic notion that in some way Budget Statement No. 2 is the express invention of the Department of the Treasury and is something in respect of which I have no interest, care or responsibility. Budget Statement No. 2 is the statement of the Government, as indeed the former Treasurer said not so long ago in this chamber. I inform the honourable gentleman that I read every line of Statement No. 2 and stand by every line in it. Let me make just a couple of other points. I have said on a number of occasions-at the National Economic Summit Conference in this place and also in the May statement of economic measures-that of course there are risks to a recovery coming from the depths of the recession we are currently in. But, be that as it may, the central premise of the honourable member's question is that on this side of the House it all hangs on the prices and incomes accord, and that without it there is no hope thereafter. I make the central point that we have always regarded the prices and incomes accord as being complementary to the other instruments of policy. The Government has taken a number of significant measures on the fiscal front to deal with the disastrous inheritance of the starting point deficit which began at $9.6 billion and went out to $10.4 billion, only to be brought back by the growth forecast engendered by the confidence this Government created. In our fiscal policy we have had to bring that deficit back within manageable limits. So, in the area of fiscal policy, the Government has taken substantial action. As regards monetary policy, I remarked last night in the Budget Speech that the former Government overshot its monetary targets five years in a row. If anything, it had an erratic tightening of money at certain times which threw the economy into a downspin. This Government has a firm monetary policy backing its general anti-inflationary policy which is understood and rational and which the Government will abide by. It is a mystery to me what other instruments of economic policy the Leader of the Opposition has apparently conjured up in his mind and which he believes he could resort to or rely upon, other than monetary and fiscal policy, to achieve what he apparently believes this Government cannot achieve without the prices and incomes accord. Under this Government monetary and fiscal policy is in better shape than it ever was under the previous Government. And we will maintain it that way. We also have achieved something which the Opposition will never achieve, that is, an accord with the trade union movement. The Leader of the Opposition can eat his heart out because he will never achieve it. It is one of the important bases for dealing with inflation. We have made it clear also that we will make the transition from the chaos and mayhem which existed under the previous Government with its supposed free market for wages during 1980 and 1981 and the disastrous impact on the economy which it wrought through its stupid ideological obsession with having a free market for labour. Australia had a centralised wage fixation system for 70 or 80 years. We will revert to that system. Of course, on the way through we will have teething problems; nobody doubts that. But, in the main, the accord will hang together. As the inflation rate declines, providing scope for a fall in interest rates, the Opposition will die a thousand deaths when it thinks about its vote at the next poll. Mr HUMPHREYS —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Why has it been found necessary to reintroduce an assets test when pensioners have not had to disclose such assets for many years? Mr HAWKE —The one incontrovertible fact about the present and future condition of Australia is that it will have an aging population. A smaller proportion of Australians will be employed in the work force and they will have the obligation of meeting a commitment to a growing proportion of the Australian population which is aged. Therefore, people across the political spectrum must accept that the Australian community, faced with the responsibility of meeting the requirements of a larger proportion of its population in the aged category, will need to go about the task sensibly and see that our resources are applied to those who are in need. It has been necessary, in those circumstances, to return to an assets test to stop wealthy people exploiting, or even cheating, our pension system. As you know, Mr Speaker, in 1976 the previous Government stopped counting large asset holdings in assessing pensions. That policy resulted in an explosion of shady investment schemes which often involved contrived ways of converting income to capital gain. It is unacceptable that retired people with large estates and hundreds of thousands of dollars should be able to arrange their assets so that they can receive the full pension and fringe benefits. Our proposal will take about a year to finalise because we have undertaken to consult pensioners' organisations and because it will take that amount of time to get the administrative arrangements in place. It is to be hoped that the Opposition does not undertake a campaign unnecessarily to frighten people in the community who have no need to be frightened. The facts are that single pensioners can have $17,100 in savings and still receive the maximum pension, and pensioner couples can have $28,500 in savings and receive the full pension. As is known and understood by honourable members opposite, we will not count as assets the pensioner's home, car or other possessions such as caravans, boats and jewellery. We will not count assets of $1,500 for a single person or $2,500 for a married couple. Considerably more can be held before the pension is affected because of the operation of the pension free areas. Above that, an amount of 10 per cent imputed income will apply. We will count 10 per cent of savings as income. That applies only to funds in banks, building societies and properties such as blocks of flats additional to the family home. There is no change to the policy of paying the maximum pension to single persons with an income of $30 a week and married couples with an income of $50 a week. I ask honourable members and members of the public to understand this fact: Single pensioners can have personal property and assets worth up to $106,000 without losing a pension, and married pensioners can have personal property and assets worth up to $177,000 before losing a pension entitlement. Those figures are at November 1983 rates and will be increased by the time the assets test is reintroduced. Mr HOWARD —In light of the Treasurer's assurance that he has read every line of Budget Statement No. 2, I refer him to page 29 of his Budget Speech where he said: 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. Does that statement imply that the structural deficit is being reduced in 1983- 84? If so, how does he reconcile that with page 56 of Statement No. 2 which clearly states the Treasury view that there will be a significant increase in the structural deficit in 1983-84? Mr KEATING —This is a curious question from the high deficit specialist who left us the dubious inheritance of not $9.6 billion but $10.4 billion. If he is so enamoured of Budget statements, he should look at the Budget statements and see the $800m reconciliation for the $10.4 billion. Then the former Treasurer will see how his prognostications about the $6 billion deficit, which he has now adjusted to $7 billion without any indication whatsoever of how to get from point A to point B, lead me to the conclusion that it is very curious that in some way the former Treasurer is now asking about structural deficits and the size of the Budget deficit generally when in fact this Government has done all within its power to reduce the size of that deficit in this Budget. Let me get to the central point of the question. It is suggested that there could be a clash for funds in the event of the rise in the structural deficit. Mr Howard —There is a difference. Mr KEATING —There is no difference whatsoever. We are saying quite clearly that the structural component of the deficit has increased this year, as it needed to do to lift activity in the economy to take it out of the hole in which the former Government left it. But in future years, as we see a pick-up in activity, the whole of the deficit will be affected by that prosperity. It is a lift in the deficit this year at a time of declining private sector investment, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition well understands. That is why the Government has taken the view that it can finance a deficit of this magnitude in that climate. In a recovery we will start to see a return of private investment. In the Budget Papers we are forecasting a fall in private sector investment this year, but the position will improve in 1984-85. By that stage the measures we have taken on superannuation, on the assets test and on the income testing of the over-70s-all the structural-type decisions the former Government should have taken responsibly instead of pork barrelling over the years-will have led to a diminution in the structural deficit in the out years and to the strengthening of private sector investment. Business knows that it would have nowhere to go with the people opposite. It knows that well and truly. It understands that, if there were to be a continuing withdrawal of public sector investment this year, we would see an horrendous recession even more serious than the one we have now. Ours is the only strategy for Australia at this time. We have not only the confidence of the majority of the Parliament, the Premiers and those people who attended the National Economic Summit Conference but also, I believe, the support of the broad majority of the Australian people for our strategy. Mr REEVES —Is the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism aware of an article which appeared in the Melbourne Age newspaper on Monday of this week regarding a committee investigating penalty rates in the tourist industry? Has the Minister set up such a committee? Is it true, as the article alleges, that there is no trade union representation on that committee? Mr JOHN BROWN —I thank the honourable member for his question. I did not give it to him; I did not need to. I did notice the article and I was offended by it. I was surprised that a journalist of the pre-eminence and reputation of Russell Barton would, without reference to me, write such an article based purely on information supplied by the honourable member for Higgins, who would not in any circumstance be regarded as an intellectual giant or a model of rectitude. Mr Shipton —Have you been telling the travel industry that you set up the committee? Mr JOHN BROWN —I did not set up that committee. That committee was set up by the Australian Tourist Commission on 23 March without reference to me. It does not include any union representation, but despite that weakness it is probably capable of doing some good work. There is a large lack of data regarding the effect that penalty rates have on the tourist industry. There is a popular misconception that the tourist industy is being held back to some huge degree by penalty rates. That is not the case. It is not the opinion that I have proffered . Despite the statements in the article, the comments I have made about penalty rates have not been made in secret. They have always been made in the public forum, including in this chamber at the National Economic Summit Conference in the company of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which, I might say, endorsed the remarks I made about the low level of base rates in the tourist industry and the very high level of penalty rates in some areas. Let me set that to rest. I have not set up an inquiry. The inquiry that is being conducted is being conducted by the Australian Tourist Commission without union representation. I hope that when that report comes to light-and it will-it will be referred to the Tourist Ministers Council, which represents all the departments responsible for tourism around Australia, in the Liberal States as well as the Labor States. When we get that report we will act-- Mrs Child —There is only one Liberal State. Mr JOHN BROWN —There are not many Liberal States left; the honourable member is right. When that report comes to light we will be in a better position to comment on the effect of penalty rates on the tourist industry. I am sure they will not be, as they are popularly misconceived to be, horrendous in every area. Certainly, in some areas they are. Because it is an industry that operates seven days a week, 24 hours a day, it has particular qualities that will necessitate a particular contribution by the trade union movement-and that will happen. I must say in defence of the Age that, as befits a newspaper of such stature and credibility, yesterday it withdrew with an article entitled 'We were wrong'. I think the best lesson has been learnt by Russell Barton, that lesson being that one learns nothing from fools. Mr ANTHONY —I direct my question to the Treasurer. How can he claim that the Budget is a responsible Budget when there will be an increase in Government expenditure of about 16 per cent? Is it not a fact that the Budget represents a return to the economics of the Whitlam years? Government members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. Mr ANTHONY —I appreciate that honourable members opposite still remember those disastrous years. Mr SPEAKER —I invite the right honourable member to proceed with his question. Mr ANTHONY —Those years represented big government spending, massive Budget deficits, massive taxation and high inflation. Mr KEATING —This is another question from the high outlay specialist, the master of pork barrelling, the man who has raised pork barrelling to an art form in his years in the narrow, sectional, confined interests of the miserable party he now calls the National Party. Let me make it quite clear that the growth in outlays last year was 18.5 per cent. This year it is 15.8 per cent. So I cannot quite see the point of the honourable gentleman's question. But in the course of this year we have seen the disastrous impact on the economy of the former Government' s policies. We have seen the economy in its deepest recession and an additional quarter of a million people unemployed. Of course, the Government has focused attention on those areas of greatest need but in doing so has taken a number of highly significant measures. We took $1,900m worth of discretionary revenue measures. We saved $1,200m of discretionary outlay measures, totalling $3,100m, and put in place thereof $2,500m of expenditure with a net saving of $650m. In other words, we have taken the responsible course of combing through the debris of the former Government's outlays and making the room for expenditures which were needed for those who are not able to help themselves-the people who had been forgotten by the coalition parties and who had taken the brunt of the failure of economic policy in recent times. We have given that stimulus to the economy which was needed in the areas of capital works, housing, health and education and in the other areas of priority. If ever there was a time when the public sector should be playing a significant role it is in this year-1983-84. The basis will be to maintain a floor of activity in the economy from which we can see a full recovery being mounted and upon which that fragile confidence which is now present will be built, strengthened and nurtured so that we see a full economic recovery in this country. I come back to the central strategy of the Budget which was to provide that fiscal stimulus, to focus assistance on those who need it and to do so within broad, responsible macroeconomic parameters which again, I suggest and claim, will receive the support of the great body of the Australian people. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the hopeful signs of economic recovery that have recently emerged, particularly, for example, in the housing industry in the electorate of Stirling, how long does the Prime Minister anticipate it will be before the Government's economic policies will produce growth in employment and a reduction in unemployment? Mr HAWKE —A number of encouraging signs are already pointing to recovery in the Australian economy. Industrial production seems to be stabilising after the significant and continuous rundown we had experienced under the previous Government. In respect of the housing industry there are considerable signs of increased activity. It is of interest to note that the unemployment rate has been stabilised at 10.3 per cent since April. For the last four months it has been held steady against the calamitous increase in unemployment which marked the latter stages of the last Government. In that respect I remind you, Mr Speaker, that in the last 12 months unemployment increased by 263,000. In respect of employment, in seasonally adjusted terms since July there has been an increase of 47,000 jobs which contrasts with the decline in employment in absolute terms which characterised the years of the previous Government. You must understand, Mr Speaker, as we explained to the Australian electorate during the last election campaign, that in a situation of economic recovery, which is now beginning to occur under the present Government, there will be a delay between the picking up of economic activity and significant falls in unemployment, because a number of basic economic factors operate to produce that effect. To some extent, there is a degree of labour hoarding. As output begins to increase, more overtime is worked and there is higher productivity. One also has the situation that one has to account for the increase in the labour force, which is of about 120,000, and one also has to take account of the fact that one has to get back into the work force the discouraged workers who, in the face of the previous recession, just pulled out of the work force. So we are right on track in the delivery of the specific promises that we made to the Australian electorate; that is, that we would arrest the explosion in unemployment and we would start to see the beginning of growth in employment. In respect of the target that we set of creating about half a million new jobs in our first term of government, we are looking at an increase in the first year of about 130,000, which puts us well on track to the achievement of that target. So every aspect of our analysis and promise in respect of unemployment and employment is on track. I want to say one more thing which is very important in respect of the question asked by the honourable member for Stirling, and that is that in achieving this growth in employment, the halting of the explosion in unemployment, it is very important to have an identifiable and workable wages policy in place. We have that. We have a return to a centralised wage fixation system which represents a consensus of view between this Government, the State governments, employers and the trade union movement. We have put to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that identifiable, equitable, efficient and sustainable wages policy which is widely recognised as being needed in this country. I ask members of this House and the Australian public to contrast that clearly identifiable, efficient and equitable wages policy that this Government is putting forward to the Arbitration Commission with the attitude of the parties opposite. They have no wages policy. They are hopelessly divided, still, between the shadow Minister and the shadow Treasurer. I ask you, Mr Speaker, not to depend just on the analysis from this Government of the total hopelessness of the Leader of the Opposition and those behind him. I commend for your consideration, Mr Speaker, and that of the honourable member for Stirling, the analysis in the editorial of the Sydney Morning Herald on 26 July. I refer to what the Sydney Morning Herald had to say about the Opposition in respect of this critical feature in determining the end to the unemployment explosion and the creation of jobs. This is what it had to say about the parties and the people opposite: By all accounts, the Opposition is still locked in an intense debate between supporters of a centralised wage-fixing system and supporters of a less- centralised system. This is a dispute which the party has carried over from Government: an unresolved conflict which left the Fraser Government's wages policy in disarray after the collapse of wage indexation in mid-1981. The editorial rightly refers to: Mr Peacock's difficulty in having to keep talking through a policy vacuum. In criticising the Leader of the Opposition for arguing against any wage rise this year, the editorial had this to say-and how pertinent it is: Mr Peacock was simply falling back on the old Liberal standby: wage rises are something to be deplored in all circumstances and at every opportunity. The evil hour of a pay rise is something to be postponed as long as possible. This is the sort of all-care-but-no-responsibility approach which has passed for wages policy under many coalition governments. It sounds nice-particularly to the ears of the Liberals' business supporters-but it achieves nothing. It is an approach which has repeatedly failed to prevent wage explosions during economic recoveries . . . Finally, the editorial concluded that the Labor Government's wages policy: . . . represents a refreshing change from the barren thinking on wages policy so far offered by the Liberals. Mr MOORE —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Following the beat-up of expectations about the Budget and the delivery of something quite different-- Government members interjecting- Mr MOORE —There must be a few guilty men around. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members will restrain themselves. The honourable member for Ryan should continue with his question. Mr MOORE —I ask the Treasurer whether he agrees with the comments of Mr Risstrom that he, the Treasurer, does not realise that the combined effect of the May mini-Budget and last night's statement is a staggering increase of 16 per cent in tax for a person who earns $15,000 a year. Mr KEATING —No, I do not agree with the comments. The net increase in pay-as-you- earn tax of 6.7 per cent reflects the general increase projected for average weekly earnings, and PAYE receipts would be higher, of course, other than for the tax cuts which were issued last year. But Mr Risstrom is including in his calculation the Government's changes to the health levy arrangements-Medicare- which are, of course, in substitution for the private health insurance premiums normally paid by taxpayers but which will now be paid under Medicare arrangements for a universal health insurance cover. One of the elements of Mr Risstrom's figuring was to apply part of that cost to the deduction for home mortgage interest. As I acknowledge, in May the Government quite reasonably changed, as a structural measure and as a priority measure, the provision which allowed home mortgage interest payments by middle and higher income earners on existing mortgages on property to be claimed as a tax deduction and refocused that money on first home ownership assistance to give the opportunity to obtain a home to people who previously did not have a home and to make it easier for Australians to have a home. We do not resile from or apologise for that change. The original scheme was one of the grab-bag measures which the previous Government thought it would introduce to ingratiate itself with the electorate. It should never have been introduced in the first place; it had no basis in equity and should not have been there. I do not agree with Mr Risstrom's calculation, and the Budget figuring stands for everyone to see. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I assume that the Minister for Primary Industry is aware of a report in the Primary Industry Newsletter of 1 August concerning a revision in the Australian Dairy Corporation's advertising arrangements and the resignation of its former marketing director, Mr Brendan Jones. Has the Minister been advised of the facts of this matter by his Department or by the Corporation and, if so, what are they? Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question and note that he takes a very close interest in dairy industry matters. I have seen the article in the August issue of the Primary Industry Newsletter. Both I and my Department maintain an arm's length relationship with the Australian Dairy Corporation in its day to day administration and internal management but, unlike the previous Government, this Government accepts some notions of ministerial responsibility. The circumstances of Mr Jones's resignation were reported by the Corporation to the Department which reported them to the Acting Minister for Primary Industry. The Acting Minister, Senator Walsh, then called for a full and detailed report from the Chairman of the Corporation. I have studied this report which shows that the Corporation has acted in this matter according to the legal advice it received. I believe that the action taken by the Australian Dairy Corporation has been proper and appropriate. Mr Jones was asked by the Chairman of the Australian Dairy Corporation to resign from his position with the ADC for non- disclosure of property transactions by him in a private capacity with the ADC's former advertising agency, Rees, Bertel, Maddocks and Reardon. The Corporation considered that such transactions should have been disclosed as they might reasonably be seen to involve a possible conflict between Mr Jones's duty as an ADC employee and his private interests. Mr McVEIGH —I ask the Treasurer whether he is aware of the Prime Minister's statement on AM this morning: We have been very careful not to impose any special burdens, beyond what is being asked of the rest of the community, upon the rural sector. In light of this statement, will the Treasurer explain why the Government, both in last night's Budget and the May mini-Budget, has broken specific election promises on income equalisation deposits, tax averaging, funding for wool promotion, excise on fortified wine, funding for the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign, funding for the national soil conservation program, reducing fuel prices and abolishing sales tax on the freight component of goods? In this Budget and the May mini-Budget has the primary industry sector been called upon to bear a greater share of the burden of economic restraint than other sectors? Mr KERIN —It is a bit rich for-- Mr McVeigh —I take a point of order. I asked the Treasurer to answer the question. Does his refusal to answer indicate that he hates Australian farmers? Mr SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr KERIN —It is a bit rich for any member of the parties that sit opposite to talk about broken promises when the previous Government raised the whole question of broken promises to an art form. I will not go through them all but I will state this: This Government came to office looking down the barrel of a Budget deficit of $10.4 billion due to the mismanagement of the people who sit opposite today. Today we live in a country where 3 million people are on the breadline, over 800,000 people are unemployed and Australia is in the worst economic situation since the Depression. This Government has acted responsibly. Despite the background in which this Budget was framed we increased the money available to primary industry by some 21 per cent. The Budget follows the National Economic Summit Conference, the prices and incomes accord and the May economic statement. What we are doing is setting about putting this economy right. It is in the long term interests of Australia's primary producers that we have a stable economy, that we bring down the rate of inflation and that we do not go on with the pork barrelling and lies that we were accustomed to under the previous Government. Let us look at the statements of honourable members opposite. The Leader of the Opposition says that the Budget should have been a lot tougher; the former Treasurer says that the Budget should have been a lot tougher. Some of the statements from honourable members opposite make the Australian Democrats look rather consistent and that is saying something. Mr Anthony, the Leader of the National Party of Australia, said in his Press statement that we should have spent at least $110m more. The question honourable members opposite have to answer is: Where would they have gone? Would they have wiped out the tax cuts which they gave last year? Would they have increased indirect taxes on the essentials of life? Would they have cut pensions or left people on the dole at the same old rate? What would they have done? It was the former Government that cut wool promotion by $6m in 1979-80. It was that Government's razor gang that froze the level of wool promotion funding at $ 20m over three years. It was that Government that in 1979 introduced the 50 per cent recoupment of inspection charges. It introduced legislation with respect to some commodities and put it in place from 1 January this year. The Opposition is humbug; its members represent humbug. It talks about broken promises when it was an expert at it. The one area of assistance to industry across the board which can be singled out is with respect to the steel industry. I am talking about our producing industry sectors. We came to office with a clear policy to preserve Australia's steel industry. This mob would have wiped out Australia's steel industry and wiped out three regional centres. That is the reason why we are doing something about it. When the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd is in trouble, because of the state of the economy that the previous Government put us in, it is essential to do something about our most basic industry. That is the only reason why we have to do so much; we have to preserve the structure of Australia's industries. Mr MILTON —Is the Minister for Communications aware of the profound unrest amongst the people of the Dandenong Ranges as a result of years of poor television reception? Is he further aware that the electorate office of the Federal member for La Trobe is being constantly beseiged by telephone calls and letters from constituents drawing attention to years of unfulfilled promises to improve television reception made by the previous Government and the apparent lack of action by the Federal Labor Government in the matter? Will he confirm that construction of the translators necessary to improve television reception will commence not later than July 1984? Mr DUFFY —The first point I would like to make is that the honourable member indicated that the problems have existed for many years. I remind him that this Government has been in office for less than six months. I am aware of the complaints that have been made to the electorate office of the honourable member for La Trobe, because he has passed those complaints on to me consistently and kept me informed on the matter. The present position is that the Department of Communications has recently conducted field surveys in the area to determine technical operating conditions for both commercial and Australian Broadcasting Corporation television. The Department is currently working with commercial licensees and the industry body- the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations-to reach agreement on outstanding details. The outstanding problem at the moment is that a major planning decision will have to be made regarding the spacing between television stations in the ultra high frequency or UHF band. It will have to be determined whether that spacing will be seven or eight megahertz. I expect that a decision on this matter will be made at about the same time as the negotiations with the licensees referred to earlier are completed. I expect that a statement on the technical difficulty will be made at the same time. I am , therefore, not in a position to give the honourable member a specific date for the commencement of construction. I assure the honourable member that the Department is proceeding with the utmost speed. I expect to be able to provide more definite information soon. Mr CADMAN —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. How many pensioner beneficiaries will lose their entitlements with the introduction of an assets test? How many will lose their pensioner health benefit card? Will the Government now scrap its new superannuation tax as the assets test removes any chance of what the Treasurer terms 'double dipping'? Mr KEATING —The honourable gentleman does not seem to have comprehended that the principal reason for addressing the superannuation changes was the discriminatory tax treatment which favoured those persons who were taking lump sums versus those who were taking superannuation pensions. Somebody who joined a superannuation fund on employment day one-- Mr Peacock —Double dipping, you said. Mr KEATING —Of course. At the time I also said that it would have a beneficial impact on the question of double dipping, which indeed it will have. But the principal factor is the addressing of the tax treatment. Let us take as an example two people who join a fund, go through their working lives and retire on the same day. One elects to take a superannuation pension and the other elects to take a lump sum payment. One is taxed on the basis of 5 per cent of the income and the other is taxed fully on the income. In other words, the person taking the superannuation pension would be taxed at about the standard rate of 30 per cent, whereas the person taking the lump sum payment would be taxed at a rate somewhere between 1.5 per cent and 3 per cent, depending on that person's marginal tax rate. In that respect the Government has addressed the equity questions relating to lump sum superannuation payments and has proposed a rate and basis of taxation which I believe is very fair. It has no element of retrospectivity about it. It will apply to a slow accrual of benefits from 30 June this year. Persons over 55 years of age will be taxed at a rate of 15 per cent on the first $50,000 and thereafter at the standard rate of 30 per cent. I have made those things clear in Press statements. As far as the other element of the honourable gentleman's question is concerned , because of the action taken by his Government in 1976 in unwinding the assets test, the Commonwealth now has no basis of information about the assets of pensioners. In the course of the collection of information under the assets test the Commonwealth will be in a position to make that assessment. The Prime Minister has already indicated the generosity of the test and the way in which it will apply. It is a test to which no reasonable Australian can take exception . Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SHIPTON —I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr SHIPTON —Mr Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence. I refer to a question which was answered in this House by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) in which I claim to have been misrepresented. The Minister, in answer to a question asked today, announced publicly for the first time the existence of an Australian Tourist Commission task force examining penalty rates. He unnecessarily attacked me for revealing the existence of this hitherto secret inquiry that he knew about and had been bragging about to the travel industry. In the Travel Trade magazine of 18-30 July he is reported as saying at a Women's Australian Travel League luncheon that a working party was making the first in-depth study. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member for Higgins that he has been granted permission to explain where he has been misrepresented, not what actions the Minister has taken. Mr SHIPTON —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will draw my explanation to a close. I have explained that the Minister said, in answer to a question, that the inquiry had now been set up. He was saying that I-- Mr Peter Morris —He called you a fool and you are proving it. Mr SHIPTON —The honourable member should just listen. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. When honourable members on my right cease interjecting the business of the House can go on. I would have thought that, as Ministers, they would have wanted that to happen. I call the honourable member for Higgins. Mr SHIPTON —Thank you for your support, Mr Speaker. The Minister, in his answer, made no reference to the statement that he made at the National Economic Summit Conference concerning a conference on penalty rates. He has also unfairly attacked a respected journalist. The facts are-- Mr Hurford —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable member is transgressing your ruling. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Housing and Construction got in ahead of me. If the honourable member for Higgins does not proceed to explain where he has been misrepresented I must ask him to resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Higgins. Mr SHIPTON —Mr Speaker, I will conclude by saying that the facts are that an inquiry has been set up and the Minister knew about it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Higgins will resume his seat Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Commonwealth-State Relations) —Pursuant to section 6 (2) of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978 I present reports prepared by the Australian Science and Technology Council on technological change and employment and incentives for innovation in Australian industry. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Commonwealth-State Relations) —Pursuant to paragraphs 9 (1) (A ) and (C) of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, I present a Human Rights Commission report on human rights and the deportation of convicted aliens and immigrants. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 48 of the Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979, I present the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation 1982 annual report. The report was made available to honourable members during the recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 37 of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act 1973, I present the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation 1982 annual report. The report was made available to honourable members during the recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 69 of the Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979, I present the final report of the Australian Canned Fruits Sales Promotion Committee. The report was made available to honourable members during the recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members I present a fisheries agreement between the Australian Government and the Kaohsiung Fishing Boat Commercial Guild. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members I present the resolutions of the 116th meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council held in Sydney, on 7 February 1983. The report was made available to honourable members during the recess. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation and Special Minister of State) —For the information of honourable members I present a report of the inquiry conducted by Sir Clarrie Harders into the disclosure of electoral expenditure. The report was made available to honourable members during the recess. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members I present the Australian Postal Commission's 'Service and Business Outlook' 1983-84. Ministerial Statement Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —by leave-I wish to deliver to the House a statement on the progress of the Export Inspection Service of the Department of Primary Industry. This statement is to inform the House of the measures taken by the Government in the area of primary produce inspection, measures that have been taken with the express purpose of improving the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the Export Inspection Service and at the same time to improve Australia's international competitiveness and reputation as a reliable and responsible exporter of primary produce. This Government's well developed rural policies recognise fully the important part primary industries play in our national economy. Australia's major rural industries are heavily dependent on export markets as outlets for their products. Indeed, over the past decade our major rural industries have become increasingly export dependent, with exports now accounting for around two-thirds of the gross value of agricultural production. Over the past five years Australian agriculture has accounted for an average of 45 per cent of all export income. However, this is only one side of the total picture. Although the proportion of primary products we export is high, they account for only a relatively small proportion of total world exports for most products, with the exception of wool. It is vital therefore for the survival of a number of our primary industries that Australia is regarded as a reliable supplier of products of the highest standard produced at an internationally competitive price. In developing its primary produce inspection policies, the Australian Labor Party was very aware of the great damage caused to the meat industry's reputation both here and overseas as a result of the meat substitution scandal of 1981. Our policies were developed and our efforts have been directed to ensure that such a situation will never again arise and place an entire industry in jeopardy. Following the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry, which was established to inquire into the 1981 meat substitution scandal, the meat inspection service was reorganised. On 16 March 1982, a new Export Inspection Service, or EIS, as it has become known, operating within the administrative framework of the Department of Primary Industry, formally commenced operations. It consolidated the inspection elements for all primary products including meat, fish, wheat and grains, dairy products, wool, fresh and processed fruit and vegetables, under one management umbrella. This consolidation was a necessary first step to pave the way for the establishment of an entirely new service. This Government is building on that foundation. The export value of the commodities inspected is about $7 billion a year. To operate the service, EIS currently employs some 2,600 staff. Most of those staff are employed on meat inspection. This Government remains convinced that the best way of significantly improving the efficiency of meat inspection and reducing costs is the establishment of a single national inspection service as proposed in the Australian Labor Party's rural policy. We have made, and are continuing to make, significant advances in achieving this goal. I will speak of these later. However, we are not standing by, waiting for the States to be convinced of the overwhelming advantages of a national inspection service. We are moving on with initiatives on many fronts and the introduction of new measures which, both individually and collectively, are consistent with our two principal objectives-a more efficient and cost effective inspection service. As I mentioned, the establishment of the Export Inspection Service heralded the start of a new look inspection service, fully attuned to the requirements of importing countries and committed to working with all sectors of primary industry in discharging its regulatory responsibilities and in improving Australia's international competitiveness. This Government has ensured that the inspection service has a clear charter. This charter will shortly be published as an element in a five-year corporate plan. It will express the objective as being the provision of an effective and economical inspection service for primary industry products to ensure they are safe and wholesome, informatively and honestly described, and that trade is facilitated. Achievements to Date In the short time it has been operating the new inspection service has achieved a great deal. The actions taken so far have been aimed at achieving an efficient and cost effective organisation run along commercial lines. Some of the more significant items include new legislation, a fundamental new system of trade descriptions for meat, based on objective measurement to come into operation on 1 October this year and new compliance monitoring measures. Additionally, inspection practices for all products are under active review with several at an advanced stage, and new inspection standards are being devised for all products. There has also been a strong emphasis on delegating responsibility to regional offices so that the inspection service operates on an increasingly decentralised management approach. Consultants have been engaged to determine the training needs of inspection staff; to examine the method of charging and study the feasibility of introducing a fee for service charging arrangement, to study and make recommendations on management and human resources; to study and recommend on the needs of the inspection service for greater use of computer technology; and to prepare a corporate plan for the Export Inspection Service. From the examples I have just given I trust that honourable members will appreciate that much has been done and much is still in the pipeline. In looking at the future of the inspection service, I am encouraged by the dedication and sense of responsibility of its staff, who frequently operate under difficult conditions. While the Government, as well as the industries concerned, are most anxious to see tangible savings from our efforts materialise as quickly as possible, I make the point that the really significant savings will flow from the reviews of inspection practices for all commodities, which are presently at various stages of completion, and about which I will speak shortly. Of course, it is not just a matter of the Government deciding to make major changes; they must be negotiated with importing countries, States and Territories. Also, this Government is committed to consultation as an essential element of the decision-making process and, accordingly, we place importance on working closely with industry and staff associations. We are determined to avoid the band-aid approach to inspection that has been so evident in the past and which has proved a dismal failure. I turn to some of the major areas of particular importance. Security and Integrity In a highly competitive world trading situation, it is essential that Australia is in a position at all times to be able to guarantee the integrity of the product we export. After the meat substitution scandal, it became necessary to substantially strengthen security to maintain access to key overseas markets. I am mindful that, while those security requirements have proved effective, they are costly both to industry and to the Government. Accordingly, much effort is being devoted to the development of equally effective, but less costly, security systems. Significant advances have already been made, including the development of a compliance program to prevent the entry into the export chain of ineligible products. A proven compliance program is a necessary key to securing the agreement of the United States to less restrictive controls. A senior official of the United States Department of Agriculture visited Australia in November last year and made recommendations on the development and reinforcement of the inspection service's compliance program . These recommendations have been vigorously pursued. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m. Mr KERIN —The compliance program, together with other initiatives, such as the development of inexpensive on-plant species test systems, will result in a less costly security system while ensuring the integrity of product and maintaining our credibility as a reliable exporter of meat and meat products. Following disclosure during the Royal Commission of malpractice by departmental inspection staff, an investigation unit has been established and specifically charged with ensuring the integrity of inspection service personnel and with thoroughly investigating allegations of malpractice relating to those personnel. Additionally, an integrity program is being further developed to stress the importance to this country of the inspection service being seen as a regulatory agency of high integrity. Meat Inspection Standards A second important area involves meat inspection standards. Veterinary and public health experts in Australia have recognised for some time that consideration should be given to alternatives to traditional inspection systems. The new systems are based on scientific evidence, new techniques, the changing disease status of livestock, and an emphasis on public health. These factors, together with the obvious need to standardise domestic and export inspection arrangements no doubt contributed to the Royal Commission recommendation that common standards of construction, hygiene and meat inspection should apply in Australia. The Australian Agricultural Council supported this recommendation and endorsed the principle that such standards should apply to those overseas markets which would accept them. A task force has been established in the service to look into these complex issues and already draft standards on construction of abattoirs have been prepared and discussed with the States and the Northern Territory and a code of practice is presently being developed. Draft standards for meat processing establishments and equipment have also been prepared and circulated to the States and Northern Territory for comment and discussion. A key feature of the inspection service's approach to the standards question has been that there should be a progressive development of hygiene and quality control to industry, with the inspection service concentrating its efforts on public health, the mandatory requirements of overseas countries, and monitoring industry activities to ensure inspection standards are maintained. A detailed analysis of inspection procedures has been carried out and quality control schemes are being developed in conjunction with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The new concepts have been discussed with inspection authorities in the United States of America, Canada, the European Economic Community and a number of its member countries. Australia has been complimented on the initiatives shown. It is obvious that there is a growing realisation internationally of the need to re-evaluate meat inspection procedures in the light of modern knowledge and Australia is in the forefront of these developments. The stage has now been reached where detailed discussions are about to begin with industry, the States, the Northern Territory and staff associations. The Government considers their support and co-operation are absolutely necessary to trial successfully and introduce the new proposals. I now turn to the need to improve Australia's international competitiveness in primary products. It is vitally important that through our high standards and ability to meet specific market requirements Australia place itself in the most favourable light with importing countries. To do this it is necessary that close consultation be maintained both with importing countries-in order to determine their requirements-and with Australian industry to ensure how best we can meet such requirements. There are two outstanding examples of significant developments in this are-firstly, in the introduction of objective trade descriptions and, secondly, in halal certification for entry of meat to Islamic markets. In April I announced that revised objective descriptions for Australia's meat exports will be introduced from 1 October 1983. The Export Inspection Service has been working closely with the meat industry to ensure the changeover is a smooth one. The new system is a major advance that will assist domestic marketing initiatives, such as computer selling, and enhance Australia's competitiveness and reputation on the export market. In today's highly competitive international meat trade, the ability accurately and consistently to provide the product sought by buyers is a major factor in enhancing Australia's trade position. Intelligent use of the revised trade descriptions should also lead to increased sales of higher quality meats in the more exacting tourist and table trades in Asian markets. The revised product descriptions have also been developed for application to the domestic meat market. States are currently examining the changes necessary to their legislation. Agreement on the new descriptions was reached after extensive consultation between the inspection service and State departments of agriculture, the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, industry organisations and Australia' s major overseas customers. The new system will replace the existing subjective first, second and third grades which often do not match the preferences of importing countries and will overcome the problems of maintaining uniform standards throughout the country. I also referred to halal certification. In the Middle East and elsewhere, the Islamic markets for Australian meat are extremely valuable; for the embattled sheep meat industry, they are critical. For these markets, meat must come from animals slaughtered in strict accordance with Islamic ritual, and be certified by a responsible Muslim as halal, which means suitable for consumption by Muslims. To ensure Islamic confidence in the halal status of Australian meat, the inspection service has introduced a scheme to endorse, as authentic documents, halal certificates issued by recognised Australian Islamic bodies. It is proposed that this interim scheme be replaced in the near future with a totally new system of halal slaughter control. The proposed new system is a joint venture between the Export Inspection Service, the Australian meat industry and the Australian Muslim community. It will provide a level of confidence in the halal status of our meat which will be unique in the non-Islamic world, and will provide a valuable marketing point. The new system of halal slaughter and certification is an example of the inspection service moving into a non-traditional inspection area, in the interests of the trade. Those responsibilities which can be discharged most efficiently by meat processing company employees have been left to company employees with service inspectors largely undertaking a monitoring role. New Legislation The inspection service is now operating under its own legislation, the Export Control Act. Under the Export Control Act the total legislative framework for export inspection is being fundamentally rebuilt. A new approach is being used involving the development of ministerial orders, a mechanism which allows for the speedy amendment to the legislative base in order to meet changed situations or new demands. Already draft ministerial orders covering halal certification, objective trade descriptions and certain requirements relating to the security of export product have been circulated to industry for comment. Over the next 12 months, comprehensive orders relating to inspection practices and controls will be issued for all commodities under the control of the inspection service. These orders will also detail criteria used to determine the integrity of owners and operators of export establishments to ensure the continued uninterrupted access of Australian products to those markets. Basis for Future Charging of Inspection Services Another major development is the basis for future charging of inspection services. Present charging arrangements provide little financial incentive for individual companies to use inspection resources in a more efficient manner with the consequential effect of reducing their costs. I believe that this is an essential ingredient of any effective charging arrangement. Industry is entitled to be provided with an efficient inspection service if it is paying part of the cost. However, this service should be tailored to the specific level of inspection required, which in turn should be based on a company's approach to quality control and track record. An examination of the basis for the Department 's present charging arrangements for all inspection services is being undertaken by a firm of consultants. They have been asked to recommend a more cost effective and equitable recovery system, with particular emphasis on the fee for service concept. I expect that their report will be available shortly. There will be consultation with industry and other relevant bodies before the Government takes a final decision on any revised charging arrangement. Inspection Practices for Products Other Than Meat The importance of primary products other than meat, such as wheat and grains, wool, dairy products, fish, and fresh and processed fruit and vegetables whose export trade exceeds $4,500m annually, has not been lost sight of in the development of comprehensive inspection procedures. A fundamental review of all inspection procedures for these products is well advanced. Inspection in these areas ensures that basic standards of production, hygiene, and fitness for consumption are maintained. It also seeks to ensure that Australian products remain acceptable and competitive on international markets. Similarly to meat, the reviews are aimed at ensuring that export inspection is both efficient and cost effective. It is also critical that inspection criteria be objectively oriented. Where inspection takes the form of random product monitoring it must be based on sound statistically-validated sampling techniques. Several significant developments are worth mentioning. They include: a new quality assurance approach to inspection for processing establishments which have effective in-house quality control regimes; development of a system of inspection for other exporters, where appropriate, which would be tailored to the exporter's past record of compliance with regulatory requirements; development of simplified and streamlined trade description and documentation requirements; rationalised and simplified export standards which will, importantly, be tailored to levels necessary to maintain access to overseas markets, and will also take account of relevant domestic standards; an optional system of quality grading to replace the mandatory grading currently applicable to some products. It is planned that the new proposals will take full effect from July 1984. In the meantime, the improvements will be progressively introduced and tested, in full consultation with industry and inspection staff. Importantly, reassessment and revision of product standards and inspection procedures will continue in consultation with industry after that time so that the revised system can be monitored and new developments in technology and exporting requirements can be quickly accommodated. The introduction of the system of ministerial orders under the Export Control Act will be a central part of this process. Continuing dialogue has been maintained with the fishing, dairy, honey, dried fruit and export grain industries and proposals in these areas are well advanced . A number of significant changes have already been introduced. A special task force of State and Commonwealth officers has been established to review standards and procedures for the inspection of fresh fruit and vegetables and other horticultural products. Approaches to industry for discussions in these areas are currently being made. Initial proposals are also shortly to be put to canned and processed fruit and vegetable processors for comment. In respect of some specific product categories, significant changes have been made. For example, following extensive consultation with industry, government involvement has been reduced for the export of shrimp and scollops; negotiations are under way to obtain a memorandum of understanding with the United States of America which will allow access for Australian oysters to that large and important market; in the dairy product area, export controls on products that contain refined tallow have recently been rationalised; the dried fruit export industry has already benefited from amendments to processing and product requirements which simplify inspection procedures, and further changes are under way; and a review of plant health certification of exports as required by importing countries under the international plant protection convention has identified where procedures can be further strengthened to facilitate Australian trade in field crops. I welcome the development by bulk handling authorities of automated sampling systems for large grain export terminals; this allows effective inspection to be maintained while enabling the benefits of higher out- loading rates to be realised. In the horticultural area indications are that significant increases in commercial production are imminent, especially for sub-tropical fruits. In anticipation of increased exports, much closer contact is being developed with quarantine and other relevant authorities in countries where potential markets exist. On the basis of information obtained as a result of the closer contact, the inspection service is actively involved in assisting and advising exporters on technical aspects of developing potential markets as well as advising on the out-turn of consignments of horticultural products. Training and Manpower Planning I now turn to two other very important aspects of the operations of the Export Inspection Service-training and manpower planning. Training requirements have increased considerably as a result of deficiencies highlighted in the Royal Commission report as well as the many changed inspection procedures and practices to which I have referred. The Australian Labor Party's rural policy provides for the retraining of inspection staff to meet the new standards. This is a crucial element in the new look inspection service and in implementing the changes under way. Accordingly, the Government has provided funds in 1983-84 for this purpose. The effective and efficient use of a work force comprising 2,600 staff located throughout Australia and operating in largely seasonal industries subject to often unpredictable highs and lows in production can be achieved only by the flexible management of resources on a national basis. To this end, a number of initiatives are in place and others are under development to make better use of manpower resources and to achieve economics of scale nationally. Modern computer technology is being used to develop an Australia-wide man-power system which allows regional offices to plan for, and respond to, the day to day needs of industry, while at the national level, facilitating medium to long term planning in areas such as transfers between States, recruitment levels and training. National Inspection Service I move now to the matter of a national inspection service. For some time the Australian Labor Party has advocated the establishment of a single national meat inspection service. We remain convinced that, if real cost savings and efficiencies are to be achieved in meat inspection, there must be an integrated national inspection service which covers all aspects of the export and domestic meat industry. The concept is not new. It has been recommended by a number of inquiries and supported by the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry. Because this Government places such importance on the matter, we have pursued it vigorously, and I am pleased to advise honourable members that significant advances have been recently made towards achieving a national service. However, before coming to these developments I would like to outline the basis of a national inspection service, the major advantages that it offers over the present arrangements and to give honourable members a few details of how it will operate. We firmly believe there are a number of advantages of a single national service which collectively cannot be obtained by any other arrangement. Some of these are that it would eliminate the existing fragmentation between export and domestic inspection and provide for a uniform system of inspection across Australia; provide for national control over the meat chain with resultant increase in security but at a reduced cost compared to present arrangements; increase flexibility in the use of staff, allowing peaks and troughs in production, a feature of the meat industry, to be more readily accomodated; provide a single uniform fee structure; make reform in inspection procedures at the national level more easy to achieve; and give producers, processors, State and Commonwealth governments and employee organisations the opportunity for greater participation in the efficient operation of the service. The existing foundation for a single national service is larger than is generally recognised. Of the 2,450 full time meat inspectors employed in Australia at 1 July this year, 1980 or 80 per cent were employed by the Commonwealth's Export Inspection Service. The number of State and Northern Territory full time inspectors working in non-export establishments was approximately 310 or only some 13 per cent of total full time meat inspectors in Australia. Of all meat produced in Australia, approximately 85 per cent is produced at export establishments under the control of the Commonwealth's Export Inspection Service. I come now to the present situation. Honourable members may be aware that on 1 July this year the responsibility for domestic meat inspection in New South Wales passed to the Commonwealth along with the staff formerly employed by the New South Wales domestic Meat Inspection Service. This transfer is particularly important and welcomed by the Government because it will mean by the end of this year the establishment in that State of a single meat inspection service with full integration of the domestic and export inspection services. A number of areas have already been identified where cost savings can be brought about through more efficient use of resources and a full scale review has been commenced. The dual fee at export works has already been eliminated in New South Wales. A further and more recent development has occurred in respect of Victoria. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) recently received a letter from the Victorian Premier indicating his Government's willingness to participate with the Commonwealth in examining possible arrangements for the establishment of a single inspection service. Should Victoria agree to join a national inspection service, the Commonwealth would then employ in the vicinity of 92 per cent of the full time inspection work force and a single national meat inspection service would be close to reality. With the other States and the Northern Territory, there have been high level discussions on the single service proposal and I am aware they have the matter under active consideration. I am convinced of the benefits of a single national inspection service and I remain optimistic that such an arrangement can be achieved in a spirit of co- operation between the Commonwealth and the States. In concluding let me assure all honourable members that this Government is determined that Australia gain the benefits which will flow from an efficient and effective inspection service and we will ensure that the present momentum is continued. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs) —by leave-On behalf of the Opposition I must express considerable disappointment at the tone and the attitude the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) adopted in his statement. It is disappointing to find that the Minister has not given due recognition to the initiatives developed by the previous Minister. If the previous Minister has a portable radio with him while he is hoeing thistles on his farm in East Gippsland today he will be extremely disappointed that no acknowledgment has been made of the tremendous amount of progress he made in this area. The Minister has not even changed the rug on the animal; he is using the same rug as the previous Minister used. I wish to give the Minister a little advice. Many years ago an old Persian poet called Omar Khayyam, in speaking about such people as the Minister, who likes to take credit for things he has not achieved, said: 'Ah, take the cash and let the credit go'. The old Persian poet was simply indicating that such people might get glory in the short term but in the long term people will wake up to them. They do not come up with new ideas but basically try to build on the excellent foundations laid down by a predecessor. In truth, virtually all of the announced changes were put in train by the previous Government and the previous Minister, the Hon. Peter Nixon. For example , the Minister said that the Australian Labor Party, in developing its primary produce inspection policies was very aware of the damage done by the meat substitution scandal. He was obviously implying that the previous Government was not aware of that damage. That is completely and utterly untrue. The truth is that the Australian Labor Party, in putting together its policies for export inspection, simply ripped off the policies and initiatives that were put in train by the previous Government. For example, the Minister made reference to the meat inspection service being reorganised. That was started and was well on the way to completion under the previous Government. The Minister said that the best way to improve the efficiency of meat inspection and to reduce costs is by establishing a single meat inspection service. What originality! It must have taken him hours to think of that. That was the previous Government's policy exactly. The Minister claimed that his Government had ensured that the inspection service had a clear charter. It was the previous Government that set such a charter, such a program, in train. The Minister tried to take credit for the appointment of private sector consultants to determine the training needs of inspection staff, examine the method of charging, study and make recommendations on management and human resources and study the need for greater use of computer technology. The concept of appointing such outside consultants was developed by the previous Government, not the Labour Administration. The preparation of a corporate plan for the Export Inspection Service was also one of our initiatives. Similarly, it was the Fraser -Anthony Government which accepted the recommendations of the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry. We moved on such recommendations as common standards of construction, hygiene and meat inspection. We developed ministerial orders. We initiated changes to the halal slaughter and certification procedures . We initiated discussions with our overseas traders on quality, security and inspection standards. We introduced the Export Control Act and several other pieces of legislation all aimed at ensuring the future integrity and reputation of our export meat trade and exports of other rural products. As a result of actions taken by the previous Government-not this Government-the Minister for Primary Industry can stand before this House and state, quite correctly, that Australia has been complimented by its trading partners on the initiatives it has shown and that Australia is in the forefront of these developments. It is a pity that the Minister is not prepared to give credit where credit is rightly due-to the previous Minister for Primary Industry and the previous Government. While on the matter of standards required of the importing countries I think it is worth giving consideration to the standards that we in Australia impose on those countries that export primary products to us. It is all right for us to have very high standards, but what about the standards in the countries from which we import on the occasions when we need to top up local productions? We have consistently recognised that unless we meet the very rigorous requirements of some of our trading partners, particularly the United States of America, in regard to meat exports we will lose those markets. Of course, that is fair enough but I see no reason why we should not develop equally tough standards for the import of goods into this country. For example, there were reports recently that some cheese imported from the European Economic Community was contaminated. Frankly, I do not believe that that is good enough protection of our various industries on behalf of the Australian consumer. I believe it would have been far more appropriate if the Minister, instead of uttering platitudes and claiming credit where it is not due , had come into this House and indicated to us a very strong position and point of view. We should insist on any nation exporting goods to us being able, at the very least, to match our own domestic production requirements. I realise that this is currently a matter for the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) but I believe it is appropriate to raise this point. Quite obviously the Minister either is not interested in this matter or is completely unaware of it. It is absolutely essential that we safeguard standards in Australia. If these very tough and desirable standards are to be imposed on us equally the Minister, who goes overseas quite a lot, should be tough in his representations to the other countries and make sure that these high standards prevail for imports into Australia. Quite obviously this statement basically amounts to nothing new. The Minister has told us virtually nothing we did not already know and it took him a jolly long time to tell us. For example, on the matter of future charging for inspection services, he said that a report by private consultants should be available shortly on a more cost-effective and equitable recovery system with particular emphasis on the fee for service concept. This examination has been under way for something like 18 months. It is disappointing that the Minister has no real news to offer on this area. It would have shown good administrative ability if he could have come into the House and told us what has happened, as the consultants have been 18 months preparing the report. More significantly, this whole matter of the inspection procedures goes to the real heart of the inspection problem. The Department of Primary Industry, which conceded before the Royal Commission that the then service was inefficient, drew up fundamental proposals for change and improvement. Firstly, it recommended that there should be greater decentralisation of management of meat inspection away from Canberra. I can understand why the Australian Labor Party does not like that because it likes to have all things centralised in Canberra where it can control them. Secondly, the Department said that there should be a greater shift of responsibility to meatworks management to ensure that meat inspection and security procedures are carried out properly and that, therefore, DPI activity is more of a monitoring role. Thirdly, it was recommended that a fee for service be introduced. These recommendations were not only taken up by the Royal Commissioner in his report, they were also taken up by the previous Government and were applauded by the industry. Yet the industry has been told absolutely nothing further about the progress that has or has not been made. As I understand it, the only progress that has been made has been a blossoming in staff numbers at the Export Inspection Service in Canberra. But, that aside, the industry will learn from this statement today that no real progress has been made and that the Minister is still awaiting a consultant's report. I am sure the industry will be far from pleased at that piece of non-news, especially after the Government, in its Budget introduced last night, hiked its inspection charges from $1.80 per head to $5.40 per head-a massive increase. I have no doubt that the industry will adopt the view the Government, in savagely increasing export inspection charges at this time, is basically saying that producers should pay a greater fee for propping up a continuing inefficient service. We all recognise that a great deal of work has gone on in the Department of Primary Industry and the Export Inspection Service. Most of that work has gone on as a result of initiatives of the previous Government. But how this Government can expect producers to pay massively increased export inspection charges when the basically needed changes to the system are not yet in place- indeed, are not even off the consultant's drawing board-is beyond comprehension. I do not deny that we in government had a policy of increasing the cost recovery of inspection services to 50 per cent. But we would not have been so ignorant of the needs of primary producers to have imposed slugs like this at a time when farmers can least afford to pay them-when they are struggling to survive from the effects of the worst drought in history. The timing of these increases is utterly despicable and displays the total contempt and lack of interest of the Labor Party in the rural sector. Let me turn to the matter of a single meat inspection service. The Minister heralds the transfer of the New South Wales service to the Commonwealth as being particularly important and welcomed by the Government. What a hide! The offer was made to and welcomed and accepted by the previous Government. We had worked towards the establishment of a single meat inspection service for a very long time. We laid the groundwork which is now turning into reality. The Labor Party can claim no kudos from the progress that has been made towards the establishment of a single service and the Minister should not try to do so. I notice also that in a very long-winded speech the Minister has made no mention of conditions of service for those officers who may transfer from a State to the Commonwealth service. I trust that he will ensure, as the previous Government did with regard to New South Wales, that any State inspectors who transfer to the Commonwealth will at least be able to retain their current conditions of pay and service and will suffer no detriment. This is a very important point for the people concerned and I think the Minister should be prepared to give them an absolute and categoric public assurance that they will lose nothing by transferring to the Commonwealth. I hope also that he will indicate to the workers in this area that it happened to be a National Party member who drew this matter to his attention in the debate. The National Party holds to a philosophy which aims at helping all people in the community and not just sections of it. I cannot understand why someone who claims to represent the labourers of Australia and the workers in a meat inspection service did not, in response to a very long report, indicate that these meat inspectors would not suffer any detriment in the transfer from a State to a Commonwealth authority. As a final point I refer to the opening remarks in the Minister's statement. He said: This Government's well developed rural policies recognise fully the important part primary industries play in our national economy. Statements such as that leave me totally bewildered. They are simply not true. What this Government has done, in both its mini-Budget and in last night's Budget, is to discriminate blatantly against the primary industry sector. In both of these Budget exercises, the Government has forced the primary industry sector to bear a greater share of the burden of economic restraint than any of the other sectors. In the mini-Budget, in last night's Budget and during the intervening period, the Government has broken a fistful of promises to primary industry. Its entire attitude towards farmers makes a complete mockery of the often stated commitment of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to ensuring the viability of Australia's 'great primary industries' and his 'equality of sacrifice' philosophy. It makes a complete joke of the Minister's pious statement in his policies for rural Australia that 'Labor is determined to implement the rural policy package'. He has not done very well up to this stage. The Minister is not implementing his package; he is tearing it apart day by day. This statement from the Minister tells us nothing new of substance. That is disappointing. I trust that the Minister will give us the benefit of a proper and informative statement on the progress of this highly important subject when more positive progress has been made. I sincerely hope-although I do not have much confidence about it-that this will be in the very near future. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Honourable Boyamo Sali, MP, Minister for the Media in Papua New Guinea. On behalf of the House, I extend to him a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Ministerial Statement Debate resumed. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister seeks my indulgence to make a personal explanation. He may proceed. Mr KERIN —I claim to have been misrepresented. This statement is not a partisan document. I am not claiming credit for it. I simply wished to place on record- because the Australian people are not generally aware of it-the progress being made by the Export Inspection Service. The whole statement concentrated on the progress of the Service. At page 2 I said quite clearly that the Service was introduced and started on 16 March 1982. I should have thought that the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) would recall that that was when Peter Nixon was the Minister. I am not taking credit for the work of private consultants that the honourable member seems to be slamming. He cannot have it both ways. If he knew anything about the employees in the New South Wales takeover he would know that most of the negotiation concentrated on this matter. This is merely a statement presented to the Parliament in a non-partisan way to inform the Australian people and Australian producers of progress with the Export Inspection Service. It is a great pity that the honourable member cannot accept a statement giving information in a non-partisan way from a Minister in this House without trying to make a few piddling, cheap political points. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Darling Downs claims to have been misrepresented. He may proceed. Mr McVEIGH —I shall be very brief, Mr Deputy Speaker, as always. I think that the Minister is very sensitive. If he has time to read his rather long speech- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will simply state where he has been misrepresented. Mr McVEIGH —The Minister conveyed that I had misrepresented him. If he reads the statement, he will see that the word 'I' is repeated on many occasions, which means that it was his point of view. I thought that he was having eye trouble and that he should see an optometrist. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —by leave-I thank the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) for the time given to me. The Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry recommended, at page 267 of its report, that: So far as is practicable, in the light of overseas requirements and sound meat inspection practices, managements should be encouraged to take over responsibilities for work on the chain now performed by meat inspectors. The numbers of meat inspectors should be correspondingly reduced but, on average, their work should become more responsible and call for greater experience and higher personal qualities. The introduction of approved quality controls and compliance checking methods may enable numbers of inspectors to be reduced in other areas also. Such possibilities should be regularly reviewed. For very many reasons, including the type of my electorate, I gave evidence to the Commission. I am not aware of how many people gave evidence of that nature, but I certainly did. Therefore, I take some credit for that recommendation. The reason behind it-and it is a warning that I give to the Minister in his role in attempting to get a national meat inspection service-is the fact that the Minister, too, must then answer to my constituents and other rural constituents for the cost. The cost of the service has now been identified at, presumably, $ 10.80 for the inspection of a single bullock. That is a huge cost. As I commented this morning to some of my constituents, it does not sound much when one is talking about one bullock, but when one is selling 100 it is a lot of money, and that is not an unusual quantity of stock. Mr McVeigh —It is still a lot for one, though, isn't it? Mr TUCKEY —It is a lot of money, and it is sometimes questionable as to how one might get to that position. The Minister would have some difficulty personally in changing that, because, unfortunately, it is my experience that Senator Walsh makes the decisions when it comes to money, and the Minister goes out and makes the promises. That is a pity, because I am sure that if Senator Walsh left him to his own resources he would better serve my constituents. However, it seems that we have that arrangement, and that is the way it will remain. I should like to address myself to cost. The cost is best exemplified by circumstances which occurred in my electorate and to which I drew the attention of the House at the time. I referred to the Tip-Top Abattoir in my electorate, which was run by a local authority inspection service. It was not a small abattoir. It provided 10 meat inspectors. At that time-this was some time ago, but I do not think that relative costs have changed-a charge for Federal services was $1.80 per bullock; for shire services it was $1.25. There was a massive difference. The massive difference was that the shire was obliged to operate exclusively and entirely on that charge of $1.25 whereas, according to Mr Kelly, in his report at the time, the $1.80 was barely covering 25 per cent to 30 per cent of Commonwealth costs. The reason why we have seen this massive increase in the last couple of years is that we are now coming to grips with the real cost. If one asks oneself the reason for the cost, one finds that much of it lies with the requirements of Federal inspectors. I warn the Minister that he should not proceed to a Federal service on the lines on which it is currently constructed. Obviously, we are the national representative body with which other importing countries wish to deal. They expect us to take the final decision. But if we continue with the practice of two levels of inspectors, two lots of Australians, at an abattoir not using the same showers and lunch room, we need not wonder why there is this cost. If anyone doubts that, he has only to visit this abattoir. That was union policy-the Meat Inspectors Association policy. I have a photocopy of a letter from the Australian Bureau of Animal Health, in which Mr R. D. Hartwell, Veterinary Officer in Charge, Western Australia, said: This Department's firm policy is not to share amenities with other inspection personnel. The union was so powerful as to convince the Department that it was the Department's policy, and when the matter was taken up it was found that it was union policy, not Department policy, and that was admitted by the union as well. Here is the situation, and people wonder why we have this cost. The important point I wish to raise is that in America today quality control is now a responsibility of the manufacturer. I accept that that does not apply to meat inspection and that the United States still has government meat inspectors. But the Americans are moving, and moving as the Royal Commissioner recommended, to a situation in which that responsibility will lie with the abattoir concerned . In a seasonal and cyclical industry, it is ridiculous to suggest that a central government should be supplying the nuts and bolts of a meat inspection service, and that is what meat inspectors are. The average slaughterman can be trained to be a meat inspector in a very short time. It is not the skilful job that many claim it to be. It is a matter of knowing and remembering certain things and carrying out certain processes. The job can be learnt fairly quickly by people who understand the meat industry. Those who learn the job should be the employees of the abattoir concerned. We can bet that, if that was to happen, those abbatoirs would not have overstaffing or worry about that aspect. I take the Minister's point. He made the point that, whilst there is a charge per beast , there is no concern on the part of the abattoir as to how many meat inspectors are out the back having a smoke if the abattoir is a bit short of stock on a given day. Were the abattoir responsible by one means or another for the wages of those inspectors-preferably because they were its employees-it would be extremely concerned about the number of inspectors it had on the job and the type of people it employed. The other question is this: Where would the Commonwealth fit in? Quite clearly, the Commonwealth would provide overall supervision, which is the only requirement that importing countries impose upon us. I went to a lot of trouble with the previous Minister to establish that that was the fact. If that were to occur in a major works we would have a single well-paid and well-qualified employee to ensure that the works were conducted in the proper fashion and that the qualifications held by the plants' meat inspectors met the requirements of our legislation. These are the types of things we have to do if we are ever to get that cost reduced from $10.80 to something which the rural producers can afford. It would be ridiculous for anybody to suggest that abattoirs pay these fees. I know that the abattoirs have gone so far as to claim that this would be a great burden on them. Quite obviously they would adjust the prices that they bid at market to include that fee. They do not pay it; the producer pays it because he is at the end of the line. He can turn in any direction he likes but there is nobody to whom he can pass on his costs. There is a huge responsibility on the Commonwealth. I agree entirely that the dual fee is ridiculous. I have never been able to see why that matter cannot be simply resolved. Whatever the works, only one fee should be involved. The works in Northam can be run by the Northam shire for something like $200,000 a year. When the Commonwealth proposed to move in, the cost jumped over 100 per cent. One of the reasons was that the shire managed to send its inspectors from the city of Perth for $7,000 a year, and the estimated cost for the Commonwealth to do it was $43,000 a year. These are the sorts of things that occur when we try to direct these types of service from Canberra. It will not work and it should not have to work, as I said, at the nuts and bolts level. I am not here to criticise the Minister or the future that he proposes. I am here to suggest to him that, if he believes he has an obligation to producers and, of course, to Commonwealth expenditures, he should look closely at the suggestions that I am making. I was cross-examined at the Royal Commission by the representative of the Meat Inspectors Association. I answered all his questions and I was proud to note that the Royal Commissioner saw that this is the way we should be going. I think it should be sooner rather than later. I warn the Minister that every time he creates a new member of the Meat Inspectors Association his job of getting the cost down will be harder. The quicker he responds to some of my suggestions, which are quite practical, the better. Any time he has a spare moment, I will flesh them out in detail. I have addressed myself to the problem at length, and the suggestion I make today is constructive . I thank the House and the Minister for their time. Report and Ministerial Statement Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —For the information of honourable members, I present the interim ninth annual report 1982-83 of the Health Insurance Commission and seek leave to make a statement concerning the report. Leave granted. Dr BLEWETT —Mr Deputy Speaker, when I announced on 24 May 1983 that the Health Insurance Commission had been chosen to administer the payment of medical benefits under the Medicare program I gave several reasons for that decision. I said: The Health Insurance Commission already operates Australia's biggest health and medical insurance fund. It is the only organisation with experience in operating an Australia-wide fund and it is generally recognised that the Health Insurance Commission's way of dealing with cash payments is superior . . . with its nationwide network of branches already established the Health Insurance Commission, in operating Medicare, will provide convenient and efficient services for Australians and their families. The Government will shortly introduce into the Parliament the Medicare package of legislation which will, among other things, give effect to Cabinet's decision to have the Health Insurance Commission pay medical benefits under Medicare. This decision was not taken lightly or without proper consideration of the alternative methods of administration available. There is no doubt that the administration of Medicare by a single organisation with one set of management overheads and one system of claims payment is central to the Medicare concept. The administration of Medicare by one organisation is without doubt the most cost efficient of all the alternatives considered by the Government. Over 60 funds presently handle medical benefits payments. This pluralism has resulted in expensive levels of service to the Australian public and has not facilitated the prompt detection of fraudulent behaviour by a small group of medical providers. The Government's decision, however, will mean that, after 1 February 1984, the Health Insurance Commission will be able to provide not only a level of service equivalent to that which is now being provided but also a level of service which will in fact be superior and at a lower total administrative cost. The detection of fraud and overservicing which under the previous Government cost the Australian taxpayer untold millions of dollars each year will be made easier. The Health Insurance Commission also has the responsibility for processing direct billing claims made by doctors. A major objective is to reduce the present unacceptably long delays in processing direct billing claims to the point where direct billing claims will be mailed within five working days of receipt. The Commission's interim ninth annual report for 1982-83 provides further evidence that the Government's confidence in the Health Insurance Commission has not been misplaced. The Government believes that it is appropriate that before the Medicare legislation is adopted, the most detailed and recent report of the Commission's activities be placed before the Parliament. The report shows, beyond doubt, that the Health Insurance Commission is an efficient organisation and on a sound financial footing. The Commission has reported a trading surplus for the year of $18.1m compared with a surplus of $14.5m in the previous year. Its net assets have grown to $58.5m. Its management expenses have fallen to 10 per cent of contribution income-a figure fully comparable with the private sector of the health insurance industry. These matters are shown graphically at pages 4, 8, 14 and 29 of the interim report. More significantly, in the light of previous criticisms the performance indicators compare very favourably with those of the health insurance industry as a whole. Because of different methods of accounting there has always been some doubt that apples were being compared with apples and pears with pears. The Commission has given a lead in this area, so that a uniform means of performance measurement in the health insurance industry can be developed. I will certainly be taking an interest in further progress of this initiative. This is not the only initiative exhibited by the Commission. In its report last year it invited attention to negotiations it was having with the Private Hospitals Association with a view to paying benefits consistent with the nature of the services and facilities provided by the Hospitals. I am pleased to say that that initiative is being adopted and applied by the Government in its Medicare program. Mr Deputy Speaker, I should say at this point that, as announced in the Budget Speech by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the Government has decided that the Health Insurance Commission should repay to the Commonwealth by 30 June 1984 the initial capital of $10m provided for Medibank Private. This decision will, of course, be reflected in the Commission's next annual report. It provides further evidence of the successful nature of the Commission's operations. The success of the Medicare program will, of course, ultimately be judged by the level of service provided to the Australian community after 1 February 1984. The brief history of the Commission, which commences at page 6 of the report, shows that in a little over a year the world's largest on-line health insurance claims system was designed, developed, tested and implemented and an entirely new computer network was planned and installed. The fruits of that development are seen in the fact that claims for payment by cheque are usually processed on the day of receipt so that in most cases a member would receive a cheque in the mail within three to four days of lodging a claim. The Governmnt fully expects the Health Insurance Commission to be able to bring the Medicare system to the same high level of performance. Mr Deputy Speaker, the ninth interim annual report demonstrates a clear record of achievement by an organisation which can be seen to be efficient, well-motivated, and financially sound. I commend the interim report to the House. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar) —by leave-I join with the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) in congratulating the Health Insurance Commission, its Chairman, Mr Millar, and commissioners, the General Manager, Mr Wilcox, and his team on making further progress in trying to bring the Health Insurance Commission somewhere into the field of competition with the private health insurance funds. This has been a very difficult task, given the inherent difficulties of managing a public sector body in competition with private sector bodies. The public sector bodies, of course, have the difficulties of management practices dictated by the Public Service and Public Service awards for their employees, including security of tenure and special superannuation arrangements. These difficulties have been well known to the Commission and it has certainly done a good job, against odds, in bringing this body closer towards what one would expect from good private sector performance. I certainly do not withdraw any of the congratulations that I gave the Commission when I was Minister for Health. I believe it deserves full credit. I have to point out to the House that in a number of quite important respects the Minister's statement is, as are many of the statements of this Minister relating to the introduction of Medicare, utterly misleading. I will point out the respects in which it is misleading. The Minister said: The report shows beyond doubt that the Health Insurance Commission is an efficient organisation and on a sound financial footing. He referred to the trading surplus for the year of $18.1m compared with $14.5m for the previous year. He neglected to mention that $8.9m of that surplus-that is, about half-came from a single State, Victoria. The Minister said that the Commission's net assets had grown to $58.5m from the previous level of about $ 40m-odd. However he neglected to mention that, of the $58.5m in fund reserves at 30 June 1983, $41.1m was placed in Victoria. In the introduction to the report, the Chairman pointed out that the reserves expressed in terms of months of break-even contribution income for the Health Insurance Commission as a whole had risen to 1.3 months which was over the one month standard of performance required of the larger funds. What the Chairman failed to point out, and the Minister also failed to point out, was that the performance came almost entirely from Victoria where the reserves, of course, were $41m out of a total of $58.5m, and where the months of break-even contribution income were 2.3, which was almost 2 1/2 times the standard requirement. However, in New South Wales the months of break-even contribution income were 0.5-only half of the standard-in Queensland they barely got over the edge with 1.1; in South Australia they were 0.3; in Western Australia they were 0.4 and in Tasmania they were 0.5. What we have here, looking at the figures produced by the Minister, is a report for the Health Insurance Commission in Victoria. Since one of the requirements of Medibank Private was that it compete in each of the States, as the other funds are required to-it must report its reserves and its operating surpluses State by State, as the other funds are required to-in only one State is it really performing in any way as it should. To say that the report shows beyond doubt that the Commission is an efficient organisation and on a sound financial footing is utterly and truly misleading. The Minister reminded us that last night the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said that $ 10m of the reserves would be paid back to the Department of the Treasury by the end of this financial year. If the reserve position for the various funds State by State is as shown in this report, and if the funds are prevented from shifting Victorian funds elsewhere-the reserves would of course have been put there by Victorian contributors and I quite properly prevented the funds from shifting reserves when I was Minister because different conditions apply from State to State-there would be no way in the world that the Health Insurance Commission could legitimately or prudently send back $10m worth of reserves to the Treasury. That would be a totally unsatisfactory move and would in no way assist the Commission in building up an adequate level of reserves in States other than Victoria. It is a sleight of hand for the Treasurer to recover $10m out of the statutory corporation to make the figures look good and to enable the Minister for Health to make this utterly misleading statement. In referring to the $10m being returned, the Minister stated: It provides further evidence of the successful nature of the Commission's operations. It provides no such evidence at all. All it means is that because of the obfuscation with the transformation of this body into a new vehicle for Medicare it is possible to fiddle the books and take $10m back to the Treasury and ignore the consequences on the reserve position in each of the States. In a number of material respects the Minister's statement about this report is utterly misleading. There are other misleading aspects of the report which relate to its operating characteristics. The Minister said that it was clear that this body would be the most effective and cost efficient of all the alternatives that could be considered by the Government for the operation of Medicare. Observers of this tussle between the Minister and me will be well aware of the fact that I disapprove very strongly of his move to nationalise 60 per cent of Australia's health insurance business within Medibank and thereby throw 5,000 people out of their jobs in the private health insurance sector. That is his way of making things more efficient. Certain aspects of this might, on paper, appear to be more efficient but the House should understand that this body, which has been well managed by the Commission and its general management, has been operating directly in a competitive environment with private funds over the last few years . That has been a substantial spur for the Commission to improve its financial position gradually over the years. It at least keeps the Commission moving in a competitive direction. Under the Minister's proposals to centralise all basic insurance within the Health Insurance Commission, the Commission will now be moving most of its business from a competitive climate, competitive with private funds, into a public sector monopoly. The Minister claims that this will be a cheaper way of doing things. That flies in the face of all history of statutory corporations and government activities. Once we withdraw this vast bulk of the Commission's activity from the competitive situation and make it a public sector monopoly there will no longer be any possibility for real comparison with the private sector. We had a comparison with the private sector recently when the private health insurance funds submitted competitive bids to run Medicare under contract. That would have been the sensible thing to do, leaving all the existing employees in their jobs, leaving existing computer equipment working on the Minister's behalf competitively under a competitive bidding situation and leaving the existing network of offices to provide one stop shopping for all the customers under Medicare. I do not agree with the policy of introducing Medicare. Even if I did agree with it I still could not agree that it is sensible to move away from an existing network of service and to centralise it within this body. Tens of millions of dollars of funds, which outweigh enormously the miserable $10m taken back into Treasury under last night's Budget, will go into the opening of over 80 new offices, the purchase of millions of dollars worth of unnecessary computer equipment. All of this puts 5,000 people out of jobs in the private insurance sector. The convenience argument is a nonsense. It will not be more convenient to have this business centralised under Medicare. Currently it is possible for people conducting their health insurance business to go to the one place to have it all done. Under this system if one is insured with any fund outside Medibank Private one will have to go to two places to conduct one's business. One will have to go to Medibank for the ordinary business-the basic business-and for one's extras, private hospital cover and any ancillary benefits, one will have to go to one's private fund. I said earlier that I was concerned that Medibank would take advantage of this particular situation and grab all the private sector business from the funds for the extras. The Minister has since taken fright and he has prevented Medibank from increasing its customers in the ancillary insurance area . So on the one hand he has preserved, I would think, the 40 per cent of the remaining business of the private funds, but not prevented the destruction of 60 per cent of their business. At the very same time he has put a further crippling arm on Medibank. Its management will have to go round with one arm tied behind its back, as it has in many respects in the past, and try to run a decent shop with these unnecessary and unnatural restrictions. On the face of it, I have to support those restrictions because I do not want to see the private funds destroyed, but they merely show up the utter illogicality of the Minister's arrangements. The next thing the Minister said is that this new arrangement will be better for detecting fraud. Here we come to one of the most unbelievable aspects of this whole sorry tale because the main purpose that the Minister has in introducing Medicare is to bring in this so-called free system of health care delivery. He is going to try to bludgeon the medical profession into going on to bulk billing for general patients. If we follow the Canadian example-I went over and had a look at it about a month ago just to check up how this sort of thing is done-the customers, the patients, will come into the doctor's surgery, never see a bill and the sum will be paid direct by the government to the doctor. If the Government wants to increase the possibility of fraud and overservicing tremendously, this is the way to go about it. I understand that in the Budget the amount allowed for fraud and overservicing detection will go up from $4m to $8m-$8m for the policemen who will try to stop doctors giving in to the additional temptation that will be placed in front of them under the Medicare system. The Minister reminds me of a policeman who, coming down the High Street at night, sees the doors of the supermarket open. Instead of shutting the doors he moves to the opposite side of the road, sets up a counter to count the amount of goods stolen from that store over the rest of the evening and subsequently tries to retrieve the goods from wherever they have gone. The Minister, with his fraud and overservicing detection system, is opening the doors to further abuse by introducing this bulk billing arrangement under Medicare. He is stepping up expenditure and using taxpayers' dollars again-$4m up to $8m-to have a surveillance system under which someone sits on the other side of the road and watches the money being taken out of the doctors' surgeries. That is an absolute nonsense. The question of jobs has to be looked at again with respect to the Health Insurance Commission. I still have not tracked down exactly where all these jobs are going to go under the new arrangements. The problem is very simply-I do not want to bore the House by going through too many figures again, so I will be very quick in retracing what I said earlier on this occasion-that about 8,500 people are currently employed by the private health insurance funds. About 60 per cent of their business will be taken over by Medibank under this centralisation, socialisation scheme. That means that 5,000 of the 8,000 jobs have to go. According to the principal adviser on these matters, Dr John Deeble- not according to the Minister, I might say; he said something different-2,500 extra jobs will be required in Medibank to cover its expanded operations. That gives a net loss of jobs of 2,500. That does not mean that 2,500 of the 5,000 employees who lose their jobs will be employed by Medibank. The people will not necessarily be the same. A larger number of the 5,000 employees will lose their jobs because of the need to recruit for the new Medibank operation early before the private funds have declined in their business. In fact, Medibank has to recruit at the beginning of October. If the Minister is lucky the whole thing will come on to stream in February. There will be a bulge, and a lot of the people who will be left with the private funds in February will not be able to come across to Medibank. The Minister has said that anybody who is taken on by Medibank in the interim is likely to be sacked when an employee of a private firm comes along for employment because that person will get priority. Not only do we have the sacking of the 5,000 originally from the private funds, but also the Minister has invented this new double-sack procedure where anybody who is taken on by Medibank in the interim period is liable to be sacked the moment some new person comes in through the door. Members of parliament on the government side in each of the various constituencies will have a pretty time when this great human turmoil is occurring early next year. That will be a very interesting situation. The other problem on numbers is location. It will not be possible to place anywhere near this number of people from the private funds in Medibank, they will not be in the right place. There will be a centralisation of locations under Medibank and it will not be possible to take people from the very widespread offices of the private funds and move them all into the centralised Medibank locations. The Minister has been making statements about this employment problem which are just not believable. He keeps going round saying: 'There will not really be any problem. We will give preference to the employees of private funds, the State governments will take them on to their payroll in various undefined ways, the private funds will be allowed to get into new businesses and they will build up and absorb people. By and large, given the slough, the retirements and this and that it really will all go away and there will be no difficulty'. In a statement reported in the Canberra Times on 16 July of this year he said: There will be something like an extra 3,000 jobs . . . under the Medicare arrangements . . . He went on to make various assurances to the private funds as to how easy it would all be to get over this problem. Mr Derek Shaw, the President of the Voluntary Health Insurance Association, saw the reports released on 16 July and spoke to the Minister. A report of his remarks reads: Mr Shaw said 5000 jobs were at risk but the minister had indicated through press reports on July 16 and to him via the Director-General of Health, that all employees would still have a job. 'Dr Blewett said they will, so we would be very confident about that,' he said. Heaven forbid. The report continues: 'Both the Parliament and public see this matter of employment as a very strong issue'. That is certainly correct. The report continues: He believed most of the at-risk positions would be absorbed by the expansion of the Health Insurance Commission to act as sole agency for Medicare. That is 2,500 out of the 5,000 people, less the location difficulties. The report goes on: He said it was up to Dr Blewett to work out where the remainder would go. Now the Minister has the problem of working out where the extra 2,500 or 3,000 people go. Despite the concessions that he gave to the voluntary health insurance funds, it still is not clear in any way where these 2,500 people are to go. Following Mr Shaw's remarks on 2 August it was not the Minister who came back to administer a rebuke, but it was a spokesman for the Minister; it was our friend Dr John Deeble. In the Australian of 4 August 1983 the following is reported by Sue Cook: The federal Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, will not guarantee employment for private health fund employees after the advent of Medicare, the Government's consultant on its health insurance scheme, Dr John Deeble, said yesterday. This is rather a different story. She continued: Dr Deeble, the Director of the Health Economics Research Unit at the Australian National University-- he is also the chief adviser to the Minister on this whole scheme-- said Medibank Private would be recruiting 2500 new staff to run Medicare and private fund employees would be given preference. This is under this double-sack scheme that I spoke about before. She continued: 'There are some people who will lose their jobs because it (their employment) depends entirely on what activities the funds decide on after Medicare is introduced,' he said. 'The Government won't guarantee employment.' I have not seen anything put forward since then by this Minister to contradict what Dr John Deeble has said. The Minister has been going round promising continuity of employment to all these people. He has been suggesting that somehow they will be absorbed by State governments, that somehow the health insurance funds will miraculously enter into new areas of business which will take on large numbers of these people, but anybody who has tried to go into new areas of business in the private sector has not found it terribly easy. How they can carry thousands of people over months or even years while those new businesses are being developed is beyond my comprehension. I have had direct private sector management experience and I think it is absolute bunkum to suggest that that can be done. Mr Dolan comes into the act here. Mr Dolan is supposed to be concerned about employees. He is not concerned about the employees in the Federated Clerks Union who are the people who work in the private funds. He seems to agree with the Government that it is a good idea to shift employees away from unions such as the Federated Clerks Union and into the public sector unions. Mr Dolan and the Minister for Health had a summit meeting of sorts in August and they made a joint statement. They congratulated each other on this marvellous new Medicare system and they said: The Government has made it clear that claims that at least 5000 people will lose their jobs because of Medicare are exaggerated-- I imagine just as the report of the death of Mark Twain was exaggerated- especially because of the high turnover rate among private health fund employees and the diversification opportunities that the Government is offering. That is the form of words that the Minister has been using and continues to use to overcome his difficulty in explaining where the 2,500 missing jobs are. The fact is that he has not been able to contradict Dr John Deeble who says that there is no government guarantee to these people. But it is not the 2,500 net jobs about which we are concerned. We are concerned about the 5,000 people currently employed in the private funds who will definitely lose their present jobs. Some of them might be re-employed-up to 2, 500, possibly-but location will not allow that. I suspect that 3,000 to 4,000 of these people will not be re-employed directly in this area at all. This is an action by a government that claims to be concerned about employment and job security. These poor people in the Federated Clerks Union, who do not have Mr Dolan's power of patronage given out to them, will be the victims of the determination of this Minister to destroy the private health insurance industry and to centralise all this business in a single, government monopoly organisation on the claim that it will be more cost-efficient. These people's jobs will be thrown to the wind and their livelihoods will be destroyed. They may get jobs elsewhere but things are still tight out in the economy. Things are not easy. In a lot of the decentralised locations where they work they will not get other jobs. This Minister will have on his conscience at least 2,500 people. While his colleagues in the Ministry are making various announcements for job creation schemes this Minister comes into the House and announces job destruction schemes. He announces them concurrently with the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers money in order to bring about the destruction of these jobs. I make this point in summary and in conclusion. This statement, which appears to be a very simple one on the matter of the interim ninth annual report of the Health Insurance Commission, is yet another instance of the thoroughly misleading statements this Minister continues to make about his Medicare scheme. Almost every single statement in this report that he has read is incorrect in some material respect. Although the main debate on this sorry subject will not occur for another two weeks or three weeks I thought it was necessary to inform the house along the way exactly to what degree this Minister is prepared to mislead this House on matters of very great national importance. Ministerial Statement Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —by leave-The revised assistance package to the film industry announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) marks a change in emphasis in the Government's film policy. The Government has taken steps which it considers will lead toward a greater concentration of creative and other resources on high quality films with prospects of commercial viability. In assessing the effectiveness of the deductions the Government has become concerned that they have created conditions whereby an increasing number of films of doubtful merit are being promoted to the public by commission agents who neither understand the industry nor have its best interests at heart. I am informed that film proposals to the value of $200m were actively promoted to the public during June last. There is no doubt that very many of these proposals were without fundamental merit. Fortunately few of them succeeded in raising finance. However this may well have been more through a lack of time on the part of their promoters to develop momentum than through shrewd judgment by the investors. In any case, the activities in the market-place of the promoters of these doubtful films has been to the detriment of producers and has denigrated the high reputation of the industry. Another 12 months under present conditions could well have done irreversible damage to the industry. In the past far too many films have not reached an acceptable standard of quality or achieved commercial success. This militates against the long term stability of the industry. Much effort has been wasted by Ministers and my Department in the certification process in considering proposals for films that were never likely to enter production. Since the taxation incentive scheme for films has been in operation my Department has been inundated with over 1,200 applications for certification of films. As at 1 August 1983, 838 provisional certificates have been issued for: Feature films 283 Telemovie 67 Documentaries 456 Mini series for television 32 The corresponding figures for final certificates, which are issued at the completion of the films, total 136 comprising: Feature films 45 Telemovie 7 Documentaries 79 Mini series for television 5 Although there is an obvious time lapse between the issue of a provisional certificate and the completion of a film the figures confirm that the fall-out rate for the industry is indeed high. The government has, therefore, reviewed its support for the film industry and, as announced by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech, has decided on the following: The tax deduction of 150 per cent of capital expenditure on a qualifying Australian film under Division 10BA of the Income Tax Assessment Act to be reduced to 133 per cent; net revenue exemption from income tax to be reduced to 33 per cent of investment in such films; production of films of high quality with potential for commercial viability to be further encouraged by government investment through the Australian Film Commission; $5m to be provided for this purpose in 1983-84; the revised scheme to remain in place for two years; and the revised basis of deduction to apply with respect to expenditure incurred by an investor under a contract entered into after the date of announcement of the changes. The essential elements in this package are the provision of direct support to quality film production through the Australian Film Commission, and a slight reduction-I emphasise the word 'slight'-in the level of tax concessions to the industry. These concessions, however, are still extremely generous and should be adequate to encourage serious investment. Taking the two elements of the revised scheme together, the overall Government assistance to the film industry will be increased. I am aware that, in the rather brief mention of these two changes by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech last night, some people, who did not hear the whole package together, gained the impression that, in effect, there was a reduction. This is not correct. The small changes effected, by reducing the tax deduction from 150 per cent to 133 per cent, mean a net saving of revenue of about $4m in one year. However, we are providing the Film Commission with $5m. So, there is an actual increase in the amount of money being provided by the Australian Government, through the Australian taxpayer, to the film industry. There has not been a net decrease in the funds available; there has been a net increase. This was not explained properly in the Budget Speech last night. We have just held a Press conference to explain the details to people. The stability provided by the decision not to change the scheme for at least two years will be an additional stimulus to investor confidence. Under the scheme, the Australian taxpayer is still making a very large contribution towards every qualifying Australian film that is made. No other industry receives such a contribution. The results achieved by the tax benefits are tangible. There is a sharpening of our cultural and national identity and increased employment, but there is an upper limit to the price the Australian taxpayer can be expected to pay, particularly if a considerable number of the films are not achieving what is expected of them and if some unscrupulous people are making rubbish just to take advantage of tax write-offs. This incidentally is not just the view of the Government. Many organisations and individuals have expressed similar views to me. Anything up to 90 per cent of Australian films are subsidised in one way or another by the Treasury. The taxpayer has the right to expect that his tastes are taken into account also as he is a consumer of Australian films. The enormous success of The Man from Snowy River in Australia confirms this. Investment by the AFC in those films it deems to be of high quality with strong possibility of commercial success will, I believe, bring to bear a desirable influence which will enhance their attractiveness to other investors and thereby provide them with the competitive edge in obtaining production funds. I am confident therefore that by increasing the AFC's investment capacity a greater proportion of high quality films will be made which are an expression of the Australian culture and have the potential for commercial success in local and overseas markets. I am advised that in assessing projects the AFC has regard to Australian content, originality, quality and commercial viability. These same criteria will be applied together with an emphasis on intrinsic cultural merit for those applications seeking investment from the special fund provided in the Budget. I make the following point to honourable members opposite. Some people suggested that maybe that was bureaucratic decision making. I remind honourable members that up until 1980, before the 10BA legislation occurred, almost all investment in the film industry in Australia was as a result of the funds provided by the various film commissions, national and State. In fact, 60 per cent of funds invested in the film industry came from these bodies. Now something approximating 10 per cent of investment in the film industry will come from government funds. So what is occurring is not unique. We are simply restoring something of the situation which prevailed prior to 1980. A stable future for the film industry will provide long term employment opportunities for the many Australians working in all sections of this diverse area. The Government has also paid careful attention to the training needs of the film industry. This year the Government will provide $6.7m to the Australian Film and Television School for its full time courses, its nationwide program of short courses and its national diploma course. This represents a 14.1 per cent increase on last year's allocation for the school. I believe that there is bipartisan support for the film industry and genuine pride in its achievements. Indeed, we all wish to see the industry not only survive but also thrive. We all recognise that the industry has helped a great deal to put Australia on the map internationally in an unprecedented fashion. The cultural benefits to Australia are obvious and immediate. The less obvious and more long term benefits will be in the areas of trade and tourism. Australians are finding a new sense of national pride and identity through the medium of film which is rediscovering our history, examining the social questions that plague our present society and helping to mould the Australian of the future. It is with such objectives in mind that the Government has reviewed its policies for assistance to the film industry. I conclude by simply saying that over the past 13 years since the Gorton Government took some excellent initiatives through the work done by people such as Phillip Adams, Barry Jones, Peter Coleman and Tony Buckley, the industry has undergone a number of changes. There has been something like five or six changes . I am not critical of the fact that changes have had to be made. We are working in an extremely difficult area. In the United States nine out of 10 films fail commercially. In Australia five out of six fail to show a profit. I think that it was necessary to make the sorts of changes that have been made. It has been difficult, both for this Government and previous Liberal governments, to find the magic formula. I cannot guarantee that we have found it. A process of fine tuning has been going on. I applaud the Government for introducing the 10BA legislation, but we subsequently reached the stage where I think some minor changes needed to be made. I believe we have made them. As I said before, we have had to go through the process up to 1970 whereby films were written off over 25 years. Nobody invested in films. Then we moved into the film commission era where investment was made by the various State and national corporations. That also had its weaknesses. The Liberal Government then introduced the two-year tax write-off. Nobody invested. Next we had the 10BA legislation with 150 per cent write-off. There was a flood of investment in films-too much in fact-to the point where we had an enormous high one year and an enormous low the next year. Changes were made early this year to extend the period that a film could be made to two years. Once again we face problems. What has been going on over the past 13 years is a fine tuning process. These changes are part of that process. I am confident that they will make the industry more stable. Mr SINCLAIR(New England) —by leave-While I commend the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) for his rhetoric, I am not too sure that there is any easy elixir for film making success as he has acknowledged. The Opposition is a little concerned that we are moving into these days of change at a time when the honourable gentleman is suggesting that we need to promote stability. The Opposition would like to see the details of the legislation as I suspect will every potential and prospective investor in the industry before being aware of the exact character of these new changes and what they might mean. Indeed, I regard it as rather regrettable that so many frequent changes have been made to the tax incentives for the industry. If there is to be stability it will never be engendered, every time there is a piece of legislation, by revamping budgets and trying to determine just what will occur. The Opposition finds itself in complete agreement with the general objectives the Minister has outlined. I think that members of the Parliament universally acknowledge the tremendous achievements that have been made in recent years in developing both film-making techniques and the films themselves. The degree to which funds are being provided to maintain investment in the Australian Film and Television School, in the nationwide programs of short courses and the national graduate diploma course is certainly a very commendable effort and one which the Opposition endorses. I trust that the legislation will appear before the Parliament fairly shortly. Then, after careful consideration, we can make our detailed observations to ensure that the legislation achieves the long term objectives of stability which we, on this side of the House, certainly believe need to be present if we are to maintain and continue to develop a proper and effective film-making industry in this country. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Leader of the House)(3.43) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to amend notice of motion No. 3 by adding the following proposals which have been circulated to honourable members: Matter of public importance Standing order 107 be amended by omitting 'at least one hour before the time fixed for the meeting of the house' and substituting 'not later than 12 noon on each sitting day'. Divisions and quorums That, unless otherwise ordered, in all standing orders, excepting standing order 200A, relating to the taking of a division or the counting of the House or committee for quorum purposes, references to 2 minutes be suspended and 3 minutes apply in place thereof. Leave granted. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I move: That the following amendments to the standing orders be adopted to operate from 6 September 1983 for the remainder of this session: Days and hours of meeting Standing order 40 be amended to read- 40. Unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the despatch of business on each Tuesday at 2.00 p.m., on each Wednesday at 10.30 a.m. and on each Thursday at 10.00 a.m. Adjournment and next meeting Standing order 48A be amended to read-- 48A. Subject to standing order 106, as amended by sessional order, at 10.30 p.m . on each Tuesday, at 7.30 p.m. on each Wednesday and at 10.00 p.m. on each Thursday the Speaker shall propose the question-That the House do now adjourn- which question shall be open to debate; if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress and upon such report being made the Speaker shall forthwith propose the question-That the House do now adjourn-which question shall be open to debate. No amendment may be moved to this question: Provided that- (a) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced; (b) if, on the question-That the House do now adjourn-being proposed, a Minister requires the question to be put forthwith without debate, the Speaker shall forthwith put the question; (c) a motion for the adjournment of the House may be moved by a Minister at an earlier hour; (d) any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of the adjournment shall be set down on the Notice Paper for the next sitting, and (e) if the question-That the House do now adjourn-is negatived, the House or committee shall resume the proceedings at the point at which they had been interrupted: Provided further that, if at 11.00 p.m. on a Tuesday, at 8.00 p.m. on a Wednesday or at 10.30 p.m. on a Thursday the question before the House is-That the House do now adjourn-the Speaker shall interrupt the debate, at which time- (f) a Minister may require that the debate be extended until 11.10 p.m., 8.10 p .m. or 10.40 p.m., as the case may be, to enable Ministers to speak in reply to matters raised in the preceding adjournment debate; at 11.10 p.m., 8.10 p.m. or 10.40 p.m., as the case may be, or upon the earlier cessation of the debate, the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting, or (g) if no action is taken by a Minister under paragraph (f), the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting. Routine of business Standing order 101 be amended to read- 101. The House shall proceed each day with its ordinary business in the following routine: 1. Presentation of petitions. 2. Giving notices. 3. Questions without notice. 4. Presentation of papers. 5. Ministerial statements, by leave. 6. Matter of public importance. 7. Notices and orders of the day. Provided that on a Wednesday and Thursday '7. Notices and orders of the day.' shall precede '3. Questions without notice.' which shall be called on at 2.00 p. m. Question time New standing order 101A be inserted- 101A. At 12.45 p.m. on each Wednesday and Thursday the Speaker shall interrupt the business before the House in order that questions without notice can be called on at 2.00 p.m.; if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress: Provided that- (a) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced, and (b) the Speaker shall fix the time for the resumption of the debate on any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of interruption. Precedence for government and general business Standing order 104 be amended to read- 104. Unless otherwise ordered, government business shall, on each day of sitting, have precedence of all other business, except that on the sitting Thursday alternate to the sitting Thursday to which standing order 106 applies, general business shall have precedence of government business commencing at 8.00 p.m. Grievance debate Standing order 106 be amended to read- 106. Notwithstanding standing order 105, the first order of the day, government business, on each alternate sitting Thursday commencing with the first sitting Thursday after the Address in Reply to the Governor-General's Speech has been adopted shall be a question to be proposed by the Speaker 'That grievances be noted' to which question any Member may address the House or move any amendment. The order of the day shall stand postponed until 8.00 p.m. and if consideration of the question has not been concluded at 10.00 p.m., the debate thereon shall be interrupted and the Speaker shall put the question: Provided that debate on the question may be extended until 10.30 p.m., on motion, without notice, of a Minister; at 10.30 p.m. or upon the earlier conclusion of the debate the Speaker shall put the question and, after resolution of that question, shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting. General business and grievance debate New standing order 106A be inserted- 106A. At 6.30 p.m. on each Thursday the Speaker shall interrupt the business before the House in order that general business or grievance debate, as the case may be, can be called on at 8.00 p.m.; if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress: Provided that- (a) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced, and (b) the Speaker shall fix the time for the resumption of the debate on any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of interruption. Matter of public importance Standing order 107 be amended by omitting 'at least one hour before the time fixed for the meeting of the House' and substituting 'not later than 12 noon on each sitting day'. Divisions and quorums That, unless otherwise ordered, in all standing orders, excepting standing order 200A, relating to the taking of a division or the counting of the House or committee for quorum purposes, references to 2 minutes be suspended and 3 minutes apply in place thereof. What has happened is that notice was given yesterday for Standing Orders to be adopted from 6 September for the remainder of this session which relate to the sitting hours of this House and to additional matters to which my colleague opposite, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), has agreed. These are matters of public importance, divisions, and quorums. I shall deal with those additional matters quickly. Matters of public importance are covered by standing order 107. As honourable members will appreciate, at present two hours notice of a matter of public importance has to be given before the Parliament commences. As Parliament commences on some days at 10 a.m., that notice has to be given very early indeed. In the light of what we now propose in regard to the new sitting hours, Question Time will be at 2 o'clock each day. Accordingly, matters of public importance will follow Question Time and will be in the afternoon of each day. It is, therefore, appropriate, as proposed in the motion to amend standing order 107, to provide that notice be given no later than 12 noon on each sitting day. With respect of the proposals in the motion, relating to divisions and quorums, it is proposed that the bells ring for three minutes for divisions and quorums, instead of two minutes, which now occurs. The reason for this proposal is, as I have been advised by Mr Speaker, that the offices of 17 members of the House are now located on the Senate side of the building, which is some distance from this chamber. Accordingly, it is appropriate to give those members an additional period to enable them to reach the House to be counted during quorums and divisions. The main thrust of the motion is the alteration to the standing order relating to sitting hours. I will not delay the House. The question of what are the appropriate sitting hours for the House has been the subject of vigorous discussion in the Government party room. I do not know whether any unanimity has been reached at any stage by any party about appropriate sitting hours. I will give honourable members some guidance why we need to have effective sitting times. Guidelines are clearly set by the fact that the proceedings of the House are broadcast on Tuesdays and Thursdays, extending into the evenings. It is appropriate, in my view, that the House should sit at the times that I have mentioned so that honourable members can participate in, and listen to, debates, and also the many thousands of Australians who can listen to the broadcast of our proceedings can be informed of what is happening in the House. The proposals we have in mind entail a fairly extensive period of sitting times. An arduous effort by honourable members is entailed for them to be present from the early morning until late at night in a three-day period. Honourable members will notice that on Tuesdays the House will not commence sitting until 2 p.m. This will enable party meetings to be held on Tuesday mornings. Legislation, the respective parties' attitude to that legislation, and any other matters before the Parliament, can be discussed at that time. Honourable members will notice also that on Wednesdays the House will sit at 10 .30 a.m. That will give reasonable time for committees to have short meetings before the House meets. Subject to the luncheon break, which is of a limited duration, it is proposed that the House will sit from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m., thereby enabling uninterrupted debate on important matters. The 8 p.m. adjournment is appropriate when one considers daylight saving time during the summer months. It is not inconsiderate for evening meals to be taken at 8 p.m. Honourable members will notice that on Thursdays sittings will be very long, commencing at 10 a.m. The luncheon break will follow the previous pattern. Question Time will commence at 2 p.m., followed by the usual matters. The House will resume after the dinner suspension at 8 o'clock on Thursday evenings. I am hopeful that in the period between 8 p.m. and the time when the House adjourns, be it at 10.30 p.m. or earlier, the discussion of General Business that normally takes place every second Thursday morning will still occur. The discussion of General Business should be completed by 10 p.m. and, if honourable members wished to speak on the adjournment, the House would sit until 10.30 p.m. Grievance debates will take place on alternate Thursdays. This provides a more generous division of time because greivance debates will be able to last for two hours. If honourable members wished to lengthen the time for the grievance debate, it could be extended to 10.30 p.m. The advantage is that back benchers, who do not always receive sufficient time to express a point of view on behalf of their constituents, will have the chance to do so during broadcast time on alternate Thursdays for two hours to two and a half hours, depending on the wish of the House. This proposal adds up to 25 1/2 sitting hours each week covering a fairly extensive range of procedures and debates. I believe that we need that amount of time. I am advised by the Government that there are no less than 117 pieces of legislation to be passed in the approximately three-month period available to us . If the House is to rise by 16 December or earlier, we will need to deal with the legislative program at a fairly reasonable rate throughout the session. As I said, I appreciate that there will be differences of opinion as to what might be the most reasonable sitting hours. But everybody has come to the view-perhaps not with the greatest of grace-that the sitting times that I have mentioned will operate on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. I believe that the sitting times are reasonable and will fit in, to some extent, with the Senate's sitting hours. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(3.51) —It is not without some sympathy for the Leader of the House (Mr Lionel Bowen) that I rise to speak to this motion. It is an issue that has managed to generate a fair amount of emotion over the course of time. I suspect that the future will not be different. It amazes me, however, that, in the course of the last week, we have seen three alternative patterns of changes to the sitting hours. I am not sure how rigid the present proposal is, because I intend to suggest that there are still a few areas in which the proposals are less than effective; I do not believe that they will meet the convenience of members in this chamber. Mr Jacobi —Solid as a rock. Mr SINCLAIR —The honourable member could have fooled me. However, a few parts of the proposal are worthy of comment. It is not without merit to suggest that perhaps the time has finally arrived when members of Caucus are feeling their oats and, in order to put members of the Ministry in their place, decided that the subject of sitting hours might be the least dangerous of the areas in which to toss them. We will look forward with some interest to other areas in the future. There is little doubt that the additional proposed sessional orders which my colleague has moved meet with the approval of the Opposition. I thank the Leader of the House for the changed arrangements for the giving of notice for matters of public importance, as it has been introduced at my suggestion. I believe it will meet the convenience of both the Government and the Opposition. I regret that it is necessary to provide increased time for the ringing of bells during divisions and quorums. I believe that the old forms of counting in this place gave some advantage to the Opposition, but none whatsoever to the Government. If either side felt discontented with the other, the calling of quorums provides a good way to upset the conduct of committees and Cabinet. If a three-minute period applies to the ringing of the bells, Ministers will be away from their duties a little longer, or are more likely not to arrive in the House in time, because they think they have a little longer to get to the chamber than they actually have. But we do not oppose those two proposals. However, I draw the House's attention to other aspects of the motion. Having seen three alternatives to this proposal in the last week, the Leader of the House might have decided, rather than introducing these changes for the remainder of this session, to introduce them for the next three sitting weeks in order to allow for some consideration as to their convenience or otherwise at the end of that three weeks. However, I accept that the fact that they have been introduced for the remainder of the session means that they will continue until amended. I trust that the amendments will occur sooner rather than later. There are serious problems from both Government and Opposition points of view, particularly with regard to the conduct of committees. I, in common with the former member for Moreton, regard the Parliament as so much more important than its committees; yet I believe that committees have an important role to play in this Parliament and for honourable members. The new sitting hours will make it very difficult for those honourable members working on joint parliamentary committees. Equally, it will be difficult for those on party committees, be they Government or Opposition party committees, because there are few opportunities for members of the Senate and House of Representatives to find commonality in meal times, during which party committees normally meet. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that not only is there to be little commonality in the meal hours but also the lunch hour is to be shortened and, because the House is to sit on the two nights when the Senate is to be adjourned and the Senate is to sit on the one night when this place is to be adjourned, the dinner break virtually will not coincide at all. All of us are aware that in the past the dinner break has been the time when most of the ordinary party committees met. I think it is unfortunate that these changes will preclude that practice. I will make a couple of other observations. For all that I register the reasons for the different hours, I do not think it wise to have different sitting hours of a morning. I am quite sure some members of this place will find it a bit hard to work out whether it is 10.30 on a Wednesday and 10 o'clock on a Thursday or 10 o'clock on a Wednesday and 10.30 on a Thursday. I do not express a stong view either way, but it seems to me that, whichever it is, it would have been a jolly sight simpler to have made it either 10 o'clock on both mornings or 10.30 on both mornings. I think we would all then know where we were. Of course, the same argument applies, although not to the same degree, to the variations in the times of adjournment. Granted that the changes proposed for Thursday nights perhaps do not matter to the same degree, but I seriously suggest that it will be a lot more convenient and perhaps a little more understandable if we have a common commencement time in the morning. To start questions without notice at 2 p.m. is an innovation. Under the Sessional Orders introduced by the former Leader of the House we had Question Time at a regular time, to wit, noon, in the last sitting bracket. I cannot for the life of me see any great advantage in this propsal. My learned colleague has suggested that it will mean that the Government can get on with its business first. I think that for Ministers there is an advantage in their being in this place at the beginning of a sitting. I regret that, because of changes which have been introduced, quite often a fairly sparsely occupied chamber, as it is at this moment, meets the eyes of those who come to behold us when we assemble. For reasons that we are all aware of there always seems to be at the commencement of a sitting a far larger crowd than at any other time of the day. For that reason again I would have thought it might have been better to retain questions without notice at the beginning of proceedings. I think it would have been at least as convenient as having a fixed hour. Whether, if it is to be fixed, noon is any better than 2 o'clock does not seem to me to matter one whit. As to the other changes, I think there is some advantage in allowing the normal processes of parliamentary business, if I can call it such, to proceed before orders of the day. As honourable members would know, the changes now proposed and those we have been following under the pattern introduced by the last Leader of the House involve our debating some matters of Government Business, and perhaps at times matters of public importance, before Question Time. Henceforth matters of public importance are to be debated after Question Time and we are to have the introduction of Bills and a few other things in the morning. For the life of me I cannot see that there is any great advantage in that, other than that perhaps, I would suggest, for those who come from outside and like to listen to the proceedings of this House it might mean that the afternoons will be a little more congested than they have been in the past, because the introduction of Bills and those rather protracted second reading speeches which Ministers inevitably make, from whichever party the Government comes, are not really the stuff of which excitement is made. Therefore, I suggest that if we are to have questions without notice at 2 o'clock it may be better to let our matters of public importance and the other procedural matters take place before we get to questions and then get on with Government Business as soon as possible . Again no doubt that is a matter we will consider as the course of the next three sitting weeks gives practice to these new sitting hours. The other change involves General Business and grievance day on alternate Thursday evenings. That is an innovation of some interest. I do not know that it will provide, as the honourable gentleman suggested, any great opportunity for private members to expose their views and attitudes on the air than it did before, for in the past it was on the air and normally on alternate Thursday mornings. However, I think it essential that there be adequate time for grievances to be noted and for General Business matters to be conducted. I think we should not welcome at the same time any idea that there will be one less adjournment debate. The adjournment debate in this place seems to me to have developed a special character since we reduced the period for speeches from 10 minutes to 5 minutes. We have had a few fairly short, sharp interventions and quite reasonable debates which seem to me to be a bit more of the stuff of a parliament than perhaps some other forms of procedure in this place when we get into very roneoed debates and when it is very easy to get into stereotyped addresses whereby what is said from one side of the chamber is repeated almost verbatim by another honourable member from the same side because somebody has to go on record to satisfy the requirements of a constituency or a hoped-for insertion in a local newspaper. I am not too sure that that is a justifiable reason for our not trying to maintain to the maximum that vitality which I think all of us have experienced in an adjournment debate. I think it would be a pity if our changed procedure on Thursday nights means that, because honourable members talk for 10 minutes in the grievance debate, they will not spend five minutes on the adjournment debate. That comment is the gilt on the gingerbread rather than a fundamental one. It is one concern I have about grievance and General Business debates being on a Thursday evening. I am certainly one of those who feel that, to the maximum, we should have every sitting day at least half an hour for an adjournment debate. Therefore, I hope that, in spite of the change on a Thursday night, we will be able to maintain that. In all then, it is with some cynicism that I approach the proposal now before us. I cannot say that the changes exactly enrapture me any more than they do my colleagues. I would have been interested to be a fly on the wall during that Caucus debate, for I suspect that there were as many divisions on sitting hours within the Government as there are on almost every other issue. However, we look forward to experiencing the savours of meeting each other at different times henceforth. I hope that the Leader of the House, if he finds the hours as inconvenient as I have suggested, might see fit to consider further amendments during our next three-week sitting period. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Leader of the House) —in reply-I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for his qualified support. I am advised that, although we propose ringing the bells for three minutes instead of two, it is proposed that when successive divisions are taken the bells will still be rung for one minute only. Mr Sinclair —That is standing order 200A. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes. I think there will always be as many variations of sitting hours as there are governments. As we propose to remain here for some time, we will not have many variations in the next 10 years. I am anxious to say in all humility that I did not attend those meetings at which there was some divergence of view as to what the sitting hours should be. I want to make the point that Caucus members readily and unanimously accepted the advice given that we should adopt these hours. Nevertheless, in fairness to what the Opposition spokesman has said, there is always the point of view that we should sit for four days a week instead of three and have a week off. There is another view that we should sit through meal breaks when we should agree not to debate contentious matters. I have said that we will take those matters into consideration for next year, not this year. But I would appreciate any advice from honourable members generally with regard to changes which might be helpful to them should they feel a matter is causing them concern. I note with interest what the honourable gentleman opposite had to say about starting at 10.30 a.m. on a Wednesday. I had in mind to start at 10 a.m., but I had put to me the point of view which the honourable gentleman was expressing-there might be an opportunity for joint committees to meet on Wednesday mornings. That was the reason a half hour extension was proposed. I do not want to see adjournment debates done away with. I think they became a sort of vaudeville half-hour for a select few which nobody else could break into . It often looked like a barber shop quartet on a special night. I think it is important to have an adjournment debate. I assure the House that adjournment debates will still be held. For example, on a Thursday there is no reason why General Business should not conclude at 10 p.m. and the adjournment debate last for half an hour. Again, on grievance day, there is no reason why the grievance debate, if it is agreed, should not finish at 10 o'clock, still leaving half an hour. Of course, I have no doubt that people with a grievance would value an allocation of 10 minutes rather than the other shorter period in which to express a point of view. Rather than delay the House any further, I thank the Opposition for its co- operation. I am convinced that we have a very busy session ahead of us, and it is important that we deal with legislation as expeditiously as possible. I think holding Question Time at 2 o'clock each day will enable members of the public to make arrangements so that they can listen to what, to them, is possibly the best part of a day's proceedings. I thank the House for its support. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Mr JACOBI(Hawker)(4.06) —I support the new River Murray Waters Agreement with a number of serious reservations. I believe it fails to meet the planning objectives and the policies needed if we are to preserve the Murray-Darling Basin, which beyond doubt is this country's most important multiple-use natural resource. The Murray River is South Australia's lifeline. It provides 80 per cent of South Australia's surface water, which is delivered to over one million people, 90 per cent of the State's population, and is distributed over two- thirds of the State's settled areas. Up to 80 per cent of Adelaide's water supply and up to 90 per cent of the water supply for the Iron Triangle is derived from the Murray. By contrast, the Murray provides water for only some 350,000 people in both New South Wales and Victoria. It provides the bulk of South Australia's water supply for irrigation, stock and domestic and industrial purposes. It provides a riverine environment for conservation and recreation that is unequalled in South Australia. Therefore the River Murray is of vital concern to that State. South Australians especially are not happy with the often poor quality of water available to that State. Dr Keith Walker, a keen observer of the Murray, recently summed up the dilemma we face in coming to terms with management of this troubled river system when he said: We have a Federal Constitution that 80 years ago placed responsibility for the Murray-Darling system irretrievably in the hands of four self-minded States. River management hinges upon an interstate water-sharing agreement, devised in the riverboat era and excruciatingly slow to adjust to changing needs. Our 'band -aid' system of big-river government is an ecological absurdity. In another dimension, we have scarcely begun to understand the ecology of the river system. If a central governing authority were established tomorrow, it would have no knowledge with which to begin its task. Yet we are utterly dependent on the river's capacity to supply our demands and absorb our insults. It is the kind of nonsense that only a bureaucracy could sustain. In keeping with this nonsense, progress towards a new River Murray Waters Agreement has been painfully slow. It was a Labor initiative in 1973 following an approach by the then Premier Dunstan to Prime Minister Whitlam. This led to the establishment of a working party to examine the problems. It reported back to the Federal and State governments in October 1975. It recommended widened powers for the River Murray Commission. It is fitting that Federal and State Labor governments should now be finalising the process begun 10 years ago by their predecessors. The election of four Labor governments also provides a unique opportunity to implement the national platform of the Australian Labor Party, which seeks to: Extend the powers of the River Murray Commission to- (a) ensure the responsible management of the waters of the Murray-Darling River Basin, in terms of water quantity and quality, the protection of the River's wildlife resource, and the satisfactory allocation and transfer of water rights; and (b) manage the Murray-Darling River system. It is only when these objectives are achieved that we will be able to congratulate ourselves upon real progress towards a more effective Agreement having been achieved. Regrettably, the Agreement now before us falls short of that goal. Over the past 10 years there has been much labour to bring forth a gnat. The limitations of the Agreement-I wish the previous speaker on this Bill, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), had applied his mind to it- are clearly set out by Professor Sandford Clarke in a recent address to the Institute of Public Administration in Melbourne, headed 'Research needs of the Murray Darling Basin October 1982'. He said: The various amendments have, in piece-meal fashion, endeavoured to broaden the scope of the Agreement to meet some of the limitations in the old Agreement. In practically every case, however, the broader powers granted to the Commission have not increased its autonomy. Instead, the powers have either required the prior consent of individual States before they are exercised, or have been framed as powers to make proposals collectively to the contracting Governments or recommendations or representations to particular States. The overwhelming and general deficiency in the new Agreement is that it retains the unanimity requirements of the old Agreement. Thus, except for a limited class of matters, any decision of the Commission requires the unanimous concurrence of all Commissioners. If any difference of opinion arises between Commissioners, cumbersome arbitration provisions come into operation. These provisions have, in the past, effectively prevented discussion of, or action upon, any contentious matters. Accordingly it may be doubted whether the Commission would ever resolve to make recommendations to a Government if any element of those recommendations might be unpalatable to the Government appointing one of the Commissioners. As a result of the amendments, the Commission now has power to investigate new works and initiate proposals for the protection or improvement of both the quality and quantity of water in the Murray. It has power of its own initiative to investigate and measure the quantity and quality of waters in tributaries above Albury or on the Darling below Menindee, but investigation of tributaries below Albury, where the major problems of salinity occur, may be done only with the consent of the State in which the tributary lies. Professor Clarke stated further: But it is here that State parochialism re-asserts itself. The Commission is not given power to establish or to enforce water quality objectives or standards; nor has it any formal voice in the operation of salinity amelioration works on tributaries such as the Barr Creek works in Victoria. Its power is simply, 'in consultation with the appropriate responsible authorities' of each party, to ' formulate water quality objectives and, where appropriate, standards for any part of the River Murray' and to 'make recommendations with respect thereto to the Contracting Governments'. Any examination of the provisions of the agreement obviously supports the professor. He concluded: There is no doubt that the River Murray Waters Agreement, as amended, is not an effective vehicle for striking a balance between contending State interests in the Murray-Darling Basin and for effectively inducing or imposing a regime which adheres to desirable principles of water management. The commonly held view that the River Murray Commission is, in some way, an independent management authority with ample powers to undertake the range of tasks which one would normally expect of a modern basin-management authority is quite fallacious. It is, in no sense, a basin-development authority. Its autonomous executive powers are limited to the management of releases from storages, within the narrow compass of formulae established under the Agreement. Its powers in relation to catchment protection are dubious and its role in other matters, such as the maintenance of water quality, is purely hortatory and suasive. Accordingly, much of the political lobbying directed to the Commission by special interest groups is misguided, as the Commission has little or no power to influence or effect any re-allocation of resources within the basin. I would like a speaker from the other side to address himself to these quotations. Rather than fiddle with the edges of such an inadequate Agreement, I believe it is more important that we consider what steps the Federal Parliament can take to tackle effectively the problem of the Murray-Darling Basin. Experience in other federal systems of government has shown that the best way to protect the national interest when interstate waters or river networks are involved is to pool all the powers related to the river basin-whether they derive from State or Federal governments-into one joint authority where each party has an equal say in the decisions of the authority. An example of this power sharing is the Delaware River Basin Commission in the United States of America, which I visited last year. It draws on the collective authority of the four States concerned and the United States Federal Government. The pooling of powers in such a commission does not represent a loss of State rights in favour of a Federal government. Each State and Federal government is an equal partner in the management of the entire river basin and the pooling of powers ensures that the Basin Commission is much more effective than independent State and Federal actions. Besides being an experiment in federalism, the Delaware compact pioneered the concept of putting responsibility for all types of management functions under one agency, whether it be controlling floods, supplying water or cleaning up pollution. This enabled each signatory State to react to its basin water management concerns through the focus of its governor or his designated commissioner. This provided sharp contrast to the earlier pattern of State water functions being segmented among several State agencies such as those dealing with conservation, health, agriculture, pollution control or whatever, as is the case in the Murray-Darling basin. The only alternatives to a compact which shares responsibility for an interstate river system are autonomous State control, which ignores the interests of the nation as a whole, or Federal control which usurps States' rights. In the case of the Murray, State parochialism and the lack of constitutional authority on the part of the Federal Government have paralysed administration of the basin and thwarted any attempts at co-ordination. Given sufficient goodwill from the States, and all Australian Labor Party States are involved at this time, I believe we could go at least some way in further extending the powers of the River Murray Commission. If necessary, the Commonwealth has the ability to give the States a strong push in the right direction. In a paper attached to the River Murray working party report of 1975, which led to the negotiations for this new agreement, Professor Sandford Clarke recommended that a number of amendments be made to bring the agreement into line with modern water practice. Whilst some of his recommendations have been accepted and are included in the agreement we are debating today it is fair to say that the recommendations represent the more obvious and the least contentious of his proposals. A number of measures of great importance to good management have been omitted. There are 11 basic deficiencies. I want to cite only five of them. Firstly, the power to undertake, authorise and co-ordinate studies must be extended to tributaries and adjacent land. I would like that point to be addressed by the Opposition. Secondly, the Commission should have the task of formulating an overall works plan for both the main stem and tributary rivers and of amending the program regularly. All parties should agree that they will not vote public moneys for, nor expend public moneys on, works which have not first been included in a comprehensive program. Thirdly, the Commission must have power to intervene as a matter of last resort to ensure that the quality standards established by parties are actually observed. It should thus be given power to bring action and to prosecute for any alleged offences under State or Federal law. Fourthly, the deliberations of the Commission should be open to the public and the Press, as should be the record of its proceedings. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, all questions should be determined by a majority of members present and voting. When a decision is not unanimous the views of the minority should be recorded if so requested and any report or advice on that question should state the views of the minority. In the event of any equality of votes the independent chairman should have a casting vote. I have asked the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) to arrange a meeting of all State Ministers to renegotiate to test the waters as to whether these much needed reforms can be achieved. Certainly other limitations still remain. In my view the Commission is an extremely limited body in terms of the resources available to it. The four part time commissioners and the staff if 11 in effect are not equal to the task of effectively managing such an enormous river basin. It is ludicrous. For example, the River Murray Commission does not have the resources to pioneer new water management techniques. The potential for improved management of such a large complex river system, using earth resources, satellite data, is considerable and has been recognised by the Australian Science and Technology Council. But it will be left to individual States to go their own ways in utilising such techniques, as they have done in the past. Another weakness of the Commission is that it does not include Queensland, which contributes on average 22 per cent of the water flowing into the lower Murray, and includes a catchment area for the Murray system larger than Victoria . Under the present structure of the Commission any State can veto a decision and the Queensland Government has a highly negative attitude to federalist ventures. Nevertheless, the River Murray must be viewed as an entire ecological system if it is to be maintained effectively. As a first step towards addressing the basin-wide problems Queensland ought to be invited to send an observer, without voting rights, to attend meetings of the Commission. At least there would be some official communication between the bodies responsible for the entire Murray-Darling catchment. There are other initiatives which the States and Federal Government could take. We should consider the proposals put to the States in 1973 and described by Gough Whitlam in an address to the Murray Valley League in October 1974. He stated: To date none has made a comprehensive, integrated examination of the implications which different land use patterns have for water resources in the valley. Two of the most significant uses which should be included in such an examination are, of course, irrigation and the development of urban growth centres such as Albury-Wodonga. Such an examination might indicate that changes in existing or planned land use are desirable in order to protect the quality of the waters of the Murray so that maximum beneficial use of the waters in economic, environmental and social terms can be obtained for both the region and the nation as a whole. Because State governments appear to be concentrating on engineering studies, the Australian Government would prefer to fund studies biased towards the social and environmental sciences. The commission of such a study would be one of the options available to a properly structured River Murray Commission and there is no reason why the States could not immediately agree to take such action. The Murray Valley salinity and drainage report prepared by Maunsell and Partners in 1979 attempted to examine and co-ordinate a plan of action on salinity within the basin but the scope of the study was much narrower that that which we envisaged in 1975. What we can learn from the Maunsell report is, firstly, that the State water authorities and the previous Federal Government did not spend a cent on the on- farm measures which were given top priority in the report. That is beyond dispute. On the other hand, millions of dollars have been spent on the engineering structures surveyed in that report, including some of the projects which were given a very low priority. The warning about the bias of State authorities towards engineering solutions has been borne out. If there is one area in which the Commonwealth has clear constitutional authority it is in the area of research. It also has undoubted financial powers in other areas. The suasive powers of the Commonwealth would be much more effective if it had at its disposal an independent authority to assess water management problems. For that reason in 1980 I introduced a Bill to establish an Institute of Fresh Water Studies. Co-ordinated research of the Murray-Darling basin is a logical step towards co-ordinated management of the basin. However, some State water authorities may not be happy about another body putting its nose into areas which may challenge or reflect upon their administrations. It is not so much a threat to States' rights which stands in the way of better research or better management of the Murray-Darling basin. It is the threat to departmental rights. The State authorities are suspicious of interdisciplinary and basin-wide planning and research because their importance in the River Murray management hierarchy is involved and could be threatened. In conclusion let me say that it will be very foolish indeed to view the amended agreement as a panacea for the problems of the River Murray. Rather we should look to commencing negotiations immediately with the riparian States with the objective of having a genuinely independent Commission which has sufficient authority to address the multitude of water and associated land use problems in the basin. In its dealings with the States, the Commonwealth ought to be prepared to assert its financial powers, if necessary, to ensure that parochial decisions do not override the national interest. Finally, we must begin the task of developing appropriate multiple use planning objectives and policies which will bring the management of the Murray-Darling basin into the twentieth century . The passage of this agreement is a small step towards a better management of Australia's major natural resource, but I regret to say that we still have a long way to go. I say to the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) that I would appreciate some member of the Opposition addressing himself to, and acknowledging deficiencies in, the Agreement and stating the Opposition's policies. Mr FISHER(Mallee)(4.25) —I am very pleased to follow the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) in this debate. I acknowledge the work that he has put in over the years in this Parliament to ensure that Bills such as the River Murray Waters Bill, fiddling at the edges as they may be, are introduced into this Parliament. This Bill represents the culmination of many years of work by members on both sides of the House, and I am pleased today to support it. This Bill gives effect to a new River Murray Waters Agreement between the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia for the control and management of certain water resources of the River Murray. As the second reading speech says, the new agreement charges the River Murray Commission with the responsibility for monitoring the quality of water in the river, in tributary inflows and in the Commission's storages. To this end, a monitoring network has already been well established. This agreement will also authorise the River Murray Commission to formulate water quality objectives or standards for key locations along the river. It is against these objectives that the Commission will have to develop its water management strategies. State authorities will be required to inform the Commission of proposals under their consideration which could have a significant effect on water quality or quantity in the river and to provide the information necessary to enable the likely impact to be assessed. The agreed water quality objectives will be important benchmarks, and the Commission will then be able to make representations as necessary to the appropriate State authorities on such proposals. The water distribution provisions have been completely recast not only to ensure an equitable distribution of water between the States but also to allow each State maximum flexibility in meeting its own particular water demands . The provisions in the Bill will enable account to be taken of the quality of tributary inflows and drainage returns to the river from each State in assessing its respective share of the water resources under the Commonwealth's control. As the Bill also states, this procedure should provide a strong incentive to each State to improve the quality of flow in its tributaries and from outfalls to the river. In keeping with modern water management principles, the new agreement now comprehends important river water management objectives for the Commission additional to its traditional role of supplying water for irrigation. Of course, it also includes flood mitigation, environmental protection and recreation uses. I point out that the Commission retains its autonomy under this new Agreement. I see this as essential if it is to continue as an effective custodian in the national interest of our most important water resource and to provide a stimulus , hopefully, for co-operative action by the States in the maintenance and, eventually, the improvement of water quality in the River Murray. I believe that we should emphasise that the River Murray Commission has only, and still has only, the power of persuasion. I accept all of the comments of the honourable member for Hawker. Its representations will be based only on mutually agreed water quality objectives or standards, and on an ever-increasing body of knowledge of the river system and its problems. Subject to the new water quality provisions, the current water sharing principles and arrangements between the three States will continue. South Australia will be entitled to 1.85 million megalitres annually as measured at the South Australian border in accordance with specific monthly volumes. This includes the recent 23 per cent increase made possible by the completion of the Dartmouth Dam. Thank goodness we proceeded with that project when we did. The two upper States will share the balance of the water resources available to the Commission but with some flexibility to cope with year-to-year pressures in water demands. While the River Murray Waters Agreement is, and will continue to remain, the main policy instrument for the Commonwealth's involvement with the three States in the management of the nation's most important water resource, considerable financial assistance has been provided to the three States for salinity control and drainage works in the Murray Valley which fall outside the area of the Commission's responsibilities. These have all been priority works recommended by the consulting engineers, Maunsell and Partners, in the plan of action that they proposed in their 1979 report on salinity and drainage problems in the Murray Valley. There are already very real signs that these initiatives undertaken by the former Government are becoming very effective. Water quality recordings by the River Murray Commission during last season's severe drought indicated that salinity levels were lower than in previous comparable dry periods. This comparative improvement has been attributed to the initial operations of Dartmouth Dam, and the effectiveness of already completed salinity control works . High river flows resulting from heavy winter rains and snow melts are already having a very beneficial flushing effect on the river system and adequate water supplies of good quality should be available next season. It has been recognised throughout the world where irrigation has induced salinity problems that techniques which reduce the application of water surplus to plant requirements are essential to the success of any long term strategy to bring salinity problems under control. Amendments made by my Government in May and December 1980 to the Income Tax Assessment Act now provide strong incentives to irrigators to improve their watering practices. The new provisions of this Act allow full deductibility of expenditures for income tax assessment purposes on water conservation and conveyance, salinity control and associated drainage works in the same year as they are incurred. These incentives are becoming very effective when used to complement the laser land levelling systems now under way in many of our irrigation areas. I ask the honourable member for Hawker, and the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) in particular, to ensure that their Government does not remove these very beneficial taxation initiatives, as it has done with many other taxation initiatives in the mini-Budget and last night's Budget. I am mindful of South Australia's specific problems with River Murray water quality, particularly during prolonged periods of minimum river flow conditions. To some extent, these problems originate outside the State. However, I remind South Australia that half of the salt load of the River Murray at its entry into the ocean is incurred within South Australia itself, and South Australia has many areas in which initiatives in relation to salinity reduction can be accomplished. In relation to drinking water, of course, South Australia has the additional problem of turbidity caused by the presence of suspended soil particles and organic material which reflect run-off conditions in vast catchment areas, including, as the honourable member for Hawker said, parts of Queensland. I accept what the honourable member for Hawker has said, that we are just fiddling at the edges; but this is a very significant move forward just the same . We must accept that the States still have a pre-eminent role in all aspects of water resource. Commonwealth powers in this regard have been reserved under the Constitution in respect of meteorological observations, water resources in Commonwealth territories and international aspects of water resource matters. Other constitutional provisions have been interpreted to extend the Commonwealth 's role in water resource matters in situations concerning defence and interstate trade. It was the interstate trade argument which brought the Commonwealth into the River Murray Waters Agreement at a time when river transportation was an immediate important means of interstate trade. Nevertheless, and thankfully, the Commonwealth has become involved in water matters at the request of the States or in response to Commonwealth initiatives, but to this point only in co-operation with the States. A national authority to manage Australia's inland waters has been suggested on many occasions. In fact, the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution-the Davidson Committee of 1970-proposed a national water commission, but all governments opposed this on constitutional grounds. A national authority for the Murray-Darling system, if it is to work effectively, would require surrender by the three States of practically all matters in the Murray-Darling catchment which affect water quantity and quality, not only water regulation and allocation but also policy on irrigation development, land use for agriculture, forestry and industrial development. I believe that, given the States' constitutional responsibility for water matters and their jealous and parochial defence of their rights, the River Murray Waters Agreement is possibly the only practical instrument of interstate co-operation in relation to the management of the Murray-Darling system at this time. To the extent that its functions to date have related to water quantity only, there have not been many serious interstate difficulties within the River Murray Commission, but with the expansion of its role into the more contentious area of water quality I believe that the utmost goodwill will be necessary if its new water quality responsibilities are to be carried out effectively. I charge the States, with their responsibility, to ensure that this goodwill is evident in present and future negotiations. This Bill opens the whole area of water reticulation, dry land salinity, irrigation salinity and all matters relating to the conservation of our country' s most valuable resource, water. I remind the honourable member for Bendigo of promises made during the election campaign by both himself and his Government to retain the Wimmera-Mallee pipeline scheme, which was to be a significant part of our moves towards reducing salinity and the conservation of water. Of course, as we know, it has now been discarded by the Hawke Government. Last night we heard an announcement that $46m would be spent on water resources in 1983-84. We saw in the Budget Papers that that represented a 19 per cent increase. I remind the House that this is a 19 per cent increase only on the expenditure of last year and not a 19 per cent increase on the amount of money that was available for expenditure on water resource programs. Mr Lloyd —It is about a 9 per cent increase on the Budget allocation of last year. Mr FISHER —It is in fact an increase of only 9 per cent, as my colleague the honourable member for Murray said, which is well below the rate of inflation. I also remind the House and the honourable member for Bendigo that, in accepting this $46m, $70m which was available under the former Government's bicentennial program for additional expenditure has been discarded. I believe it is absolutely essential, in order to control further river salinity, to conserve River Murray water for other purposes and to improve water reticulation to our townships, that the Wimmera-Mallee pipeline scheme should commence immediately. The people served by the Wimmera-Mallee channel system have now built up very strong expectations in regard to the implementation of the pipeline scheme following announcements made by my Government prior to the last election. Country towns in the Wimmera-Mallee region experience water restrictions almost every summer. Such restrictions, together with extreme summer temperatures, have a detrimental effect on the quality of life in these towns. Repeatedly, because of a lack of water, people living in these areas are unable to maintain their recreation and sporting faciliies at standards that would normally be considered acceptable. The existing scheme in this region-a scheme that is probably one of the most significant water reticulation schemes developed in the early 1930s-is now over-committed; yet we are still able to tolerate the waste of some 92,000 megalitres of water annually by seepage and evaporation in the northern part of this scheme alone. Of the total amount of water released from the storages to the channels in the Wimmera-Mallee system only 26 per cent is delivered to farm dams and town storages. In other words, only 7 per cent of the total water released to the northern Mallee region is delivered. The 92,000 megalitres of water that would be saved if stage one of this Wimmera-Mallee pipeline were continued could be utilised to strengthen the system generally and also enable increased areas to be developed for irrigation. The Victorian State Government and the 17 municipalities served by this system support the scheme to pipe the Wimmera-Mallee open channel system. There are two vital problems in the Wimmera-Mallee area that a pipeline scheme would almost certainly be responsible for alleviating. These complement the initiatives we are taking in this Bill. They are the alleviation of poor water quality and the alleviation of salinity problems. The implementation of a piped water supply in this area would be responsible for creating enormous employment opportunities both in the short term and in the long term and at the same time creating a project of national benefit. I therefore charge the honourable member for Bendigo and the honourable member for Hawker, people who I know are interested in the conservation of our water, to ensure that their Government adheres to the programs developed by the former Government, particularly those that have been developed to design stage and those that have been shown to provide enormous benefit to the total complement of Australia's water resources. The honourable member for Hawker very briefly referred to the possibility of extending the River Murray Commission's charter. I can assure him that I will support any extension of that charter that can be negotiated between the States and can be shown to be successful. He referred to the programs that have been developed in certain areas of the United States, particularly the Delaware basin . I guess we could also refer to similar types of co-operative efforts that have been undertaken in the United States, in the Tennessee Valley and in the Colorado Valley. I acknowledge that these particular co-operative efforts have been relatively successful in recent years. Mr Jacobi —Pretty limited, though, Peter. Mr FISHER —They are limited. They operate under completely different constitutional arrangements. I am also aware that they are at present breaking down under the stress caused by a lack of co-operation in many areas. This Bill is an important step forward but there are many areas that have to be taken account of if we are to progress further. I accept the need for future research programs. I believe that it is only by adequate research that we are able to understand the very real nature of the salinity problem and to bring forward measures that will not just be short term measures but measures that will provide long term and lasting benefit not just for the River Murray basin but for the conservation of water generally throughout this country. I support the Bill and I acknowledge the tremendous work that has been undertaken by the shadow Minister for the Environment, Mr Connolly, the honourable member for Bradfield. I also acknowledge the efforts of the members of parliament, both from the State parliaments and from the Federal Parliament, who have recently been involved in a full tour of the River Murray and have endeavoured to lay down recommendations to their respective parliamentary parties that will continue the sort of co-operation and bring forward the sort of changes and improvements in policy that this Bill implements. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(4.43) —I am delighted to speak in support of the River Murray Waters Bill 1983. This is the tenth version of this legislation which was first passed in 1915 to resolve conflicts which were developing even then among the various States and users of the Murray waters. If we take seriously some of the more stringent warnings that have been issued in recent years about the over exploitation and declining qualities of the river water we might see this as the eleventh hour in the struggle to preserve the Murray as a permanently viable waterway capable of sustaining the many and widely varied demands made upon it. It is a measure of the seriousness of the present situation in regard to water supply and quality, and the widespread public consciousness of this, that the new agreement to which this Bill refers is the result of the first major review of River Murray agreements since the River Murray Commission was first formed in 1917. This review was carried out with special reference to water quality and it was made at the insistence of South Australia with the co-operation of the Commonwealth. South Australia has a special position in relation to the Murray and to any legislation regarding water quality because, as well as being the least populous and therefore generally the least influential of the three States, it is the driest and, consequently, the most dependent on the river as almost the sole source of water for both domestic use and industrial use in its major cities. South Australia is also, because of its geographical position, the most susceptible to progressive salination and chemical contamination of the river as the result of increasingly intensive irrigation and industralisation along the upper reaches of the Murray and its tributaries. We therefore welcome the provision in this Bill for the appointment of a Commonwealth commissioner and deputy commissioner and the widening of the Commission's scope to give it some power over water quality even though from our viewpoint that power may be seen as somewhat too limited. It is interesting on this score that some publicity was given a few weeks ago to a four-day inspection tour down the Murray by a party of Opposition members who afterwards called for a stronger policy on water quality, including power over irrigation management on the tributaries as the only practicable counter to the salination threat. I agree and I acknowledge this to be too vital an issue to become confused by political point-scoring. However it must be remembered that the Agreement to which the Bill seeks to give effect is a carry over from the previous Government and that is apparently the best compromise between the State and Commonwealth powers that could be arrived at after many years of bargaining with the States following the last adjustment to the Agreement by a Labor Government in 1974. I do not expect that this new Agreement is the end of the story, not by a long chalk. The Labor Party platform produced at its 1982 conference provides for increasing and broadening powers of the River Murray Commission. This Government is also conscious of the glaring need for a lot more soundly based information on which to base controlling powers over river practices and I intend to say more about that later. On the score of water quality, and with the electorate of Grey in mind, I want to say now that I was very pleased indeed to learn from the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that the Federal Government will be restoring the Commonwealth water resources grant to a level that will make it possible to complete the Morgan-Whyalla filtration plant in 1986, as originally intended, instead of having to wait another year to have this urgently needed installation built with our hard-pressed State Government left to pick up the tab. We appreciate that this temporary cutback in the Federal grant was a reaction to an inherited Budget deficit that was $3.6 billion more than had been indicated. We are grateful fo the reconsideration by the Federal Government of its $7.7m grant to South Australia to improve its much needed water quality through water filtration. The filtration will not only make life more pleasant in the northern towns served by the pipeline but also will greatly reduce, if not entirely eliminate, the risk of amoebic meningitis, the waterborne disease which has killed 12 people in the area, most of them children, since 1955. Filtration will certainly eliminate the need for very heavy chlorination-in itself not the healthiest of practices-which has been applied in recent years to counter the meningitis threat. Appreciative though we are in South Australia that a purer end product is on the way we must not deceive ourselves into thinking that treating the symptoms will do anything about curing the degenerative disorders that are breaking down the general health of Australia's old man river. This is a time of crises for this mighty Murray-Darling watercourse which has, over the last 130 years or so, been first a major thoroughfare for trading paddle steamers and a source of irrigation for vineyards, orchards and farms and then has assumed the awesome responsibility of being almost the sole source of water for domestic and industrial use for cities and towns, both directly and by pipelines over hundreds of kilometres, in Australia's driest State. The crisis applies both to quantity and quality of water. In the serious drought conditions of recent years we have had an alarming foretaste of what could be the shape of things to come if the present pattern of exploitation without adequate knowledge of the consequence is allowed to continue. We have seen the city of Adelaide faced with the stark reality of its own vulnerability when the river actually stopped flowing to the sea for a short while a couple of years ago. The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), in his second reading speech on this Bill, said: The Government will be maintaining a close interest in the implementation of the new Agreement and if there are indications that the Agreement needs to be strengthened we will approach the three States to determine how this might be done. While we should support this Agreement as the best attainable in the circumstances, we should recognise that there are already clear indications that it needs some strengthening. For instance, the Commission's responsibility for water quality covers only the Murray. The best it can do in regard to tributaries is to make recommendations to the State or States concerned. It is perfectly obvious that there can be no effective control over water quality without equally effective power to restrict pollution going into the river, whether along the Murray banks or by way of the tributaries. Whether the pollution is in the form of salt draining into the watercourse from properties where irrigation has been raising the water table for generations, from industrial waste or sewerage discharged into the river, from pesticides, exotic plants or animal matter, it is equally obvious that no part of the river system, which is the fourth longest in the world, can be considered in isolation from the rest. For instance the catchment area at the headwaters of the Darling in Queensland is larger than the State of Victoria and the type and manner of use of toxic chemicals sprayed in that area can conceivably have a bearing on the purity of the water we drink in South Australia. The irony of this example is that Queensland is not a party to the three-State agreement. However, there is one relatively bright spot on the horizon. The political climate in Australia has been undergoing some important changes since most of the hard groundwork went into formulating the terms of this Agreement. All the States that are party to it now have Labor governments and with a little luck the fourth State that should be a party to it will follow the wise example before very long. If we are going to do something about breaking down the remaining barriers standing in the way of a truly comprehensive formula for management of the river system-barriers that are all traceable to State rivalries and private empire building-we probably have a better chance to do so than any Australian government since Federation. With the imponderables of politics being what they are we should be wasting no time in setting about the task. I have said that this issue is important enough to be above party politics. It is also too crucial for priorities to be confused by State partisanship. The States must retain their responsibilities but not at the expense of a national resource. This is where the conservative political philosophy is vulnerable to partisan pressure. It enforces a retreat at the first hint of any accusation of centralism. However, the national interest demands a national perspective. The Murray-Darling river system drains over one million square kilometres or one- seventh of the land surface of Australia, a country with an average rainfall of only 41.9 centimetres or 16.5 inches. I know full well that the question of irrigation rights and quotas in New South Wales and Victoria is a highly emotive area where angels fear to tread. I do not want to rush in with any gratuitious suggestion that the Commonwealth should put on the jackboots it has been accused of wearing in Tasmania and set out to trample State rights into the soil, however saline that soil may be. If the threat to the Murray were a more direct and spectacular one, such as the prospect of a dam on the Franklin instead of a more distant but potentially just as disastrous fate in the wake of salination, siltration and general pollution, demands for swift and strong Federal action would be filling our mail boxes. So far most of the calls for stronger river management have concentrated on giving the controlling body more power to make tougher regulations and enforce them, usually in somebody else's State. However there is another aspect which I think should have a greater priority. We must make certain that any extra powers given are based on absolutely sound and well researched information. The execution of power without adequate data can be not only counterproductive but also dangerous. I think it is relevant to any consideration of this agreement and to any future extention of it to realise that the River Murray Commission already faces a herculean task in coping with the responsibilities assigned to it without attempting to delve deeper into studies of the fundermental ecology of the river system. But the amassing of such a bank of information is vitally necessary, now more than ever. The case for setting up a parellel organisation to handle just such a specialised task was put very capably by my colleague the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi ) when in June 1981 he introduced a private member's Bill for establishment of an institute of freshwater studies. I am indebted to him for pointing out that certain Senate committees have reached similar conclusions. I think their comments will bear repetition. I commend the honourable member for Hawker for his speech today, which was very positive. The Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution found, among other things, that there are large gaps in the documentation of our water resources and there is no pragmatic program of research into the causes and consequences of water pollution, or into its economics. The Committee also recommended urgent steps to establish a national water commission, but the idea foundered on the rock of the States' opposition. In 1978 the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources recommended not only a national approach to water resources, but also the establishment of an independent bureau of water resources to undertake all the Commonwealth non-policy, co-ordination, technical and information activities. That suggestion also finished up in a pigeon hole. The Government in its reply said: This recommendation would signify a considerable broadening of the Commonwealth' s role in water resource matters, but the Government does not believe that such a step is justified at this time. This recommendation will be reviewed if warranted by changed circumstances at some later stage. I think it might be said that the time for such a review has arrived. I quote from just one more report, one which came from the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment in 1979: Many people along the river are obviously frustrated by the apparent inability of any one department, Commonwealth or State, to take responsibility for providing responses to views and grievances. I can bear witness to hundreds of such grievances over a decade or more-and the people did not even live along the river; they only had to drink the water from it. I understand that the honourable member for Hawker's private member's Bill for an institute of freshwater studies has not foundered but could still emerge to supply the answers to the problems of an overstressed Commission. When the necessary groundwork is completed, and if it is decided that this is indeed the answer, I think there will be fewer calls for the Commission to have more teeth, because the proposed institute would have the advantage of being staffed by such specialised people as biologists, hydrologists, chemists, microbiologists and medical researchers, with support from economists and engineers. It does often appear that the best antidote for destructive self-interest is a soundly argued case put by an authority whose facts are beyond question and who can prove conclusively that the selfish interests of the few are ultimately doomed to failure unless the interests of the great majority are well looked after. When that stage comes, if more teeth are still necessary, no doubt they can be supplied. People in my electorate might have been spared family tragedy had such a capacity for research been available at the time. I refer to the parents of the children who died from amoebic meningitis. In 1972, 27 years after the first case of the disease in the area, the amoebic research unit of the Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science in Adelaide isolated the pathogenic amoeba in water from the Morgan-Whyalla pipeline. Nine years later a 10-year-old Whyalla boy became the next victim. In the exceptionally hot summer of 1980-81 all the contributory data was put together, with the result that supplementary chlorination was extended to Whyalla. I mention this not as condemnation, in hindsight, of the valuable work of people from medical, health and water supply authorities, but as an example of the kind of unforeseen danger which has a better chance of being countered, or even averted, under conditions of constant specialised research and monitoring than it has when such attention is available only in response to an emergency situation. Who knows where, when and how the next emergency associated with this river system might emerge? I commend this Bill to the House. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(5.00) —The River Murray Waters Bill is probably one of the most important and significant documents to come before the House this session. It is certainly the most significant from the point of view of South Australian members. It is for that reason that a larger proportion than normal of South Australian members have addressed themselves to this Bill. I point out to the House that this Bill has had bipartisan support in all that has been said here this afternoon and yesterday. This Bill directly affects South Australians, it directly affects my constituents and it directly affects me. It is more important to South Australians than to any other of the States signatories to the Bill. The River Murray provides 80 per cent of the water than runs off from the State of South Australia. A total of 1.1 million people in South Australia rely on that river; 90 per cent of the State's population, 49 per cent to 62 per cent-depending on whether it is a drought year-of water for stock, domestic and agricultural use comes from the River Murray and 80 per cent of Adelaide's water is drawn from it . If the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) chooses to take a bath, 90 per cent of the water that fills his bath comes from the River Murray. I make a point that ought to be borne in mind: While the honourable member for Grey might use the same voluminous quantities of bath water as the rest of us, the Aborigines in his electorate could live on 1.5 litres of water a day. Australians, particularly South Australians, manage to consume an average of 532 litres of water a day. It takes 435 litres of water to grow the wheat to bake a loaf of bread and 3.8 litres of water to brew half a litre of beer. Let us not underestimate the importance of water and the Murray stream to South Australian people. There has been an historic fascination with the River Murray system. People have been obsessed with the potential of this great river system since Captain Sturt sailed down the river to the mouth in 1829-30. But in spite of the interest, it took 50 years-from 1863 to 1913-for an agreement to be reached on the way in which the river ought to be managed. That 50 years spanned three conventions, three conferences and, in 1906, an agreement that was never ratified. As honourable members are all aware, further negotiations took place until 1913, and finally in 1915 or, as the honourable member for Grey suggests, 1917-I have no intention of being in dispute with him this afternoon-the River Murray Waters Agreement was finally ratified. It has concerned me that we have created in this House the impression that the river is all but finished. I suggest that that is quite wrong. We have allowed a much flaunted impression of neglect, but the reality is that much has happened on the river to make the things we want and need to do possible. From 1922 to 1940, in order to better manage the river system, 13 locks and weirs were constructed and the Murray mouth barrage was put in place. In spite of the gloom, in spite of the current headlines that say that the river is dying and in spite of the fact that in one day 20,000 tonnes of salt will pass the front of the Berri Hotel the river continues to be a very viable and essential stream. The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) made the point that only 7 per cent of the water delivered in the Wimmera-Mallee irrigation area reaches its destination. That is not true in the electorate of Wakefield. Real steps have been taken to ensure that effective and efficient water distribution techniques exist within the Wakefield irrigation area. I am pleased to be able to say that exciting initiatives are occurring to the extent that the river drainage that was once a problem is now proving to be over-engineered. Mr Jacobi —I'll say, but it has taken a long time though. Mr ANDREW —I agree. The reality is that the initiatives that have been taken in irrigation water distribution have enabled a much better river environment than we had previously. I pay tribute to those who have been prepared to upgrade Riverland irrigation and drainage areas and to introduce sprinkler and drip irrigation so that the previously overburdened river and drainage systems can now cope with the irrigation techniques. As the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) pointed out in his contribution to this debate, what is needed is a much wider adoption of modern and effective irrigation techniques. This Bill enables the Commission to monitor the water quality which is now so important. I agree with the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) and the honourable member for Grey that the Bill does not do what we, as Riverland irrigators, South Australians or people concerned with the Riverland environment would like it to do. We would all like it to do much more. But the initiative for a more efficient Bill now rests solely in the courts of the honourable member for Hawker and the honourable member for Grey. No one suggests that this Bill is perfect. All the speakers in this debate have said-I endorse their remarks-that this Bill is only the first step. It took 50 years to take the first step. Perhaps this Bill is the second step. But at least this Bill comes into this House in a climate and an environment which is much more sympathetic with what is being done to the river system than has historically been the case. I can give examples of some of these places. In South Australia-the State on the end of the sewer some would say-river red gums are being regenerated in some places because of more efficient water management techniques. This Bill is a step in the right direction. If further steps are to be taken they now rest squarely with the Government. I note proudly that the Government has picked up the theme of my maiden speech and that there are now Labor governments in each of the three States through which the River Murray is running. Those governments now have taken the initiative of reinforcing what this Bill endeavours to do. I pay tribute to the Hon. Peter Arnold, the former Minister of Water Resources in the South Australian State Government. He was part of the initiative that brought this present inadequate, but essential, Bill into being. I point out to the House that, while I have no wish to be repetitious about the things that other honourable members have said or about the history of the river system, the new Agreement is a great improvement on its predecessor. The most significant addition, particularly for South Australia, is the new initiatives included in Part IV. It sets out provisions for water quality and control. The principal initiatives in this Part provide power for the Commission to: consider any or all relevant water management objectives, including water quality, in the investigation, planning and operation of works; monitor water quality; co-ordinate studies concerning water quality in the Murray River; recommend water quality standards for adoption by the States; make recommendations to any Government agency or tribunal on any matter which may affect the quantity or quality of Murray River waters; make representations to any Government agency concerning any proposal which may significantly affect the flow, use, control or quality of Murray River waters; have regard to the possible effects of its decisions on any river or water management objectives when exercising its powers under the agreement. The new Agreement, therefore, for the first time requires the Commission to take account of water quality in its management of the Murray River. As far as South Australians are concerned this is a major advance. Earlier the honourable member for Hawker challenged members of the Opposition not to go 'wet', if honourable members will pardon the pun, on the question of how to implement this Bill. I reiterate the statement I made that the implementation of this Bill now rests squarely with the Government. I do not challenge the authority of the honourable member for Hawker; I respect his view. But the reality is that any extension of the powers of this Bill would call for State governments to surrender the sovereignty that they currently have. That will not be an easy exercise to undertake. I support whatever reasonable action the honourable member for Hawker may take in strengthening the powers of this Bill. I simply say as a South Australian that the Bill is a positive step in the right direction and it is significant that South Australians will now have some sort of control over the actions that may well defile the very water source they use. This sort of control is their right. I support the Bill. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(5.11) —As has been adequately indicated by a few speakers, the purpose of the River Murray Waters Bill is to approve and provide for the Commonwealth's participation in a new Agreement with three States-New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria-for the control and management of the water resources of the River Murray and its tributaries. The management of the waters of the Murray has been a matter of dispute between those three States since well before Federation. Indeed, since 1840, when the Port Phillip district was defined, the States of Victoria and New South Wales have legally fought over the ownership and use of River Murray waters. Imperial legislation, proclaimed some 15 years later in 1855 which established the boundary between New South Wales and Victoria, declared: The whole water course of the said Murray River from its source to the eastern boundary of the colony of South Australia is and shall be the territory of New South Wales. In fact, New South Wales claimed exclusive right to the use of Murray River water with overbearing possessiveness. Even downstream use of water in South Australia, which at that time was and still is geographically irrelevant to New South Wales water use, was jealously guarded, as a letter from Sir Henry Parkes, the New South Wales Premier, to the South Australian Government indicated in 1890. I quote from that letter to show how jealously that water was guarded. In 1890 Sir Henry Parkes said: We are of course fully aware that the Murray River from the point where it enters your territory belongs to South Australia. I desire however to intimate that it is held by this Government that South Australia cannot use the waters to such unreasonable extent as would interfere with the normal level of the river without committing a breach of intercolonial obligations. I think all attempts by South Australia to negotiate the issue with New South Wales were resisted for many years. In 1914 the River Murray Waters Agreement was finally signed. There have been a large number of amendments to that Agreement since that time. Many would argue that the conflict over the use of the waters of the River Murray in fact heightened the rate at which we achieved Federation. That Agreement created the River Murray Commission with limited powers to implement water sharing agreements between the States. Since that time the problem of water quality-in particular the concern over the increasing levels of water salinity-has grown. Those water quality concerns in South Australia instigated a review of the 1914 agreement. That review, which was undertaken in 1973, was called for by the then Prime Minister, Mr Gough Whitlam. Ten years later the River Murray Waters Bill which is before this Parliament formulates a new Agreement which, to a very much greater degree, directly addresses the issue of water quality in the Murray, its tributaries and the River Murray Commission' s storages. The River Murray Commission will hold responsibility for the monitoring of the quality of the water in the Murray. As honourable members very much agree that the new Agreement is long overdue, I know from listening to the debate this afternoon that many honourable members have argued that the Agreement should be much stronger and the role of the Commonwealth much firmer. I think there is no doubt that the Agreement before us will provide a much needed context for the development of effective and long term water management strategies. Drought has shown the vital importance of water conservation, and the ever-widening effects of salinity demand urgent attention to agreed water quality objectives and land development water requirements. But most importantly this Agreement will ensure a greater equity in the distribution of water resources between the States. In light of the extensive and shared use of the river's resources, it is obviously relevant to consider the Murray-Darling river system as a whole. To restrict our focus to the main stem of the River Murray ignores the vital contribution of its tributaries to the water quality and quantity of that region . In New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia usage of water from the Murray-Darling system is widespread and substantial-a point made by previous speakers this afternoon. Figures from 1981-82 show that New South Wales consumed 5,721 gigalitres of Murray-Darling water; Victoria consumed 3,661 gigalitres; and South Australia used 519 gigalitres for irrigation, domestic and industrial purposes. All in all, each of the three States is significantly dependent on the Murray-Darling river system for water for domestic, industrial and agricultural puroses. I should also take this opportunity to highlight the national water resources program initiative announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in last night's Budget. In 1983-84, $46m will be allocated via this program to the States for approved projects. That is a welcome increase of more than 19 per cent on the actual expenditure of 1982-83 under the previous Government. I have listened to the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) claim that the increase is considerably smaller than that on the allocation of last year. But I think it is pertinent to point out that what is relevant is the amount that is there for spending. I have no doubt that amount will be spent and that we will see an increase in effective Commonwealth contributions to water programs in excess of 19 per cent. I think that one of the reasons, of course, that the previous Federal Government underspent to such a degree under the previous national water resources program was that through its policies it starved the States of vital funds over a period of years. In many cases the States simply did not have the funding to come up with the appropriate level of financial support for the projects. I shall also add that the $2.5m allocation to the Murray Valley salinity and drainage program will very much strengthen the Murray Valley region 's determined campaign to halt the salt and will greatly assist in developing effective drainage strategies. In my own electorate of Bendigo and, of course, in adjacent areas, the development of adequate water resources has been of paramount concern for some time. In particular, local efforts have been made towards securing the Wimmera- Mallee pipeline to enable more efficient distribution of existing water resources and to boost supply to under-resourced areas. While I agree entirely with the remarks made by the honourable member for Mallee in terms of the importance of this project to the people throughout north central Victoria, I take exception to his remark that it is a deliberate policy of this Government to scrap that pipeline proposal. I think it is clear to all honourable members that the money for the so-called supplementary water program that was introduced by the previous Government to the value of $300m and which was announced by the then Prime Minister in January simply was not there to be spent. Mr Jacobi —It was a political gimmick. Mr BRUMBY —The honourable member has indicated that it was a political gimmick. I think that is probably a fair way to describe the program that was introduced in a Press release by the then Prime Minister on 23 January, six weeks before the Federal election campaign in which the Liberal and National parties were so seriously decimated by the people of Australia. Although the previous Government set aside $200m for its five-year national water resources program, the simple fact is that with less than a year of that program to run only slightly more than half the actual money allocated had been spent by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth simply did not have the initiative or the money to spend on that program, let alone announce an additional program to the value of $300m on 23 January-as I said, six weeks before the election-with, of course, projects being targeted under that program to seats of political sensitivity which would assist the then Government. This Government has had to make decisions in the light of fiscal responsibility . The Budget announced last night represents the approach that has been taken by the Government. It is a sound approach to economic management. It lays the groundwork for sustained economic growth. With that growth the Government will be in a position to provide additional and vastly increased resources for projects in the future. I certainly hope that one of the projects which will be eligible for funding will be the Wimmera-Mallee pipeline. I have certainly pursued funding for that program vigorously with the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh). Only two weeks ago I was in Canberra with a deputation of members of the pipeline committee in an endeavour to speed up funding for the project. The Labor Government in Victoria recently allocated $450,000 for a full feasibility study of that project. The Federal Government will be reconsidering its position on the basis of that study. In concluding, I again express my approval for what I see as the very positive and long overdue provision of the new River Murray Waters Bill. Water quality monitoring, environmental protection, flood control and recreational uses are all-important river management concerns which may be addressed by the new terms of the River Murray Waters Agreement. Notwithstanding the positive measures set out in the Agreement, the River Murray Commission's new responsibility in water quality control will of course require even greater co-operation between the States and management of the river system. While the States will have greater equity in the allocation of River Murray resources, most of the diverse activities in the enormous catchment area of the Murray are under State control. No doubt, different interests tied to different activity bases in each State will, on occasions, emerge. Therefore, I welcome the assurance from the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) in his second reading speech that this Government will maintain a very close interest in the implementation of the new Agreement and, if need be , approach the three States regarding means of strengthening that Agreement. Large parts of Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales will benefit from the Agreement. I hope that in the future, when funding is provided for the Wimmera-Mallee pipeline, that project will be able to utilise the very valuable water from the Murray. As the Minister has noted, this agreement-as was the case with its predecessor-depends very much on the good will of the contracting parties for its success. I am confident that with Labor governments in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales goodwill will be forthcoming. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(5.24) —The River Murray Waters Bill is the first major change or extension to the powers of the River Murray Commission since 1914 when of course the first legislation which covered water quantity was passed. This legislation covers water quality. The fact that it has been so long between the first power of the River Murray Commission and this extended power indicates the difficulty of progress in a federal system in which four governments have to agree. The River Murray Commission-the body that comprises or represents the four governments on an equal basis-is a truly federal body. As it was established in 1917, it is probably one of the oldest federal bodies, if not the oldest, in Australia. While acknowledged that the States have been slow to agree and to legislate to provide more power to the River Murray Commission must also be acknowledged that any developments are difficult. Although the new Agreement is limited, one must congratulate the four governments because at least some progress has been made, even though it may be too late and too little by some people's standards. It brings forward some significant developments for the River Murray Commission. It allows the Commission to formulate quality objectives which it has never had the power to do before. The States are now required to inform the Commission of any works being carried out in their areas which could alter the quality of the main stream. As the shadow Minister for the Environment, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), has pointed out, the States have been slow to remember that they have this new requirement. There are also new and more flexible arrangements with regard to State allocations of water. It is significant that the States are now being made more accountable for the quality of water not just in the river, but in all of the tributaries, even though the tributaries remain under the control of the States. The River Murray Commission, by monitoring the river, knows very well that pollution is entering the river from any tributary in any State. The States will have to tighten their overall water management procedures. They will have to provide more public information and they will have to explain their actions. In other words, they will be generally far more accountable, or be required to be more accountable, to the nation and other States than they have been in the past. I certainly support the River Murray Commission as the body to control the co- ordinated policy for the River Murray. There are limits within our federal system. But we must do what we can from time to time to strengthen its role. TVAs-Tennessee Valley Authorities-the United States Corps of Engineers, Delaware systems, et cetera are merely grandiose ideas on the part of some people. I believe that their promotion in Australia is counterproductive because they take people's minds away from the reality of our federal system and our limited constitutional power, upon which we must always concentrate if we are to make further progress with the river. I particularly commend the honourable member for Bradfield for his formation of a River Murray committee consisting of coalition members at State and Federal levels. It is a significant achievement. I also commend him for the 10 policy proposals which he presented earlier during this debate. I draw the attention of honourable members to one of them. He suggested that the allocation of finance for River Murray works which would be undertaken by the responsible State along the Murray under the Commonwealth's national resources program-or the bicentennial program, when we return to power-be made through the River Murray Commission rather than to the States. The financial power is tremendous and does not require the legislative approval of the four governments. The alteration of this procedure alone would greatly strengthen the power of the River Murray Commission to obtain the necessary co-operation and co-ordination. We expect a lot of the River Murray. People are very quick to criticise its management and problems. But I am not aware of any other river in the world over which such precise management controls are required. The average flow of the Murray is about 12 million megalitres of water a year. But the annual flow varies dramatically, and in an extremely dry year, such as in the year 1982-83 which has just concluded, the flow can be as little as 2 million to 2 1/2 million megalitres. The total storage capacity under the control of the River Murray Commission is about 9 million megalitres. In a dry year the river is expected to provide about 7 1/2 million megalitres, of which 4 1/4 million megalitres is for irrigation, 250,000 megalitres for towns and cities, 1 1/4 million for South Australian flow, and 2 million megalitres lost to evaporation. To provide this volume in some years, 5 million megalitres must be drawn from storages. Thus, in an extremely dry year there is a very tight situation; hence the dramatic rundown in the storages over the last 12 months. Of course, storages are still at very low levels. In an average year, about 1.4 million tonnes to 1.5 million tonnes of salt is discharged from the Murray, but this amount can actually increase several times in a wet year. I emphasise that the misconception that many people have is that somehow or other in a dry year the amount of salt in the river increases. Actually, it decreases. It increases in a wet year. Each State contributes about one-third of the salt which enters the river, much of it entering by natural means. It has always done so and always will do so, irrespective of irrigation. In dry years in the past, the Murray River has ceased to flow to the sea. Quite frankly, the river in the year just concluded-the driest of all years for river flow-would have stopped flowing to the South Australian border if it had not been for the dams built in the upper river area, particularly the Dartmouth Dam. Almost every major newspaper, magazine and television program in Australia at some stage has carried an article or a series-a film has also been made-about the gigantic myth that the Murray is a dying and deteriorating river. This week' s Bulletin is no exception when it comes to the inaccuracies printed about the river. I only wish that the Press would check with the River Murray Commission for some facts before they print their articles. I quote from this week's Bulletin: Last year the problem was different. Then, with record low levels from drought, the salt content of the lower Murray was so high the water was hardly drinkable, even after treatment. The implication was that the salt level increased last year. I will refer later in the debate to figures from the River Murray Commission which indicate that the salinity level actually dropped. The article continued: Salinity is the Murray's single biggest problem. The river carries millions of tonnes to the sea each year. I have already told honourable members that the average flow is about 1 1/2 million tonnes. It continued: When the water is used for irrigation, the salt leaches down through the soil to accumulate in the water table. Actually, the reverse usually happens. The geology of the area, the underlying basis of soil in the area, means that the salt is already present. As water is applied and the water level rises, the salt that was already present rises in the water. That is at variance with the comment made in the article. Some of the articles to which I am referring that have built up a gigantic myth about a dying river are based, in my view, on a deliberate misinformation campaign promoted in South Australia. Once again, the River Murray Commission has never been checked for the accuracy of these statements and allegations that have been made. That campaign was promoted particularly against New South Wales and its allocation of pumping licences from the Darling River. The Darling is a New South Wales river, not a River Murray Commission river. That campaign has been particularly damaging in several ways. Part of the campaign from South Australia is based on the argument that, if water is removed from the Darling, the quality of water to the people of Adelaide will be reduced. The opposite is the case. Because of the turbidity of the Darling River, if water was removed from it and less reached Adelaide, the quality of Adelaide water would be improved. The second part of the argument is that the river flow has not reached the sea at certain stages over the last couple of years due to dams built in the upper river areas and irrigation along the river. As I have already said, over the years the Murray has stopped flowing from time to time. If it had not been for the dams, particularly the Dartmouth Dam, the Murray River would not even have reached South Australia during the last year-the year of the lowest flow on record. Once again, it proves the tremendous value of the Dartmouth Dam for providing a reserve of high quality water for all people along the river. The next point is that the river quality is deteriorating and that somehow or other, year by year, the salinity level is increasing. I refer now to some correspondence and information provided by the River Murray Commission in April of this year. This information is public for anybody who bothers to take the trouble to ask for it or to read the Press releases that the Commission puts out from time to time. The correspondence states: To summarise, salinities this irrigation season have been very good given the extreme drought conditions experienced. They have been at least as good as last season which included a flood, and much better than those experienced during the 1967/68 drought. Of course, 1967-68 was a very dry year. I will give the House some figures. These are EC levels, salinity levels, in the river at different places: In 1967- 68 at Swan Hill the average for December, January and February was 180 EC units. In the 1981-82 spring flood year, when there was a lot of water, it went to 270. But in this very dry year it was 140, even lower than in the previous dry year. At Waikerie in South Australia in the 1967-68 year it was 1,240 EC units. In the 1981-82 spring flood it was 930 and in the 1982-83 very dry year 840, lower than in each of those two previous years. In case honourable members think that is a little out of date, I will quote figures for two weeks-the week ended 13 April 1983, which would have been just about the last dry week before the rains, and the week ended 21 April 1982, a similar week in a far wetter year. At Swan Hill the figures were 170 EC units this year, last year 290; at Waikerie, 750 EC units this year, 1,100 last year; at Murray Bridge, 1,000 EC units this year, 1, 150 EC units last year. So much for the myth that the river is continually deteriorating. I only wish that people would check the facts with the River Murray Commission instead of listening to misinformation and reading misleading articles which keep appearing in magazines and newspapers. I acknowledge that we have a very serious situation and that much remains to be done, but the point is that salinity levels are being reduced by a series of programs: First of all, government-financed programs which are keeping saline drainage away from the river; secondly, the construction of the Dartmouth Dam and, had we continued in power, a further dam to provide higher quality water for security and quality purposes in the upper Murray; and, thirdly, the laser land-levelling techniques which are now being widely used by irrigation farmers in my area and other irrigation areas. That land is being levelled at the rate of 5 per cent a year and, as the technique has been used for only about three or four years, that rate is accelerating. That is a tremendous uptake of new technology. Groundwater pumping to lower groundwater in irrigation areas is doing three things at the same time. Firstly, it is lowering the groundwater level; secondly, it is providing about 200,000 more megalitres each year for irrigation; and, thirdly, it is keeping groundwater away from the river. Those two innovative farmer programs were aided very much by the taxation incentives introduced by the last Government and by some excellent co-operative education programs and relationships between State departments responsible for agriculture , water supply and the farmers. These measures in turn are allowing continual reductions in State departments' estimates of what further works for the diversion of saline drainage from the river are necessary, which means a reduction in the cost of big capital programs. For this to continue requires public support and acknowledgement of the great work being done, and it certainly means that continuing government support through taxation incentives, loan schemes and government capital works is necessary. I would like to commend the Commonwealth Development Bank which has recently instituted a special laser loan scheme to encourage farmers even more to do the expensive work that is necessary. Irrigation farmers have also been criticised for being inefficient and thus needlessly contributing to the salinity of the river. I acknowledge that mistakes have been made in the past in certain irrigation areas. The same could be said of the siting of towns on coastal rivers along the eastern coast of Australia or of putting Darwin and Townsville in cyclone-prone areas, but nobody ever talks of moving any of those towns. We should also acknowledge that we are criticising now with a level of technology which was not available in the early days. We also have to acknowledge that some farmers are better managers than others. I want to abolish a few more myths. Irrigation farmers in the Goulburn-Murray irrigation district are efficient. By United States irrigator standards they are very efficient. I have personal experience over 20 years of living and working on and visiting irrigation farms in the Platte Valley of Nebraska, the Columbia Basin system in Washington, the Central, San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys of California and the Imperial Valley of California. The irrigation farmers in all those irrigation areas put on and drain off far more water than any irrigation farmer in Australia. Australian irrigation farmers are also responding to the new technology quicker than their counterparts in the United States; and I was in some of those irrigation areas two months ago. For example, as I have said, we are already ahead of the United States in the use of lasers, although the technique has been used for only a few years. I am particularly concerned by a report to be released in the near future entitled 'Perspectives on Australia's Water Resources to the year 2000'. From what I have heard in certain comments that have been made about it, certain conclusions have been reached irrespective of the evidence. I believe that this document will be recommending that a punitive user-pay requirement is needed for irrigation water. Quite bluntly, if that is the case, it is contrary to United States experience, to the way in which to work with farmers and farmer sociology , and to the Australian experience. I cannot remember any unionists in Australia responding to the whip. Recently when in the United States I discussed these policy matters with the United States Department of Agriculture in Washington, with officials in Nebraska where there are eight million acres irrigated-three times our total irrigated acreage-and in the Imperial Valley in California. The Colorado water being applied in the Imperial Valley is more saline than any water in the River Murray. The people I spoke to acknowledged that they had discussed a punitive user-pay policy for water pricing but had rejected it in favour of co-operative education of the sort that we are using and an encouragement to use technology. They said that if there were to be a penalty it should be on the amount of drainage water that goes off a farm, not on the amount of water put on a farm. The price of water in most of those areas of the United States, the combined water application and drainage rate, is about half what it is here in the Goulburn- Murray area. I acknowledge that in parts of the Central Valley it is higher because there is competition for water between urban and rural users such as there is in the Hunter Valley in this country, but there is not a policy of applying a penalty price. If this report recommends this way and if it is used by State irrigation authorities as an excuse to apply a punitive price for water , I believe it will be counterproductive. It will make our irrigation farmers less competitive than their United States counterparts in export markets because the price they pay for water is about half what we pay now. It will also reduce the ability of farmers to invest in new technology which in some cases, with lasering, can cost several hundred dollars a year. Much was made by the Government in the Budget last night of a 19 per cent increase in the expenditure on the national water resources program. That is a Budget allocation of 19 per cent more than was actually spent last year. A look at last year's Budget Papers and at what was said at Budget time will reveal that the figure then was $41.7m. In other words, it is an increase of less than 10 per cent and far below the average increase in Budget expenditure. As $38.9m still has to be allocated, no one can tell me that it is all going to be spent. I hope that it is spent. Just as last year's allocation was not spent in total because of the problems of the States-I think the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) referred to this-I believe that this year's allocation will also not be spent. One of the reasons that the previous Government brought in the bicentennial water resources program which did not require dollar for dollar money was that the States were too slow in spending money and we put in $70m a year without waiting for the States to put up their dollar for dollar amount. Much has been made in the debate this afternoon about water research, but I noticed with some curiosity that expenditure on water research this year has been halved to $500,000 from $1m last year. To conclude and to return to the Bill, I believe progress is being made at a pace thought impossible a few years ago, and I appeal to the Government not to upset a successful combination of policies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. It is to be recalled that the same limitation of liability will also apply in the proposed new section 12 of the Migration Act relating to criminal deportation. I digress to make the point that the House should not make the mistake of confusing amendments to section 14 of the Act on security grounds with amendments to section 13 on the basis of criminal deportation. The protection of those who are within the scope of proposed new section 14 (1)-that is to say, temporary residents or permanent residents of less than 10 years standing-will be maintained if and when their conduct brings them within the much narrow scope of this proposed new sub-section. The Minister may not order their deportation unless a commissioner who is or has been a judge of a Federal court or of the supreme court of a State or Territory, or a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of Australia or of a supreme court of a State or Territory of not less than five years standing, and who is appointed by the Governor-General has reviewed their case and has reported to the Minister within the framework of section 14. The Government has also decided to remove from the Bill reference to certain sections of the Crimes Act under which conviction may result in deportation on security grounds. I conclude by saying that we also intend to amend clause 13 which amends section 16 of the Act to render non-citizens to be deemed a prohibited non- citizen when in seeking a further entry permit after their arrival they have produced or caused to be produced certain false, forged documents or have made or caused to be made a false or misleading statement. I hope that with regard to this Bill which has been introduced, the amendments which I will introduce tonight and a further Bill which will be introduced after we have received the Human Rights Commission report the House will consider this matter further, especially with regard to civil liberties, and regard it as part of a continuing and ongoing review of the Migration Act 1959 which has not been amended for so many years in such a progressive way. I thank the House. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(5.58) —I say at the outset that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) is correct when he says that the Government does have a mandate for this legislation. Therefore, I indicate that it will not be opposed. That is not to say that there will not be stringent criticism of certain aspects of the legislation which, unfortunately, confirm a pattern which has been evident since the honourable member assumed the position of Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. In the robust exchange of parliamentary debate I do not mind conceding that I have always had a sneaking regard for the Minister, particularly in relation to his strongly held, although in my view somewhat radical, political views. I have never doubted for one moment his integrity. But I have to say that if ever there was a case for renaming a Minister and his ministry it is here and now because this Minister ought to be renamed the Minister who is determined not to exercise his discretion. As I said on a previous occasion in this House, one of the first things the Minister did was to eliminate any ministerial discretion whatsoever in relation to persons who were in Australia on a visa and who wished to obtain permanent resident status unless they entered into holy matrimony. We are not debating that tonight. But that Minister effectively scrubbed from his desk this year 12, 000 to 15,000 anticipated cases. I think his predecessors in the last year had about 12,000 cases all of which they looked at. In about 1,000 of those cases approval was given for permanent resident status. Tonight we are determining the new procedure which will apply in relation to the deportation of persons from Australia. The Minister has correctly made the point, and the Opposition does not cavil with it, that there was a dichotomy within the legislation which has troubled some people and which, on the face of it, was clearly discriminatory. All persons in Australia who are not Australian citizens, under the law as it stands at this moment, are categorised as either immigrants or aliens. Immigrants effectively are those people who come to Australia from the United Kingdom, Ireland and various other Commonwealth countries. Those who have come from other countries are classified as aliens. The law states that those who are in Australia as aliens will always be liable to deportation at any point of time regardless of whether they have been in Australia for five years, 15 years or 20 years. Under the legislation as it now stands immigrants are not liable to deportation after they have been in Australia for a period of five years. The effect of the legislation introduced by the Minister on behalf of the Hawke socialist Government will be that the distinction in definition will be removed and that all people will be safe from deportation in general circumstances after they have been permanently resident in Australia for a total period of 10 years- that is, either in one period of 10 years or, in the case of those who pick up a few gaol sentences on the way, 10 years in the aggregate of their time as guests of Her Majesty not counting towards that 10-year period. It is conceded that the then Opposition, through its spokesman on immigration and ethnic affairs, the honourable member for Port Adelaide, (Mr Young) and others, prior to going to the people on 5 March made it quite clear that there would be moves in this direction. On that point the now Opposition in this Parliament accepts that there is a mandate. But what will we now see? Let us spell it out in simple terms. After a person has been in Australia for 10 years, unless he indulges in treason, sedition or a like offence, he is as safe as a church. Al Capone could not be deported from Australia under the legislation which this socialist Government has brought in. If Al Capone were in Australia for 10 years, provided he did not commit an offence against the sections referred to in the Crimes Act dealing with sedition , treason and the like, he would be as safe as a church. Mr West —At least we won't have any more Pochi cases. Mr HODGMAN —I am not talking about Pochi. I am telling the honourable member that as a result of his legislation if Al Capone were alive today he would be as safe as a church in Australia 10 years and one day after he obtained permanent resident status. My learned friend, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) raises his furry eyebrows. But let me draw his attention to the provisions of the Crimes Act which are set out as qualifying a person for deportation under this very restrictive new legislation. If a person commits an offence against section 24 of the Crimes Act which deals with treason, section 24AA which deals with treachery, section 24AB which deals with sabotage, section 24C which deals with offences involving conspiracy, section 25 which deals with persons inciting mutiny, section 26 which deals with persons assisting prisoners of war to escape or section 27 which deals with unlawful drilling-that is not mining drilling; that is military drilling-he is liable to be deported because he has constituted a threat to national security. The situation is different under the provisions of this extraordinary piece of legislation if one commits an offence under section 28 of the Crimes Act which deals with interfering with political liberty. I will read that section to the House. It states: Any person who, by violence or by threats or intimidation of any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise or performance, by any other person, of any political right or duty, shall be guilty of an offence. Under the provisions of that section such a person can be gaoled for three years and he cannot be deported. If a person commits an offence against section 29, which deals with destroying or damaging Commonwealth property, he cannot be deported by the Hawke Government. That section states: Any person who wilfully and unlawfully destroys or damages any property, whether real or personal, belonging to the Commonwealth or to any public authority under the Commonwealth, shall be guilty of an offence. If a person commits an offence under the provisions of that section he can, again, be imprisoned. To add to that, if a person commits an offence under section 30, which concerns seizing goods in Commonwealth custody, and which states: Any person who, without lawful authority, takes any goods or property out of the possession, custody, or control of the Commonwealth or a public authority under the Commonwealth or out of the possession, custody, or control of a Commonwealth officer who has the possession, custody, or control thereof by virtue of his office, shall be guilty of an offence- Such a person can be sent to prison, but he cannot be deported. Let me take the matter a little further. If a person commits an offence under section 6 of the Crimes Act, as an accessory after the fact, under section 7 of the Act, when he is guilty of an attempt, or under section 7A of the Act, where he is guilty of inciting, or under section 86 (1) of the Act, where he is guilty of conspiracy, but only in relation to those offences against government can he be deported. But if he enters into organised crime, if he engages in drug trafficking, if he gets himself into a situation in which he is the most notorious and wicked criminal in the land, if he has been in this country for 10 years and one day as a permanent resident, he is as safe as a church. That is why the Opposition will move an amendment to clause 11. I assure the Minister that whoever told him to say-he may have thought of it himself-that some of us might confuse the provisions of section 14 of the principal Act with the provisions of section 12 of that Act, we have not done so , because section 12, as he knows, has no effect when the person has been here for more than 10 years. Section 14 is the section- Mr West —It deals with security. Mr HODGMAN —It deals with security, and you are quite right. Mr West —You are confusing it. Mr HODGMAN —There is no question at all about this. We are saying that you have narrowed it down to such an extent that you would be lucky to get two deportations a year, if that, under the provisions of section 14. We shall be moving an amendment to your proposed amendments to section 14 of the principal Act, by which we shall give every member of this House an opportunity to say whether he or she believes that you have made this now far too narow and far too restrictive. My comments in this regard will be supported by my colleagues, in particular by my learned and honourable friend the member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). We shall be moving that where a person who is a non-citizen has, either before or after the commencement of this sub-section, been convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs or has been convicted in Australia of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than five years, the Minister may, subject to this section, order the deportation of that person. We believe that that is necessary not so much on the basis of national security but on the basis of the security and safety of every Australian citizen. Although the Minister may find it painful-as I have no doubt he would, as would any Minister-to make a decision that someone has to be deported, if he is to let this legislation go through in its present form, I have to say to the honourable Minister, to my colleague on the other side of the table: You will not be deporting too many people out of this country. You will not be doing that, because once they have been here for 10 years and one day they are safe. I have to say to you, with the greatest respect, that if this was your idea, you are wrong, and if it was the idea of your advisers, you have been wrongly advised. Accordingly, we shall give every member of this Parliament the opportunity to show to the people of Australia what he or she feels about people who engage in trafficking in dangerous drugs. If a court of law says to a man who has been in this country for 12 years, 'your crime is such that you will be sentenced to imprisonment for 15 years', do you think that the ordinary average Australian might say to himself, 'I wonder whether, in all the circumstances, this man ought not to be deported from Australia'? But if you pass this legislation in its present form, you will not have the power. You may want to get rid of him. You may feel that it is in the national interest, in the interests of young Australians, that that man be deported. But there will be no more deportations for drug offenders in this country under this legislation if they have been here for more than 10 years. I say to the Minister: Would you mind thinking again on this point, because we in the Opposition believe that we would be failing in our duty to the people of Australia, particularly the young people, if we did not give this Parliament the opportunity to say, 'Hang on a minute. Offences relating only to situations in which a person as a non-citizen can be described as a threat to the security of the Commonwealth, of a State, or of any internal or external territory are far too limited.' You do not want gangsters and criminals in this country, Minister, whom you will have no power to deport; but that will be the situation. It is a classic example of what, with respect-I say this to you in the friendliest but firmest terms-you have done ever since you took on this ministerial portfolio. Wherever and whenever you could, you have said: 'There will be no discretion; she will be black or she will be white'. That is a situation in which the work load on your desk will become less and less, but will justice be done? By ' justice', I mean justice to the individual and justice to the community. You yourself, Minister, in your speech in May-which was an impressive speech- commented that you would be striving for just and humane decisions. I do not doubt that. But what you will do is to put yourself in a legislative strait- jacket which will prevent you from getting out of this country people who you know and I know should not be permitted to remain here. I agree that in the general run of cases, when people have been here for 10 years and are then involved in a fatal accident and a manslaughter conviction arises for which they are sent to prison for two years that person would not be deported. If, because of pressure of economic circumstances, people engage in the passing of valueless cheques, false pretences or forgery and the like, you would not deport them. But what happens when we reach a situation when a judge of a court of a State or Territory, or a judge dealing with matters of grave seriousness involving the trafficking of dangerous drugs, says to a defendant, ' you have behaved in such a way that you have endangered the lives of young people and their entire future because they are hooked on amphetamines or cocaine, with lives ruined and deaths occurring'? I appeal to you, Minister, to think again on this provision. I appeal to you because I submit that you will see that you could not make a just and humane decision on such a matter when you yourself had brought in the very legislation which prevents you from getting such people out of Australia. Earlier when I was speaking, the Minister interjected the name of a case. For my own part as shadow Minister, I do not believe that there is merit in myself traversing cases that have been decided by previous Ministers. I might say that that has been to your benefit, Minister, in one matter, because in one case of an entry into Australia of a person called Professor Hidaka, after discussion with my colleague the previous Minister at that time, the member for Balaclava ( Mr Macphee), in relation to that case, and noting what was said at that time by the then Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Minister for Foreign Affairs ( Mr Hayden), I deduced that perhaps the security advice that you received on this matter, Minister, was different from that which had been given on an earlier occasion. I do not know whether I am right or wrong, but I thought that you would have such a high regard for the security of this country that you would not let that man in. Mr West —Did I not use my discretion there? Mr HODGMAN —You did, indeed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! I ask the honourable member to direct his remarks through the Chair rather than more directly to the Minister, as he has been inclined to do. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister did, indeed. As a matter of fact, he exercised his discretion on one other occasion, on which I publicly supported him. He issued visas to two people from East Timor to come into Australia, and rightly so-and he was rolled by that collective monster of Cabinet, which should never interfere with ministerial discretion in relation to the issuing of visas. But to return to the precise point, I give the Minister full marks for my genuine belief that he would act fairly and justly if he had any of his discretion left to exercise. But he has got rid of so much of it that I believe that if he goes much further he ought to put himself out of office as Minister. There will be nothing left for him to do. There will be no discretion. He certainly should not be paid full ministerial salary today. Mr West —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder how far we are digressing from the scope of the Bill. Allegations have been made that I have given away all discretion, and so on. That is just not true. What he is referring to is the very narrow concept of working holiday makers who seek to change status on occupational grounds only. That is the only area in which there is no discretion being exercised within my portfolio. The point is that the honourable member is digressing from the Bill. All of this is not part of the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think the honourable member is entitled to that conjecture. I ask all honourable members, of course, to relate their remarks to the Bill. There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Denison. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Look at it in the Bill. You prosecute, convict and hang yourself on the Bill when you, in your second reading speech of your first Bill, say that the area in respect to deportations is to be reduced. In the same speech you say each and every case is looked at on its merits. If reducing the total deportations you are looking at from 100 to 3 in one year does not amount to a massive abdication of ministerial discretion and the exercise thereof, I do not know what does. I am quite prepared to debate this Bill with the Minister. I ask the Minister whether he has had any advice from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs as to how many persons would have come within the categories under which they will be liable for deportation under section 14 of the new amendment over the last five years. In other words, I would like to know, and I think the people of Australia are entitled to know, how many people in Australia over the last five years have been convicted of treason. How many have been convicted of treachery? How many have been convicted of sabotage? How many have been convicted of these matters to which I referred-seditious words and the like? How many have been convicted of inciting mutiny or helping prisoners of war to escape? Come off the grass. Mr Deputy Speaker, what a lot of codswallop we have here! You will probably not get a single deportation before you are out of office, and that will be in only about 15 months time anyway. Where are your deportations? Where will they come from? Effectively I have to say this to you: You will be the least worked Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in the history of Australia in regard to deportations because nobody will come within the provisions of the legislation. Yet you have a mandate for it. Who are we in Opposition, in the Westminster system, to deny these people the opportunity to inflict upon the people of Australia what the Government promised to inflict on them as it bribed its way to power prior to 5 March? There is a limit to the extent to which any opposition, particularly not possessing the numbers, can prevent you from doing this. But I invite you, before this debate concludes and after you have heard the stirring and impressive addresses of the honourable member for North Sydney, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) and others, to tell me where you will get somebody you can deport on the grounds that he helped prisoners of war to escape. Just give a little thought to it because that is what you are writing into the statutes. Mr West —That is relating it to convictions under the Crimes Act. Mr HODGMAN —Indeed. Tell me how many in the last five years. Mr West —Perhaps we should take it out of the Crimes Act. Mr HODGMAN —I am not being unkind, and I must say you are very fortunate that the honourable member for North Sydney is a patient and understanding person, as am I. I have never seen such legislation. I am not being critical in a personal sense, but you brought in your second reading speech back in May. We then found, in addition to the amendments to the Migration Amendment Act, as you predicted we would, that the Migration (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill was introduced also and that is fair enough. We then got a printed set of amendments to that legislation and you have just given an excellent speech in the House, a copy of which I would very much like to have, but I have a horrible feeling that either the Government does not have much legislation to go on with or, with respect, you are still making decisions. I want to give you the final chance in your interests-not that I should be doing anything to protect you from the fate which will befall you or your Government in due course to look again at our amendment and tell the people of Australia that the Hawke Government is prepared to recognise that it has become a little airy-fairy in seeking to reduce the areas of deportation set out in the Crimes Act which are referred to in your amendment , and that you feel sorry-- Mr West —What you have missed-- Mr HODGMAN —For hundred and thousands of young Australians whose lives are blighted-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but I notice that when he tends to direct his remarks to the Minister rather than through the Chair we have an exchange. I suggest that the honourable member comply with the Standing Orders. Mr HODGMAN —If it pleases you, sir, I will direct my remarks to you and I will ignore him totally. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I would be obliged if you would. Mr HODGMAN —I will. This Minister will have the chance of a lifetime tonight because he and his Government will show the people of Australia what they feel about people who engage in the trafficking of dangerous drugs. It will not be limited to that because the honourable member for North Sydney will develop this point. This concerns people whose offence is so serious that a judge is moved to say: 'You are going into prison for five years'. Frankly-I conclude my speech on this note; I will deliver further remarks in the Committee stage-the Hawke Government will have to stand up and decide whether it is to be the Government which made it safe for criminals, murderers and destroyers of the Australian way of life to remain unscathed and untouched in this country if they have been here for 10 years and one day. Before I became a member of parliament, I practised for some time at the Bar. I find it fascinating, if not slightly Irish, how one can accumulate one's 10 years and one day. One could, for example, spend intermittent periods as a guest of Her Majesty in one of Her Majesty's establishments around the country. But provided the clock ticks over and the person has been here for 10 years and one day, as I said, an Australian Al Capone in 1983, per courtesy of the Hawke Government, is as safe as a church. While there may be many who think from the point of view of dialectic socialism that that is a good idea, I venture to suggest that the overwhelming majority of Australians would not have a bar of it and, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you think again you will not have a bar of it. It is therefore with considerable criticism, but recognising that the Government has the mandate to wreck this country and that in this piece of legislation the Government has the potential to damage, and damage very seriously, the rights of many thousands of Australians, young and old, that I say that the legislation will not be opposed, it will be castigated, criticised and, hopefully, improved by an amendment which is put forward in good faith and which should be accepted in good faith. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(6.22) —When I first became a member of this Parliament I laughed at the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) but I now feel sorry for him. It is certainly my privilege to speak on the Migration Amendment Bill and the Migration (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) has put to this House. Might I say as a new member that the Minister, Stewart West, is a Minister who is active in, alert to and sincerely concerned with the problems of the ethnic communities of this country. It would be well for others if some of those qualities rubbed off on them. Those remarks lead me to set out as a prelude to my speech why we are here to make these changes to the legislation. The lead-up to this legislative action is found in two cases. The first is the Pochi case. I mention that case in passing as I do not want to dwell on what the previous speaker said. I simply make the point that in both the Pochi case and the Barbaro case Liberal Ministers intervened to stop the deportation of those gentlemen. Those cases are about as close as we can come to examples to relate to the wild rhetoric of the honourable member for Denison. In the Pochi case, notwithstanding the facts of the matter, an important issue of principle arose in sharp focus. That was whether there should be substantial differences in the law pertaining to the rights of Commonwealth or non- Commonwealth immigrants. The second matter that followed concerned the spirit of recommendation No. 10 from page 4 of the Human Rights Commission's report entitled 'Human Rights and the Deportation of Convicted Aliens and Immigrants' of June 1983, which, as honourable members should know, states: The definition of 'alien' should be repealed or reworded to remove the discrimination between non-citizens on grounds of national origin. Those two matters were of fundamental importance when they came before the Australian public and particularly before the ethnic communities of our great country. They put in sharp focus the very real problems that those communities have when friends, relatives and other new settlers come to our shores. This legislative action by this Australian Labor Party Government occurs in conjunction with the proposal of a broad package of measures designed to defeat not only the legal discrimination that exists against migrants in this country but also the social and economic elements of discrimination against new Australians in varying degrees. It is worth while mentioning, one day after the Budget was presented, that the mini-Budget in May started this process in a financial sense. Last night the Budget saw a 14 per cent increase in dollar terms in the area of immigration and ethnic affairs. That increase cannot be ignored in the context of the broad, sweeping reforms that this Government will be making in the area of immigration and ethnic affairs. I should point out some facts about this Bill, as opposed to the rhetoric of the honourable member for Denison. They matter to new Australians, whether they be of Greek origin, Arabic origin, or whether they be from any other non- Commonwealth country. Importantly this Bill means that there will no longer be a second class of non-citizens in this country; there will no longer be that acute discrimination amongst ethnic groups in this country. It is worth while mentioning to the honourable member that the largest ethnic blocks in my electorate are non-Commonwealth migrant groups. I refer specifically to Arabs, Greeks and other southern Europeans, mainly Yugoslavs. It would be well for the honourable member to visit my electorate once, talk to those people and see their real problems as I see them. It is important to note that non-citizens of Greek, Arabic and southern European background pay taxes. They are equal before the law in all cases except those we are describing tonight. They may be equal before independent judiciaries. They may sue; they may be sued. They may be liable for torts and crimes under the law. The changes we are talking about tonight render it impossible for them to be deported in a semi-cavalier manner, in comparison with the rights of other non- citizens in this country. This is twentieth century legislation in that it recognises that crime exists in all modern societies and that crime must be dealt with in a rational way. Highly charged emotional speeches have never solved anything in the processes of law-making. Doubtless that will be realised as the case when the Bill is voted on in this House. The Bill recognises that the most fundamental of crimes which render non- citizens unacceptable in this country are those against the security of the state. It is important to point out, particularly to listeners of this debate, that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has realised this fact in an appropriate manner. This legislation also takes us away from a real, lasting vestige of the white Australian policy and all that that discrimination means. The amendment to section 13 sub-sections (b) and (c) of the Migration Act is of particular interest to me and is, I believe, particularly important. Honourable members may or may not be aware that section 13 states that where an immigrant: (b) has been convicted in Australia of an offence by reason of being a prostitute or living on the immoral earnings of prostitution and (c) is, within five years after any entry by him into Australia, an inmate of a mental hospital or public charitable institution, the Minister may order the deportation of the migrant from Australia. These are two amazing indictments of the previous Government. It did not see these very real problems. It did nothing to solve them. Sub-section (b) which relates to prostitution means, in effect, that a non-citizen born from a Commonwealth country is more entitled to make a living out of prostitution than a non-Commonwealth migrant, for instance! That is what the law means in effect as it stands. I would be interested to hear what honourable members on the other side of the House have to say about that. Mr Hodgman —You would know more about that subject than we would, Gary. Mr PUNCH —Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask the honourable member to withdraw that remark . Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8.30 p.m. Mr PUNCH —Mr Speaker, before the suspension of the sitting I had asked the honourable member for Denison to withdraw a remark that he made which was most unsavoury and untrue. I am quite prepared, if he so wishes, to leave it on the parliamentary record. I would then mail it to every newspaper in his electorate for them to see. I was dealing with section 13 paragraphs (b) and (c). Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member has sought a withdrawal of remarks because they are offensive to him, I am required to request the honourable member for Denison to withdraw them. Mr Hodgman —May I say, without hesitation, I will do so. May I also say-- Mr SPEAKER —No. You may not also say. You must withdraw. Mr Hodgman —Would you pardon me for one moment, sir. It is not improper. I wish simply to say that the Deputy Speaker was going to speak to you. If you had not mentioned the matter it would not have appeared in Hansard, and now it will. Mr PUNCH —Such is life. I was dealing with paragraphs (b) and (c). I was saying they discriminated against persons of non-Commonwealth migration background. Paragraph (c) specifically refers to people within five years being placed in mental hospitals and such institutions. It is interesting to note that a New South Wales Government report entitled 'Statistics of Inpatients in Psychiatric Centres' shows the disproportionately high and differing ratio of mental illness amongst the different ethnic groups. The report goes on in table 2 to show, in quite definite terms, what should be obvious to all honourable members; that is, that particularly non-British migrants coming to this country are placed under different forms of stress as a direct result of their background, cultural upbringing and the like in the Australian context. Because of these stresses, a disproportionate number of these people, who offer no harm to society in the main, find themselves suffering a good deal of mental illness. That section of the Act quite obviously leaves them open legally in a most unacceptable manner. Related to the report are the 1970 figures that were released in 1973 by the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs showing that more non-British immigrants tended to be convicted of crimes-albeit mostly petty crimes-under our judicial system than Anglo-Saxon Australians or British immigrants. Taken with what I previously said regarding mental illness, that shows that the ethnic groups do have some problems upon arrival in Australia. This shows up how discriminatory the system is against them. In my opinion paragraph (c) would deny these people natural justice through an independent body to judge each case . A most worthwhile amendment is to be made to section 7 (4). It goes all the way down the track to stopping the incentive that currently exists for people to come to this country, go underground and stay undetected for five years and then be free from any prosecution by the law and deportation. The amendment will have the result that illegal immigrants will remain illegal immigrants in the law permanently. Therefore, it removes the incentive that currently prevails in the Act to break the law. The Minister has also foreshadowed an amendment to section 16 to widen the discretion of the Commonwealth if an immigrant's entry documents are false or misleading. Such a person will be subjected to greater scrutiny and his immigration may be declared illegal. Similar legislation in the United States allows civil court action to expel illegal immigrants to be based on statements made in entry documents. It is interesting that the United States has had some success in expelling a number of previously undetected war criminals by using a Federal provision not dissimilar to the one now proposed here. The Minister is putting nothing outrageous to this House. Rather he seeks to correct very many previously unfettered curtailments of civil liberties. Amendment of the provisions to which I have referred is long overdue. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(8.37) —I welcome in the Migration Amendment Bill the abolition of the discrimination against non-Commonwealth citizens, since I think it is right that when one comes to the questions of deportation Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth citizens should be judged on the same basis. Having spelt out that welcome, I wish to focus on the deportation provisions as they are now provided for in this the second amendment to the legislation, the Government having put forward one amendment in May and having now put forward a further amendment which greatly waters down the rather restrictive measures which had originally been proposed. In speaking about the deportation provisions, let me refer to what the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) had to say about the subject of these provisions when he introduced the Migration Amendment Bill 1983 into this House. He said: The Government must be able to protect the Australian community from non- citizens whose serious crimes show that they are a threat to the community. The Government must retain the legislative power to remove criminals and undesirables who have chosen not to commit themselves fully to Australia or who, through their own criminal actions, do not qualify for membership of the Australian community. With those sentiments I entirely agree. He also said: The community will also be protected from those non-citizens who pose a national security risk, including those who are convicted of espionage, sedition , treason or similar crimes. Such persons will always be liable to deportation. Of course now we know that persons who pose a national security risk and who would, under the proposals as originally introduced, be subject to deportation will not be subject to deportation if they have been lawfully in this country for a period of 10 years or for aggregate periods amounting to 10 years. So it does not matter what kind of a risk they pose; it does not matter what view the Government takes of their actions; and it does not matter what their views are as to their future actions and their lack of allegiance to or interest in this country. Under this proposed legislation it will be perfectly open to individuals to say: 'True it is that I regard myself as a national security risk . True it is that I propose to do as much as I can to undermine the fabric of this country without, mind you, perhaps committing any of those very limited offences which are left in the Act and which still attract an open assessment'. That is an assessment which is not limited to 10 years. 'But you cannot touch me , although I am a non-citizen, although I have no intention of giving allegiance to this country and although I propose to work against the interests of this country and the governments of this country regardless of their political persuasions'. That is a masterful piece of legislation to promote the interest of this country. When originally introducing the amendments in May the Minister said: . . . the community must be prepared to accept some 'bad with the good'. I do not accede to that proposition. I see no reason why this community should be prepared to accept the bad with the good when the bad are fairly judged and when the bad do not become citizens of this country. The Minister went on to say : The overwhelming majority of non-citizens who settle in this country are law- abiding members of the community and have a right to expect, after 10 years of lawful residence, that they will not be expelled. If they are law abiding they have nothing to fear. Under the provisions which we now have before us we have a vestigial recognition by the Government of the fact that certain crimes may so go to the fabric of the society that the perpetrator, being a non-citizen, should be subject to deportation regardless of whether he has been in Australia five years, 10 years or 15 years. Then we have other broadly stated offences for which a person has been punished by imprisonment for one year. If such offences take place within that 10-year period, that individual may be subject to deportation. But now, of course, we have the situation in which, whilst the Minister may judge that a non-citizen's presence in this country constitutes a threat to the security, as long as that person has been in Australia for more than 10 years he has a free ticket to continue to constitute a threat to the security of the country. Mr West —No, if they are convicted, they can be deported. Mr SPENDER —The Minister interpolates across the table that they can be deported if they have been convicted. I fear that he must have misunderstood his own legislation. I remind the Minister what is stated in clause 11 (1) of the Bill: If it appears to the Minister that the conduct (whether in Australia or elsewhere) of a person who is a non-citizen- This is not being a person who has been present in Australia as a permanent resident for a period of at least 10 years or for periods in the aggregate amounting to a period of at least 10 years. We have in this legislation that magic 10-year period. If it appears to the Minister that the conduct of such a person constitutes or has constituted a threat to the security of the Commonwealth the Minister may, as long as it is within that 10-year period, make out a deportation order. If it is after that 10-year period he loses that power. The only circumstances which give rise to the exercise of the deportation power are now certain offences under the Crimes Act. There is the offence of treason, which we know is an every day offence. There is the offence of treachery. I do not know when we last had a conviction for treachery, as was pointed out earlier by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). We also have the offence of sabotage. It has been some time since we have had a case of sabotage, as I recall. We still have left within the Act, as grounds for deportation after 10 years, seditious acts and inciting mutiny. I think the last time we had a case of inciting mutiny was when Captain Bligh came to Australia. Then, of course, we also have the case of assisting prisoners of war to escape and that is likely to be an almost everyday occurrence. But offences which are not included and which do not permit the Minister to deport the offender include, for example, murder, extortion, and drug trafficking. To take the matter in some more detail I will go to a statement the Minister himself made and quote the sorts of offences which, if one is caught committing after 10 years in Australia, one is still all right. I quote the Minister's statement of 4 May where he said, and said well: Examples of serious offences which may render non-Australian citizens liable to deportation include: production, importation, distribution, trafficking or commercial dealing in heroin or other hard addictive drugs or involvement in any other illicit drugs on a significantly large scale . . . organised criminal activity . . . terrorist activity and assassination; kidnapping; blackmail; and extortion. We should understand that the amendments now proposed to the Act prevent the Minister, who exercises these powers, from deporting a person who is convicted of any of those kinds of offences so long as that person-a non-citizen-has been in Australia for 10 years or aggregate periods amounting to 10 years. Is that what we want? Is that what we need for the protection of our society? Is that the kind of open ticket that we wish to write for people who come to Australia and who fail to exercise the option of becoming citizens with the rights that that option confers and the obligations and responsiblities including, of course , the responsibility of allegiance to the Crown and to the Government of this country? Do we really intend to protect these people? Is that in the public interest? In whose right is it that they should be protected? The Government, in making the narrow concession that a limited number of offences can attract deportation, regardless of when the offences are committed, has so defined those offences that we can be perfectly certain that we will never be troubled with them. But is it not far more important to consider what is happening to this country now? This Government, as was the case with the previous Government, is deeply concerned with the problems of organised crime. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) of this Government recently convened a seminar in this city for the purposes of examining the problems of organised crime and the kind of legislation that we might bring down in this Parliament to deal with organised crime. We all know that organised criminal activity poses a major threat to this country. We all know that organised criminal activity concentrates on what is lucrative and what is damaging. The outstanding example is drug trafficking. I suspect that there is not a member of this House who does not know some family or some person who has been directly or by association damaged as a consequence of drugs. I know people who have found in the most astonishing of circumstances- or so it seemed to them-that persons they thought to be perfectly normal were, in fact, addicts. It is a growing problem in this country. We all know that organised crime is well-educated crime and that frequently it is not easily or quickly discovered. Mr Hand —It flourished under your Government. Mr SPENDER —A wise interjection is that it flourished under our Government. You will know that organised crime flourishes under all governments, regardless of their political persuasion. If you have the least sense you will know that it is impossible to eradicate and if you have any knowledge of what has taken place in other parts of the world-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will address his remarks through the Chair. Mr SPENDER —I address my remarks to you, Mr Speaker, as always. If honourable members have any understanding of what has taken place here or elsewhere they will know that it is a problem we will have to live with and which we most certainly will not overcome. The best one can ever hope to achieve when dealing with organised crime is to limit or to contain it. It will never be eradicated so long as profit is to be made from it. This means that so long as organised criminals-those who engage in the vilest of criminal activity and who come here and refuse to take up citizenship because they do not want to, because they prefer to keep citizenship elsewhere, because they do not want to have allegiance to this country-can get by undetected for 10 years it is a free and open go for them unless, of course, they incite mutiny. Mr West —Do you not think we have some responsibility for them after 10 years in this country? Do you want to send them back to Italy or Greece? Mr SPENDER —Since the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) has interjected, I point out to him, through you Mr Speaker, that our first obligation is to our citizens in this country. As he pointed out in his guidelines on 4 May, when the Minister comes to making a decision to deport he takes into consideration a large number of factors. Depending upon his weighing of those factors he decides to deport or not to deport. A review mechanism is in place. Perhaps more important is the review mechanism provided by this House, since it is public knowledge that a deportation decision which comes before this House will be scrutinised very carefully and-dare I say it-sometimes in a partisan manner, although I hope more often fairly objectively by all honourable members. I am not directing criticisms against this Minister. My criticisms are directed to this Government. Again I ask: Whose interests do we protect? Why is it that we should give someone who comes to this country, remains a non-citizen and engages in criminal activities of the vilest and most damaging kind, a free ticket to remain here for so long as he can go undetected within 10 years? As I say, once the 10-year period is over that person is home and dry. Mr West —But your Act allowed immigrants out after five years, you see. Mr SPENDER —Therefore, I ask the Minister to reconsider what he is now proposing . He said in his speech that the Government made an electoral promise. I ask him why this Government should adopt the novel procedure of fulfilling this promise when it has broken so many others. This Government might put that consideration to one side and ask itself one central question: Is it in the interests of the Australian public, the interests of Australian citizens, that anybody who is a non-citizen should buy permanency in this country because he has been here for a certain period, regardless of how much damage he can do, will do or intends to do to this country? Mr MAHER(Lowe)(8.56) —I am delighted to have the opportunity this evening to make a contribution to the debate on the Migration Amendment Bill. Before I make my comments I should answer some of the points made by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). In particular, I am confused as to whether the Opposition really believes we should have a migration program in this nation. Four million of our population were born overseas. They come from the United Kingdom, Ireland, Europe, Asia, Africa-from the whole globe. A great scheme was launched by the Labor Government after the war, a scheme that has enriched and changed our nation. Yet tonight I have heard some appalling comments from Opposition speakers. I take exception to the notion that people are refusing to take up Australian citizenship. I ask honourable members: When did the previous Liberal-National Party Government do anything to encourage non-citizens to take up citizenship? There was no program. The Government was frightened of getting Labor voters on the roll. It took the attitude that the people who are not citizens will vote for the Labor Party, therefore one must do anything possible to delay the processing of citizenship applications and do nothing at all to encourage people to become Australian citizens. There was never any scheme to promote citizenship . I see dozens of people every week who are non-citizens. Everyone of these people, with one or two exceptions, takes out citizenship. People who have not taken out citizenship often have some emotional reason for retaining their old nationality. It is a very big step to give up one's previous citizenship and nationality. One or two have had to keep their Dutch or some other citizenship to keep a military pension. There was some worry amongst some of the Italian people in my electorate that they would lose their Italian pensions if they took out Australian citizenship. I believe it is total hypocrisy for Opposition speakers to claim that people are refusing to take out Australian citizenship. The children of these non- citizens are Australians. Perhaps many of the spouses of these people are Australians. These people have rights. It was, after all, a Liberal Government that reversed the deportation order on Mr Pochi. That proved to be very unpopular in the electorate. Under the Liberal Government the law stated that there was a de facto amnesty after five years. I feel that some of the speakers for the Opposition are unaware of the provisions the Government is amending tonight in this Bill. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who led for the Opposition, made the point that he was critical of the Minister having less discretion. My experience in migration matters is somewhat considerable, representing as I do an electorate that has a third of its population born overseas. My opinion is that the Minister's powers of discretion left a bad taste in my mouth. It depended on who one knew amongst the Ministers as to whether one received a favourable decision when discretion was involved. I believe that the less discretion there is the better and that the more decisions that are made in accordance with the law and fixed and firm rules and the fewer decisions left to a Minister's discretion or fancy the better. It suits me completely that the Minister's discretion is being cut down. The Bill refers initially to the abolition of the distinction between aliens and immigrants. Those two categories will be discarded and henceforth we will have one category only relating to non- citizens. This country will have citizens and non-citizens. The extensive amendments proposed to sections 12 and 13 of the Act arise out of the watershed High Court case of Pochi, which I have already mentioned. The judgment by the Chief Justice Sir Harry Gibbs was endorsed by Justices Mason, Wilson and Murphy. The provision in the Australian Constitution which gives any government the power to deal with immigrants and immigration-section 51 (xxvii)- which was put to the High Court is referred to in the judgment as being a difficult section. It appears that any non-citizen who has merged with the population may not be covered by that section. This suggestion was put in the application for special leave to appear before the High Court. The judges did not have to deal with that point. But it is believed, and it was inferred, that perhaps the Government, in dealing with immigration matters, would be on stronger ground if it used that part of our Constitution which deals with the alien power, that is, section 51 (xxix). Although the High Court was not called upon to determine that point, the case is of great significance. It has caused the Government to review the Migration Act and to slant the Act towards the alien power, rather than the immigrants power. Pochi, as everyone knows, was convicted of an offence and served one year in goal. He ultimately failed in his litigation but the Minister of the day revoked the deportation order against him. The Government seeks to amend section 7 (4) of the existing Act to remove the de facto amnesty. It will also amend section 16 of the Act which deals with deportation and the certificates or documents which are tendered to an officer in the course of his or her duty, such as a medical certificate, a trades certificate, a job offer or any other documents which are found to be forged. The Government also seeks to amend section 14, which relates to the deportation of a non-citizen. Section 14 (1) allows the Government to deport a non-citizen who has been a resident for 10 years or less. But the proposed new section 14 (2 ) will deal with non-citizens who have been in Australia for more than 10 years. With regard to this section, the Opposition has said that it deals only with a limited number of crimes under the Crimes Act, which it does. Indeed, very serious problems arise because a non-citizen could be married to an Australian, have Australian-born children who are nationals and, after 20 years in this country, could still be sent back to an eastern European country. It would be an appalling double penalty on a family if the bread winner-the husband or father- was not only sent to gaol but also made to return to his country of origin where the penalty for the crime committed may be death. A death sentence may await the person when he arrives in that country. This country has encouraged migrants to enter in large numbers-in some cases, when they were very young. By accident they may have been born in New Zealand, Italy or Yugoslavia and came to Australia as infants. By a mere technicality, some members of the family may have been born in Australia and others overseas. But the ones who were born overseas have the threat hanging over them that if they are convicted of a serious offence as described in proposed new section 14 (2) of the Act, after serving a prison term, irrespective of whether they have an Australian family, are domiciled in Australia and are, to all intents and purposes Australians, they may be deported. They may not even speak the language of their country of origin. I believe that this is a very important and serious section. The Opposition seems to be unaware of it. Mr Deputy Speaker, a number of honourable members wish to comment on these Bills tonight. I commend the Bills to the House. I congratulate the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) for bringing forward these measures. I encourage all honourable members to support the legislation. Mr HICKS(Riverina)(9.07) —Although my colleagues the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) have put the Opposition's case very succinctly, I will make a few points with regard to the proposed amendments to the Migration Act. I refer, in particular, to some questions posed by the second reading speech of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West). The main purpose of the Migration Amendment Bill 1983, as I understand it, is to remove the discrimination that exists between immigrants and aliens-immigrants, apparently, being those persons who migrate to Australia from the United Kingdom or Commonwealth countries and aliens being those people from other parts of the globe. As a long standing resident of Australia, I cannot recall the term 'alien' commonly being used to describe a particular person. It obviously appears in parliamentary and legal documents and refers, as I said before, to a resident whose original home was not a Commonwealth country. Having learnt of that distinction, I am pleased to note that the title 'alien' is to be removed, particularly as aliens have been liable to deportation for serious crimes at any time during their stay in Australia, whereas immigrants have not been liable to deportation after they have been resident in Australia for more than five years. I note that the Minister, in his second reading speech, referred to the fact that the present Government intends to review not only the Migration Act but also the Australian Citizenship Act. I hope that in reviewing the citizenship Act the Government brings about equality, but not by reducing the present three years necessary residence qualification for anyone applying for citizenship. As far as I know, all of those countries with major migration programs, such as West Germany, France, the United States and Canada have much stricter control than exists in Australia for extending citizenship to people who have come from other nations. It is hoped that the Federal Government does not fall into the trap of issuing Australian citizenship certificates to everyone and anyone, regardless whether they deserve it or not. Citizenship of any country is a valued status and a privilege. I am nationalistic enough to believe that the attainment of Australian citizenship is a particular honour. I believe that no person has a right to citizenship of any country unless, and until, they have shown that they wish to conform to the ways of life in their newly adopted country. This is not to say that Australia does not welcome the richness of the cultures that have come, and are still coming, from other lands. Those cultures have made us the great nation we are today. It means that we wish to live in peace and harmony with our neighbour, no matter what his or her country of origin. One problem that faces any future government under the Act is the definition of serious crime. What might appear to be a serious crime to one person may not particularly worry another. The term 'serious crime' may be best left as is. Let us hope that the present trend of making light of some crimes, as indicated by the lightness of the punishment meted out for those crimes, does not continue. We should keep in mind that deportation is not intended as a punishment for crimes committed. It is interesting to note that those non-citizens who pose a security risk, including those who are convicted of espionage, sedition and treason will always be liable for deportation. I cannot recall over the last several years any permanent residents who have been charged with any one of those crimes. If these crimes are to be listed, I consider that another horrendous crime, that of dealing in narcotics, should join the list rather than leaving it to run the risk of not being declared a serious crime. Another problem we hear rumour of from time to time is the intimidation of some newcomers by their fellow countrymen. This is sometimes done on behalf of the new residents' former government. This has to be watched closely and, if there is any evidence of this happening, appropriate action should be taken immediately. The practice of coming to Australia on a visitors visa and then disappearing for a number of years in the hope of obtaining citizenship through an amnesty appears to have been common. I am pleased to see that through this legislation the loophole is to be closed. In conclusion I would like to pay a compliment to the officers of the Australian Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Certainly I have heard criticisms, but most of them have been caused by the workload imposed on the Department. I have at all times found departmental officers courteous and considerate and they have acted in a humanitarian way at all times towards anyone I have referred to them for assistance. Any moves by the Government to end discrimination in our nation's migration system will certainly be welcomed by me and by the Party I represent. I ask the Minister and the Government to consider seriously the amendments to be put to the Parliament by the Opposition spokesman on immigration. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(9.11) —Those of us who had the painful experience of listening to the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) this afternoon when he gave his usual third rate imitation of Rumpole at the Old Bailey were even further confused when we heard the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) say subsequently in the debate that the Migration Amendment Bill was yet another case of broken promises. We had already learned from the honourable member for Denison that this is one Bill for which we have a mandate. So what the hell are they talking about? On the one hand, one honourable member said that we have a mandate to make amendments to the Migration Act. On the other hand, the honourable member for North Sydney said that this was a case of another broken promise. Mr Hodgman —No, he said that it was the only promise you had honoured since 5 March. Mr BLANCHARD —Oh, we seem to have some activity on the other side of the House. I remind the House that control of immigration is linked with the early history of Australia. Its early prime purpose was a racial one-to keep Australia white. The Victorian State Parliament in 1855 imposed restrictions on the entry of Chinese to this country and before Federation all States had enacted laws which prohibited migration in some way on racial grounds. We have in our history the case of the infamous dictation test. The first Commonwealth Government used the dictation test in the Migration Act 1901 as the touchstone of its migration policy. The then Minister for Immigration, Mr Downer, in introducing the Migration Bill 1958 made the following comments: In recent years, the need for a thorough overhaul of our immigration legislation has become increasingly apparent. The dictation test, however subtle and convenient it may have seemed 60 years ago, must surely appear today as an archaic, heavy-handed piece of machinery, in the category of those singularly ugly museum pieces of the Victorian age, and quite out of keeping with the ideas of the second half of the twentieth century. The 1958 Bill abolished the dictation test and replaced it with the entry permit . Now 25 years later we are further changing our immigration laws to meet the changing social climate of today. Therefore, I support the Bill which I believe removes a significant piece of discrimination against the one out of five Australian residents who under the existing Migration Act could be regarded as an alien. I refer to the fact that, according to the most recent census, one out of five Australian residents was born overseas. Unless these people have subsequently become citizens they could under the existing legislation be subject to deportation after committing relatively trivial offences. In fact the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has estimated that each year approximately 10,000 migrants commit offences which could result in deportation. Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, 10,000 people are not deported each year. The purpose of the Migration Amendment Bill is to remove the distinction between Australian citizens and these so-called aliens and to alter the provisions for criminal deportation. In the year 1981-82 a total of 862 deportation orders was made by the Australian Government on grounds which included criminal offences, failure to comply with conditions of temporary entry, health, and mental health, or cases involving illegal entrants. Of that number, 109 deportations took place on the basis of criminal convictions. In Australia at the moment there are still a further 209 people for whom deportation orders have been issued. These include 17 people presently serving gaol terms. Deportation is an unpleasant but necessary evil. The function of the Migration Amendment Bill will be to provide a balance between the potentially conflicting principles of enabling a Minister to take the action he believes to be in the best interests of the Australian community and ensuring fair treatment for individuals who may be affected. As the honourable member for North Sydney stated in his comments to the House, the purpose of deporting a criminal is to protect the safety and welfare of the Australian community and to exercise a choice on behalf of the community. Deportation is not a punishment. It is not for the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to form opinions as to the adequacy or otherwise of the sentences imposed by the courts for the offences committed. Most Australians would agree, however, that foreign nationals who commit crime in our country can only expect to be told to leave. Australians expect their Government to protect them from criminals who are a danger to society and a danger to the lives, limbs and property of members of society. Other considerations must also be reflected in the Migration Act. Australian society is composed of people from many different origins. Although Aboriginal Australians have lived on this continent for many thousands of years, the rest of the present population are migrants or the descendants of migrants. These people have come in successive waves, starting with the British settlers. Today 20 per cent of our people were born overseas. Over half of these people came from non-English speaking countries. More than one-third of overseas born people regularly use a language other than English. Sections 12 and 13 of the present Migration Act actively discriminate against persons from countries outside the British Commonwealth. The Act labels these people as aliens and makes them liable to criminal deportation until Australian citizenship is acquired. In contrast, persons from Commonwealth countries are subject to deportation only in respect of crimes committed within five years of entry to Australia. The Human Rights Commission, in its review of the Australian Citizenship Act, considered the term 'alien' to be inconsistent with the Racial Discrimination Act because it discriminates in favour of persons of certain national origins, that is, the British and Irish nationals. Clearly, this is inconsistent with the Government's policy of removing discrimination between different foreign nationals. It is also inconsistent with the Government's policy that all non- Australian citizens permanently resident in Australia should cease to be liable to deportation after a specified period of residence. The inequity built into the Migration Act 1958 was highlighted by the appeal to the High Court of Australia by Mr Luigi Pochi, of whom we heard from the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) a little while ago. Mr Pochi came to Australia as a young man 23 years ago and made Australia his home. He married an Australian citizen. His children are Australian by virtue of being born in Australia. However, Mr Pochi was never naturalised. At one stage his naturalisation was approved but he was not informed of that fact and so the official ceremony was not held. In 1977 Mr Pochi was convicted, as has been stated in this debate by the honourable member for Lowe, of supplying marihuana and served a 12-month gaol sentence. He was then ordered to be deported. He subsequently appealed and eventually his case was heard in the High Court-I repeat, in the High Court. The High Court ruled in favour of Mr Pochi. Mr Justice Murphy, in giving his decision-I want the House to note these words-said: The power to deport should be exercised in a way compatible with Australia's position as a humane and civilised society. He concluded that to deport in a case which resulted in a family being broken or children having to leave their homeland was a misuse of power. These judicial sentiments are reflected in the Migration Amendment Bill. The Bill reflects current administrative policies, as in 1973 it became official Australian administrative policy that in selecting or admitting migrants there would be no discrimination on nationality, race or certain other grounds. In concluding, I feel that the Pochi case demonstrates the necessity for firm, just and humane decisions in this very sensitive area. After that case statements were made which seemed to indicate that there had been interference by the Minister concerned. In the interests of justice and in the interests of civil liberties we must ensure that what has happened in the past does not happen again. I commend this Bill to the House. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(9.25) —I join briefly in this debate to make my protest against the confusion that it seems to me is evident in this debate, as it is in so many discussions about immigration policy and about our multicultural ideals. In particular on this occasion, the confusion is between the wish, that we all share, to abolish discrimination amongst various immigrants-whether they be called aliens or immigrants in the ordinary sense-and our concern for the future society that we want to build in this country. It is simply not enough to say that we are against discrimination, as most speakers on the Government side have said, and to put aside all consideration of the sort of society we are trying to build. Plainly, I am committing myself to agreeing with the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) and the Government that we should abolish the distinction between those who are simply called aliens and those who are simply called immigrants. I will not go into the refinements of the definitions of those two terms. The main distinction in the past was that aliens were always liable to deportation whereas immigrants could not be deported after five years from entry. The abolition of that distinction is a good thing. I support it entirely, as I support most of the measures, rhetoric apart, that have been involved in the establishment of our multicultural society. The Bill seeks to equalise those who were once called aliens and those who were once called immigrants and provides that deportation may take place only for offences committed within 10 years of permanent residence and after crimes involving 12 months of imprisonment, apart from the so-called very serious crimes of sedition, treason and treachery. I feel that that particular equalisation or that particular abolition of discrimination overlooks the consideration about which I am concerned of the sort of society with which we are concerned. I do not think we need spend much time on this question of sedition, treason and treachery because the Minister has not given us any examples within memory that are worth consideration. I think the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) said the last one he could find occurred a couple of hundred years ago and involved Governor Bligh. There may be some others that the Minister is agitated about but I have not come across them. The significant equalisation that we are concerned with is that the deportation of any non-citizen is only to be for offences committed within 10 years of permanent residence and those offences involving 12 months imprisonment. As I said, I agree with eliminating the distinction but I do not agree with the new test that is to be applied when eliminating the distinction. The point I want to make is that Australia is not just a multicultural society. It is that, but it is a certain sort of multicultural society. There are many multicultural societies in the world which are not models for us, which are not democratic societies or liberal societies and which in fact are often repugnant societies. I should say that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a multicultural society. It is certainly not a model for us but it certainly is a multicultural society. There are many others of that kind. I wish to use this occasion to make my protest against a good deal of the rhetoric that we get, unhappily, in discussions about multiculturalism. We take it for granted increasingly-that is a good thing-that we are a multicultural society but we sometimes assume that the mere mention of the word 'multicultural ' is enough to end the argument and to forget the question of what sort of society we are building. There is a great deal of talk about the transformation of our society. The honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) referred with great excitement to the changes that have taken place in Australia as if change for its own sake were a wonderful thing. Obviously it is not. There are many countries in which great changes have taken place but they were changes for the worse. We should not get too excited about change. I think it is more important to be a little excited and proud about the continuity in our country. It is the great institutions of democracy which distinguish our country from most countries. Despite the changes and the emergence and development of a multicultural society the fundamental institutions have not changed. One could say that this Parliament has been enriched by multicultural influences but it has not been fundamentally transformed any more than any of the other parliaments in Australia. The commercial, religious and legal institutions of the country have not been changed fundamentally. They have not been transformed. Despite all the rhetoric there is a great deal of cant in the rhetoric. The country has been enriched and it has changed in certain respects but it has not been transformed; it has not been changed. It is a matter for gratification to observe that our basic institutions remain the same. We are fundamentally still a liberal and democratic society, as we have been for several generations, along with the development and emergence of a multicultural society. I think it is important to concentrate on the continuity and not only on the change. That continuity involves a continuous commitment to democracy which involves a continuous commitment to respect for the law. The respect for law is fundamental. I feel that the Minister's Bill cheapens the respect for law. It allows for the continuous residence in this country of people who have shown no respect for law or democracy and no respect whatsoever for or interest in the traditions of our country. When I say that I exclude of course, the vast majority of non-citizens. I exclude the vast majority of aliens and immigrants who have come to Australia for the very reason that Australia is a democratic society. That is the very reason why they have a respect for the democratic traditions of this country. But the Minister's amendment weakens that commitment of the Government to democracy and the respect of law. That is one reason why I look forward to the debate on the amendment of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) in which he argues against the protection the Minister wants to give to people who have been convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs. I would think that people concerned with trafficking in dangerous drugs, even if it is after 10 years of permanent residence and does not involve sedition, treason or treachery, are nevertheless engaged in an activity which shows contempt for our democratic institutions and lack of respect for law on which those institutions depend. I congratulate the Minister on his abolition of the distinction between aliens and immigrants and welcome that. But I ask him to reconsider the new test that he will apply to the handling of these non-citizens, in relation to whom a distinction should now be drawn, in the interests of Australian traditions, democracy and respect for law. Mr STAPLES(Diamond Valley)(9.34) —In years gone by, the attitude of Australian governments, and Australian society in general, to immigration and to immigrants was, to put it mildly, anti-social and racist. In my early school years in the 1950s when the Migration Act of 1958 was being formulated I was faced, as many of us were, with a rapidly changing face to our society. The streets, schools, factories and homes were filling with people who spoke what seemed to be strange , incomprehensible languages, who had strange habits and who ate strange foods. Most had come from war-torn Europe. We called them derogatory names and we put them into inhumane camps full of tin huts. To us dinkum Aussies they were different and we considered them to be basically inferior. There was another group whose members did speak our language, who had similar living habits and who ate similar food. These English speaking migrants were labelled only as Poms and we rarely abused them or discriminated against them in the same ways in which we discriminated against non-English speaking migrants who were mostly non -British subjects. Unfortunately, our migration and citizenship laws formed in those post-World War II days sadly reflected our national attitudes and bigotries. It has taken us at least 25 years to formally and legally begin to alter these provisions. This attitude of fear and denigration is not new to us or something that is contained in us alone. Any look through our history books, and at the cartoons especially, of colonial and early post-Federation days will show the extent of our fear and racism. Our treatment of the Aborigines, Chinese, Pacific Islanders and Asians in general was and, in some cases, still is quite disgusting. It is important for us to look back into our history to our national and societal attitudes in order to point to the way we must head today. These legislative amendments to the Migration Act are a very important step in the multicultural process which more and more is being broadly accepted today as a reasonable expression of our complete nationality. In 1973 it became official Australian administrative policy that there would not be discrimination on national or racial grounds in the selection or admission of migrants to this country. Now, after another 10 years, we are just getting around to putting these attitudes and other solidly based community attitudes into our migration law. The terminology and attitudes at the height of the Cold War period are enshrined in this Act at the moment. It is this terminology and these attitudes that we address in this legislation tonight. There is no place for sexist, racist or discriminatory terminology in our legislation. The changes to this Act as a whole clearly reflect the Government's intent in this regard. With the passage of this Bill we will have two categories -citizens and non-citizens-and the discrimination in treatment between aliens and protected persons will hence be eliminated. To many these simple words would seem to be meaningless changes, but in a few words they head us towards furthering our aim of multicultural society. The changes proposed in this Bill will enhance the social cohesion and will help to include and develop the cultural identity which should be protected in further development of equality of opportunity. Whether it be as individuals in the work place, in families in suburban streets or in law, we would be able to give equal respect to people under these changes. In this debate a lot has been said about deportation. Deportation is a subject which often causes deep concern and at times deep, hurtful divisions in our communities. Emotions often run high and more often than not they are dependent on the crime or the situation. Parliament gives the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) a discretion to determine whether resident non-citizens who have been convicted in Australia of major criminal conduct are to be deported. It is up to us now to give the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs the jurisdiction to treat all non-citizens equally regardless of whether they be originally from British subject stock or from non-British subject background. To be quite frank and sincere, in most cases I cannot understand the attitude of some members of this Opposition. They are prepared to support the law as it stands at the moment in that Commonwealth citizens or protected persons, as criminals, are allowed to stay but aliens are subject to deportation . That attitude should show to all non-Commonwealth ethnic communities how little understanding, appreciation and respect exist towards them from this Opposition. All the Government is saying is that all non-citizens should be treated fairly and as equals without discrimination because of their country of birth or their race. I am sure that few people who currently hold British subject non-citizen status would wish their fellow immigrants, who happen to be non-British, to be treated in such a discriminatory fashion. If a person commits a serious crime in this country I believe that regardless of the person's origins we have a responsibility to our society and that we must acknowledge our responsibility for accepting that person into Australia in the first place. Why should Anglo-Saxons in this country have extraordinary rights and privileges over people from non-Commonwealth backgrounds? Are we to continue this archaic discrimination forever? People who oppose this legislation should investigate the role of immigrants of non-British background in the development of our country. We are prepared to accept their work. We are prepared to accept their money as consumers and as taxpayers. It seems that there are those on the Opposition benches who are prepared to kick them out of the country when, under similar circumstances, more proper British types can stay on. Mr Hodgman —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must correct the honourable member. The Opposition does not oppose this legislation. It has made that very clear. I think that the honourable member has a misunderstanding. We are not opposing the legislation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Thank you. The honourable member may proceed. Mr STAPLES —The Government's criminal deportation policy released in a ministerial statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is a responsible, humane and egalitarian document by any standards. That policy is being incorporated now into this legislation. It is not the crimes that will be eliminated: It is the discrimination between Commonwealth non-citizens and non- Commonwealth non-citizens that will be eliminated. Much confusion clearly exists , and I hope that this confusion itself will be eliminated. This is 1983, not 1953, and by far the great majority of non-citizens who settle in this country are law-abiding people who have a right to expect acceptance by this country after 10 years, except in extreme cases. It is instructive to look at the origins of our overseas-born population, which now totals more than 3 million people. About 38 per cent were born in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland. Most of the remainder, nearly 2 million people, will have come from non-British, non-Commonwealth backgrounds, and it is these people who have in the past been discriminated against. We have no rights at all to discriminate in our terminology or application of law to new settlers from other lands, just as we have no right to discriminate against the Aboriginal people, who were here long before us. If members of this Parliament are concerned about equality and freedom from discrimination under the law for all people, they can only support these changes. I commend this Bill to the House. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(9.43) —I think that I need to follow the comments of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) in regard to the Opposition's attitude to this legislation and the amendments to the Migration Act. I believe that we endorse the Government's wish to treat all newcomers to this country equally. No one on this side of the House has said anything different from that. We support the proposals to extend from five years to 10 years the opportunity that a person may have to be considered for deportation. Those elements of what the Government is proposing are sound and are supported by the Opposition. However, where the Opposition is at variance with the Government is on the very narrow range of criminal acts for which people may be deported under this proposed measure. Instead of retaining a fairly wide and sensible basis for deportation, the Government has sought to narrow the base for deportation, narrowing it to conviction of acts of treason, sedition-- Mr Coleman —Treachery. Mr CADMAN —And treachery; those three. In that way it is failing to give any significant indication that it is serious about deportation. There is absolutely no restriction or implied restriction placed on those who would commit other crimes which I regard as serious. The honourable member for Denison has proposed an amendment which he has put before the House and which says that people who are convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs should also be considered in the categories of treason, treachery and sedition and that they should also be deported. I put it to the House and to members of the Government that a very narrow line is being drawn by this measure. The Minister has not yet been able to produce any information about how many people in these categories of treason and sedition have been deported in the last 10 years. We have had no figures. We do not know. I suspect that it is none whatsoever. Mr Hodgman —Not even this century. Mr CADMAN —Yes, I would believe that to be true. The Government has said 'We shall not deport anyone after 10 years'. That is the practical implication of what is said. So we have drug traffickers capable of staying indefinitely in Australia as non-citizens if they should be here and apprehended after 10 years. What about murderers? What about thugs? What about international criminals and urban guerillas? What about the prospects of training foreign mercenaries in Australia? In the last 10 or 15 years we have had instances of that, or it has been suspected of taking place. People have used Australia as a base for training people to act as guerillas in paramilitary forces within countries towards which Australia is friendly or with which Australia has diplomatic relations. Under these provisions, such people, if they stay here for a period longer than 10 years, will be allowed to stay on as non-citizens and will not be deported. Mr Humphreys —What about gaoling them in Australia under the Crimes Act? Mr CADMAN —Under the definitions offered by the Minister, they will stay in Australia. What about if it should be found that the murderers of Donald Mackay were apprehended after 10 years and were found to be non-citizens? Mr Humphreys —They would go to gaol in Australia. Mr CADMAN —They would not be deported. The honourable member knows that they would not be deported, even though they were using Australia as a place to hide and to seek cover for a multiplicity of crimes. I think that it is reasonable to expect that the Government should define wider areas of reasons for deportation. As the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) indicated, a respect for law and order is essential in all people that settle in Australia. I wonder why the Government has kept this promise. It is one of the only promises that it has kept. Mr Hodgman —It is the only one. Mr CADMAN —It is the only one that it has kept of which I am aware. It has broken other promises about immigration made before the election. During the election campaign I attended a number of meetings at which shadow Ministers said : 'We shall not be influenced by the Australian Council of Trade Unions in our policies. There is no commitment in the accord'. There was a commitment in the accord, but they said: 'We shall not be taking notice of that. We need to give proper attention to our multicultural society'. To ethnic groups of all types, they said: 'We shall ignore the accord, even though we have an agreement with the ACTU that there will be fewer migrants'. Another promise was broken when the Minister made a statement to the House on Australia's immigration policy and programs. Shortly after the beginning of his speech, he said: It can be argued-- and he did argue it- that to take large numbers during severe economic recession, when there are few jobs available, simply adds to unemployment and creates extra strain on budgetary outlays. He used that as an excuse to break a promise and to maintain the accord agreed to with the ACTU. The policy has changed. The Minister has said: 'I will limit people coming to Australia and I will ensure that no more than 28,000 people in category C will come to Australia'. That is the stated policy. Mr West —Yes, but that was an increase over the previous Government. Mr CADMAN —The Minister said that in that area he would limit brothers and sisters under the family reunion program. I think that the Minister is aware that one of the prime bases of family reunion under category C is the fact that there are jobs available and that those people have a prime claim on jobs where there is short supply in Australia. It is not really a family reunion-a reunion of people who are related. The policy existed under the previous Government also . People who wished to migrate to Australia were given some leniency in the point scoring system to gain entry if they had close relatives in Australia. I object to the process that has been adopted of selecting people who may not have job qualifications and of failing to recognise that a shortage in specific areas within the work force can be filled by a dynamic migration program. In fact I believe that at this stage there are only two areas of job qualification in which people are approved; they involve computer operators and international chefs. That is a very narrow limit. Recent surveys have indicated that Australia needs more skills than that. There is a shortage of a wider group of people than that. Can we not return to a proper and dynamic program? At the same time the Government's policy indicates that we are to take a far greater number of refugees. I agree with humanitarian programs-I think Australia should encourage them-but it seems to me that we have denied the relatives of people living in Australia the opportunity of coming to this country and settling here. We have denied them the opportunity of taking advantage of what would be a humanitarian gesture. I think in all equity proper fairness and balance cannot be considered in such an approach. To cause the distress and concern expressed by citizens and residents who have relatives overseas with work skills which Australia needs and who are denied access to Australia is a very bad precedent to set. All members of this House over a number of years have had complaints of the type that I am talking about. People have asked us: 'Why are you allowing into this country refugees who cannot contribute to the needs of Australia when you are denying access to my skilled relative?' The Minister has accentuated that process. He has limited greatly the number of migrants allowed to enter Australia under a normal migration program. He has in fact reduced the program by at least 20,000 people per annum. My prediction, based on the information that I see in my office and on my experience in the western suburbs of Sydney, is that that target will not be reached. I suspect the real target, if it were expressed-if the Minister has a target-will be 50, 000 or 60,000 migrants and a migration program of 20,000 refugees. There is not a proper balance in that approach. When we consider the Minister's own penchant for the type of refugees who are selected from El Salvador and Chile, we see that they are not counted as refugees by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Why are we not taking more people from Lebanon, that stress-torn country? We have many good settlers here from Lebanon. Their families face constant threat day by day. They would welcome an opportunity to come to Australia. But they are not regarded by the United Nations Commissioner as refugees. I think that a proper balance needs to be applied to this program. I would be happy to accept the United Nations Commissioner as the person who designates refugees. I do not think we can make a selection because we have a political feeling towards a particular group in El Salvador, Chile or anywhere else. I think we should follow the recognised international body in this matter and accept its judgments as to who are proper refugees. That body has marvellous techniques and processes for making those judgments. If we were to adopt this program there would be less tension in our ethnic communities because they feel most strongly that the Government is not adopting a fairhanded approach to their relatives and friends who have skills which Australia needs by increasing quite dramatically the program for refugees who, to their minds, are not legitimate refugees. What is the difference between somebody in Beirut and somebody in El Salvador? Why do we make those sorts of judgments? We are not taking refugees from Lebanon-not a single refugee from Lebanon-but we are taking migrants from other countries where they are not designated as refugees. Why do we not have a proper balance? Mr West —What did you do about it? Mr CADMAN —We took refugees, as the Minister knows, who were designated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and that was the criterion. That is the criterion the present Government should be using also. It is a completely unfair system and one that I think is illustrated by the fact that the Minister made commitments before the election to ethnic groups all around Australia that his immigration program would not be influenced by the views of the ACTU or by the accord. Immediately within a few weeks of making those statements to ethnic groups he broke that commitment by reducing the number of immigrants and by increasing the number of refugees. Mr Hodgman —Who made those statements? Mr CADMAN —I refer to the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). He got into trouble with the Royal Commission and with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for not keeping commitments; but there were others as well. Mr West —Name one commitment we have broken. Mr CADMAN —I will name them. The commitment was that there would be no reduction in immigration. The commitment was-- Mr West —Name one commitment we have broken. Mr CADMAN —The commitment was that there would be no reduction in immigration. The Minister knew it and the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) knew it. All members of the Government knew that that was the commitment. The Minister broke that commitment. The one promise he has kept is the promise we are debating here tonight. It is fascinating that in this very narrow field the Minister is keeping his commitment. I am pointing out to the House that it is a great shame that the Government cannot see its way clear to widen the base for deportation. We agree with the change in the terms from five years to 10 years. We agree that all people should be dealt with equally as non-citizens no matter what their country of origin is, but we do not agree with the way in which the Minister is applying the criteria for deportation. I think that is a tragedy. It ranks with the tragedy of Australia's immigration program which I believe lies in tatters. There are too many good families around the world whom this country could well use but who are being denied access. I think the terms of classification for job opportunities have been far too restrictive for Australia's needs. The capacity for entrepreneurs and holiday makers to make a contribution to this nation is too significant to ride over in the way in which they have been ridden over. I and members opposite have met many young people who would willingly make Australia their home. They have used their working holidays for 12 months to get to know this country and who wish, if they are not married, to marry and settle here and to raise their families here; and they bring superb skills of the type that Australia needs. There are job opportunities for them. They have proved in half a dozen places around Australia that they can readily gain employment. They have no problems in looking after themselves while in this country yet they have been cut off. ' Return to your home country,' they are told, 'We do not want to see you for 12 months. If you apply through the normal channels we will think about whether you can come back to Australia.' These young people have got to know their employers who have made a proper assessment of their ability to settle here and to participate in the work force. That unique opportunity is denied to the average migrant, but young people are allowed that opportunity. Often employer and employee-the employee being on a working holiday-have developed an account of dependence and understanding and wish to build a future together; yet the Government has said: 'Young people of the world, Australia does not want you. Go back home. We do not need you'. That statement, coupled with the reduced sham of a migration program, is a tragedy for this nation. I trust that the Government will shortly recognise the error of its ways and will adopt a pattern of migration which benefits the Australian Labor Party and the proud tradition established by a former leader of the Australian Labor Party. He would turn in his grave if he knew what the Labor Party is doing to this nation today. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(10.00) —I find it fascinating to listen to some of the arguments put forward by Opposition members in the debate this evening. It seems that they have forgotten very quickly the actions of the Government that they were a part of some few short months ago. Rather than denigrate the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) as they have done in the previous two hours of debate on this matter I think they should congratulate the Minister for another move in a new, progressive migration package for Australia. The policies that have been outlined by the Minister in the few short months that he has held his portfolio have made Australia's immigration program a lot fairer than it was under the previous Government. In Australia we now have a genuine family reunion policy which we have never had. I found it interesting to hear the previous speaker, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), tell us that the Government should have a decent family reunion policy and a decent refugee policy. I say to the honourable member and to the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), the Opposition spokesman for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, that they can look at the files in my office whenever they like and see literally thousands of letters I have from previous Liberal-National Party Ministers who would not let into the country anyone seeking to come in my electorate. We heard the shadow spokesman-there seems to be more shadow than substance in most of the things he says-tell us tonight how uneasy he feels about the Government's proposal to do away with ministerial discretion. He thinks it is terrible that the present Minister has said that he is not too keen on ministerial discretion. The honourable member for Mitchell inadvertently let the cat out of the bag. He exposed to the Parliament what a rort this ministerial discretion was. Any member on this side of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker-especially you, with an electorate such as yours-would be as well aware as I am that when one wrote to previous Liberal-National Party Ministers putting excellent cases for family reunion and ministerial discretion, all one got was a flat no. The honourable member let the cat out of the bag. He let the Parliament and the people know that if in those days one was on the Government side ministerial discretion was very easy. He exposed to the Parliament tonight the rort that people in the immigration system in this country were pulling. I think it is very good that the present Minister is putting an end to that sort of inequity. It is completely and utterly wrong that someone who lives in my electorate should be disadvantaged in the case that he puts to the Government when compared with a person who lived in an electorate that was represented by a Liberal-National Party member in the days when the coalition was in government. I think the Minister deserves all the credit in the world for what he has done to do away with that rotten rort that people were using for some short term electoral gain. I am also concerned at the degree of intolerance that we have seen creeping into this debate from the Opposition side. Opposition members seem to be saying to the Government and the Parliament tonight that deportation is a good thing, that one must widen the net. The next thing they will be suggesting is that we ought to have a deportation quota every week, that we ought to get rid of a certain number of people every week. We have to find other reasons to get rid of these people from the country. I find it fascinating that the Opposition spokesman, who from time to time in this place, purports to be some sort of a Philadelphia lawyer, is saying that not only should a person who is convicted of a crime do his time but also after he has done his time we should give him a double penalty; we should deport him. A lawyer and anyone who has any interest in civil liberties-not that I think the honourable member for Denison ever has had any interest in civil liberties-would see that it is abhorrent that in relation to the law one makes two classes of people in a country; and that some people should get a double penalty. The honourable member is leaving the chamber because he knows that the rort has been exposed and he does not want to stay here to take his medicine. Mr Hodgman —Madam Deputy Speaker, so that the Hansard record does not get confused, that comment followed straight after reference to me. I am here and I will continue to stay here despite the fact that the honourable member's comments are absolutely ridiculous. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The honourable member for Grayndler was referring to the honourable member for Mitchell who has just walked out. Mr LEO MCLEAY —Spurious points of order will not put me off what I want to say. Tonight Opposition members suggested that people who are not Australian citizens should have less entitlement before the law. They are saying that if a person is not an Australian citizen and he is convicted of a crime in this country he can do his time in gaol-to hear the honourable member for Mitchell suggest that all we would do is deport people is crazy-we will give him a second penalty; we will deport him. I think it is quite improper to suggest that there should be that double penalty for people who are not Australian citizens. There is no point in the honourable member for Denison nodding his head because that is what he is saying; that is what his supporters are saying and that is what the honourable member for Mitchell just said. He said that we have to widen the net; we have to get rid of more and more people who are not Australian citizens. The amendment to be moved by the honourable member for Denison places a terrible slur on the migrant community in Australia. The honourable member's proposed amendment singles out migrants who are convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs or who have been convicted in Australia. Why single out the migrant community as the people who may have been involved in drug trafficking? That is what this proposed amendment does. It is a slur on people and it demonstrates the intolerance that the Opposition has introduced into this debate tonight. I think the Minister's proposals are fair and equitable. The Minister should be congratulated on the new criteria for family reunion that he has introduced into the Parliament and has had adopted. Any proposal that takes away a lot of the anguish experienced by many families because of the draconian proposals that the previous Government had for deportation is a good thing. Many people in my electorate might have got a 12-month gaol sentence when they were 18 or 19 years of age. Their families have had to spend 12 months worrying about whether the family member will be deported, when their brothers, sisters and children might be Australian citizens. The present proposals suggest that after 10 years people can feel safe. Under the proposals of the previous Government, even if one got a parking ticket one might have ended up being on the next ship out. That sort of anguish should not have been placed on people and the proposals brought in by the Minister will relieve that sort of anguish. People will know where they stand. The proposals should be adopted by the House. They are progressive; they are sensible and they will be welcomed by the people in Australia whom they affect. I commend the Migration Amendment Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Campbell) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-proposed: That standing order 48A, as amended by the Sessional Order of 4 May 1983 relating to the adjournment of the House, and standing order 103, 11 o'clock rule, be suspended for this sitting. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.07) —So that it is on the record could I inquire why this course is being taken? Mr Lionel Bowen —We want the Bill passed this evening. Mr HODGMAN —Obviously the Leader of the House wants the Bill passed this evening . A few minutes ago we were discussing how long the debate would be proceeding for. I am putting this on the record so that there is no misunderstanding. I do not suspect the Minister's motives but I am wondering why it is that at approximately 10 past 10 tonight the Government brings in a motion to suspend Standing Orders in relation to a sessional order which was agreed to only yesterday. I ask the Leader to come clean and to tell the House what it is all about. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Leader of the House)(10.09) —in reply-I know that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) is new to his present position, but the Opposition wishes to continue the debate on the Migration Amendment Bill. We are granting that wish. It is because of the number of speakers the Opposition has that we decided the debate ought to continue. I think that is very rational. We needed the Bill to go through this evening. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.10) —I support the Migration Amendment Bill. I do not do it with any great joy or enthusiasm. I think this Bill is little enough and long overdue. I have an electorate with a very large number of migrants and I am very aware of the anguish that a lot of these migrants suffer. I do not think the position has been made better in any way from the years of Liberal Government. I had the opportunity some time ago to look at some of our facilities. I had a look at the Villawood Detention Centre. I was appalled at the conditions at that institution. I think it is a disgrace to any civilised country. I found the way the inmates were treated appalling. I think it was largely through the efforts of my office that something was done about reviewing the situation. I would like to pay tribute to Mr Peter McKerrow, who has worked unstintingly for the benefit of migrants. Mr McKerrow worked for many years in the Aboriginal Legal Service and later for the Macquarie Legal Service. He has been very involved in migration problems and he has my very highest regard. I believe his virtues will go largely unrecognised by a lot of the migrants for whom he has worked so well. I would like to take up some of the range of issues under which people can be deported under this Bill. Frankly, I think the range is far too wide. What sort of country is Australia? Are we still some grovelling colonial power saying to the world: 'You nasty people, whatever you have done you are too nasty for us to handle; go away; go whence you have come'? What sort of citizens are we to adopt this sort of attitude? That is a matter to which some of the honourable members opposite ought to address themselves. It is the height of colonial mentality. It is the very antithesis of what I, as an Australian, feel we should be standing up for. This Bill seeks to protect the people who have traditionally suffered most, the people who speak little English and who are not aware of the system. These people get discriminated against continuously. It is only out of justice that we should be doing something about this matter. I have had a lot of experience with some of these people. For the benefit of the House I will relate one of those cases tonight. It concerns a family who came from war-torn Chile. They came to Australia on visitors' visas and they went underground. Frankly, I do not blame them. Australia-even New South Wales- is a much more congenial place than Chile. On the first day of the amnesty this family applied for regularisation of their status. All bar one member of the family was accepted. The one member of the family, for some reason, would not be accepted. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs then got very heavy with his brothers and sisters. Officers of the Department said: 'Unless you tell us where your brother is so that we can deport him, we will deport the whole lot of you'. The family went to the Macquarie Legal Service, which came to me. We made some inquiries. It turned out that there was an adverse Australian Security Intelligence Organisation report on this poor guy. So I interviewed him. I went through his history and I could see nothing that would warrant such a report. So I phoned ASIO. A representative of ASIO said: 'That is right. There is an adverse report'. I said: 'Can we get a copy of this report? Can we investigate it so that we can make a submission?' He said: 'No, this is secret. The report is not to be made available to him'. I said: 'How can we possibly counter what you are saying about him if we don't know what it is?' The ASIO man then lost his temper. He said to me: 'You can rest assured that we do not make mistakes'. History has shown otherwise. He then said to me: 'Do you know that this man is a criminal?' I said: 'No, I do not know. What has he done?' The ASIO man could not tell me, but he knew that he had spent two years in gaol in Chile. He said: 'The man is a criminal'. I said: 'I did not know this but I shall make inquiries'. I must make the point that spending two years in a Chilean gaol does not make a person a criminal in my book. I went back and interviewed this guy further. I said to him: 'Look, if I am going to help you, young fellow, you have got to level with me. You did not tell my you were in gaol'. He said, in his limited English: 'I tell you, I tell you'. We got a transcript showing that he said he had spent two years in an institution. I said: 'What were you doing there?' He said: 'I was a teacher. I worked for the Government'. He was a teacher in the gaol and ASIO could not even get that right. That makes one laugh. It is funny unless you are the one it is happening to. This is just one case. I have documented cases of this happening time and again. It simply is not good enough. This Bill goes part of the way, and only a very small part of the way, towards rectifying this. There has been some talk in the chamber tonight about the various classes of immigrants. I make no bones about the fact that I come from British stock. I am proud of it. I think that British migrants have served this country extraordinarily well. I am proud of my British culture. I was very proud a few years ago when the Daily News, a popular daily paper in Western Australia, ran a poll which showed that migrants of British stock were generally less prejudiced than others. That is not surprising when we recognise that Britain, from where a lot of our culture comes, whether we like it or not, is the first and probably one of the most polyglottal races on the face of the earth. I am very proud of my British culture. I feel greatly affronted by what the honourable member for Denison has presented to me. This poor man's Churchill, popinjay that he is, parading in this House, I feel is an insult to the British traditions of justice and fair play that we in Australia often take as as our own. There was a time in this House, not so long ago, when I referred to the honourable member for Denison as a metaphorical maggot in the intellect of Tasmania. They were colourful words. I have at times wished I had not been quite so colourful. But I do not resile from that description. I think that in the intervening time the honourable member for Denison has shown that he is, in fact, a fascist maggot. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 10-by leave-taken together. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(10.19) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 6, page 2, at the end of the clause add the following paragraphs: '; (g) by omitting from sub-section (7) 'A woman' and substituting 'A person'; (h) by omitting from sub-section (7) 'her husband' (wherever occurring) and substituting 'the person's spouse'; and (j) by omitting from sub-section (7) 'his entry' and substituting 'the spouse's entry'.'. (2) Clause 8, page 3, lines 5 to 7, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Cancellation, expiration and renewal of entry permits '8. (1) Section 7 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting from sub- section (3) 'prohibited immigrant' and substituting 'prohibited non-citizen'; and (b) by omitting sub-section (4). ''(2) Where a person who, upon the commencement of this Act- (a) is a non- citizen within the meaning of the Principal Act as amended by this Act; and (b) is not the holder of an entry permit (not being a temporary entry permit), had, at a time before that commencement, ceased to be a prohibited immigrant within the meaning of the Principal Act by virtue of the operation of sub- section 7 (4) of that Act, that person becomes, upon that commencement, a prohibited non-citizen for the purposes of the Principal Act as amended by this Act.'. (3) Clause 10, page 3, lines 27 to 40, and page 4, lines 1 to 10, omit proposed sub-sections 12 (2), (3) and (4). Amendment No. 1 seeks to substitute neutral words-it is really only a technical amendment-in sub-section (7) of section 6 of the Act for words which are perceived by members of the community as being discriminatory on the grounds of sex. This amendment of a purely technical nature is in accordance with the Government's approach to sex discrimination. Amendment No. 2 repeals section 7 (4) of the Act which at present prevents the deportation of overstayers five years after the expiry of their entry permits simply because they succeed in evading detection during that time. The effect of this repeal is to render future overstayers and those who, because of the operation of section 7 (4) have ceased to be prohibited immigrants, liable to deportation from Australia. The repeal of section 7 (4) will enhance the Government's control of its migration program which is overburdened by this back -door migration of overstayers who, more often than not, also work illegally. The amendment would not affect the status of former prohibited immigrants whose permanent residence has now been regularised. Of course, the repeal of section 7 (4) would not result in massive and indiscriminate deportation of this class of non-citizens. I assure the Committee that ministerial discretion to let them stay remains in certain circumstances. Each case will be considered on the basis of its merits. Amendment No. 3 is really only for drafting convenience. This amendment relocates the definition of permanent residence from proposed new section 12 to proposed new section 14A. This will allow the same definition for calculating the 10 years or permanent residence, giving immunity from deportation for both proposed new section 12, which deals with criminal deportation and section 14, which deals with deportation on the grounds of security. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.22) —I wish to deal with the first amendment. While I make it clear that I do not oppose this aspect of the Government's policy in respect of sexual discrimination, I just want to read into the Hansard what is now happening as a result of this amendment. I think, from a legal point of view , it will become a draftsman's and a lawyer's nightmare. Section 6 (7) of the Act states: A woman who enters Australia in the company of, and whose name is included in the passport of, or any other document of identity of, her husband shall be deemed to be included in any entry permit granted to her husband before his entry and written on that passport or other document of identity, unless the contrary is stated in the entry permit. The Government's amendment takes out the words 'a woman' and substitutes the words 'a person'. So the section then really becomes ludicrous, unless the Government intends that that person may be a male person with a husband. I ask the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) what he is getting at. Apparently he is now prohibiting the use of the word 'woman' in the statutes of the Commonwealth. I just ask him: Is he inferring that there are male persons who have husbands? Why does the Minister take out the words 'a woman'? Mr West —We would not be doing that, would we? Mr HODGMAN —I ask the Minister: Why does he do that? He said that it was on the grounds of sexual discrimination. Mr Keogh —A mistress? Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member who has just interjected has had legal training. If he looks at the section he will see that it will now read, to the great benefit of the Hawke socialist Government: A person who enters Australia in the company of, and whose name is included in the passport of, or any other document of identity of, her husband . . . Why does the Minister put in the words 'a person', take out the words 'a woman', but leave in the word 'her'? I just have to ask the Minister: Is this not absolute- Mr Campbell —It refers to- Mr HODGMAN —I am not even going to honour the member for Kalgoorlie who was trying to interject by noticing him. I am sorry that I have even responded. I just say to the honourable member in passing that I would be very proud to join with him at any time, at any place, in another chamber or in another area to discuss the virtues or otherwise of maggots. As far as I am concerned, this is a serious matter. I ask the Minister: Will it now be the law of the land that we cannot describe a woman as a woman? That is effectively what the Minister is doing. Mr West —I will answer you in a moment, if you want to go on with this nonsense. Mr HODGMAN —I would be grateful if the Minister would. We now have the most ludicrous section in an Act of Parliament that I have seen in 20 years of legal practice. It states: A person who enters Australia in the company of . . . her husband . . . But we cannot call that person a woman. Having said that I turn now to the next provision. Mr Keogh —It might be a Tasmanian. Mr HODGMAN —I do not think so. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I ask the honourable member not to respond to interjections and to address his remarks through the Chair. Mr HODGMAN —I would be delighted to, Mr Chairman. The next matter is one of some seriousness. I do not think it has been correctly put to the chamber, although I appreciate that the Minister is perhaps reading to honourable members what has been presented to him. It relates to those persons who will now be liable to deportation whereas previously they were deemed not to be liable for deportation ; in other words I refer to those people who had stayed in Australia for a period of five years. The Minister, in his second reading speech, referred to those people as illegal immigrants. It is now quite clear from what the Minister said a few moments ago that those people are overstayers. An overstayer may or may not be an 'illegal immigrant' under the whole definition of the Migration Act which we will be amending in a few minutes time. The Minister assures us that it does not mean that they will be automatically deported. But I have to ask, in the light of other assurances by the Hawke Government: What comfort will that be to people who may have been in this country for much more than five years? The honourable member for Kalgoorlie raised a particular case. I would like to tell honourable members of the case of a man who overstayed in this country for 25 years. This Government is saying to that man that, if he comes and gives himself up, it is on the cards that he will be bulleted out of the country. Mr West —That is not what I said. Mr HODGMAN —I am sorry, that is what the Minister said. He is now trying to say that the law that he has brought into this Parliament will not mean what it says . He said that he would look at every case. He said that he would consider the matter. Under this legislation the Minister is now making these people liable for deportation when they were not liable before. The Minister will not be able to contradict me on that because that is the law. As the Minister has said, if they have been in the country for five years they cannot be deported under the present law. If they come forward and give themselves up they may now be deported. Many of these people from Anglo-Saxon and non-Anglo-Saxon backgrounds have been in this country for 15 years, 20 years and sometimes 30 years. I can tell honourable members of a person who has worked with the Hobart City Council for 28 years. He jumped ship 28 years ago when he came to this country. He has been a reputable citizen, he has worked for the Hobart City Council and he has brought up a family. Under this legislation the deportation happy socialists opposite will say to that man: 'You will have to wait and see whether the Minister is prepared to let you stay in Australia'. While we are on this matter, the point is brought into complete comparison when we bear in mind that the Minister is not prepared to deport drug traffickers, gangsters and murderers but he is prepared to amend the legislation to deport people who have overstayed for five years. I have to ask the Minister what are his values. How does he make this-- Mr West —Are you supporting it or not? Are you going to vote for it? Mr HODGMAN —I ask the Minister to wait just a moment. The Minister is very good at asking me whether I support this legislation. He has brought it into this Parliament tonight. I, on behalf of the Opposition-- Mr West —I gave you a copy of the amendment on Monday. Mr HODGMAN —The Minister did indeed and he brought the legislation into the Parliament tonight. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat. I want to make it clear that the Committee is dealing with complicated legislation . I will not have the debate degenerate into a process of interjections between the Minister and the honourable member who are both at the table. I want honourable members to understand that right from the start. I will not have this bypassing of the Chair. I call the honourable member for Denison. Mr HODGMAN —Mr Chairman, the Minister asked me a question straight out. In the light of the Minister's failure to explain the legislation properly to the Parliament and, in the light of the fact that it will place many decent people in jeopardy, the Opposition will oppose that amendment. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(10.29) —I did not expect any opposition from the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) who is the Opposition shadow Minister on this point as he said that he would only be looking to his amendment later. As he has put forward what I term to be facetious arguments I must say that it is my considered opinion, upon what I believe to be sound advice, that the first point he has raised is fallacious. To change the Act in the way that I have suggested means that the situation the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) described cannot come about because ' spouse' under Australian law means the wife or husband of another person. There will not be a situation where a man can have a husband, as suggested by the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. That is the position. Let me refer to the other matter that the honourable member raised, the amendment to delete section 7 (4). At the moment something like 60,000 illegal immigrants are in Australia. It is true that in the current Act after five years these immigrants are in fact granted amnesty, they cannot be deported. But also they cannot work. They are in a sort of no-man's land where they cannot be deported. It is not legal for me to make them permanent residents either and to allow them to work. So what are we in fact to do? If we are to leave the situation as it stands at the moment they cannot work, yet they cannot be deported. We have considered this very closely. There is only one way out of it. That is, to repeal the section and allow ministerial discretion to apply. Amendments agreed to. Clauses, as amended, agreed to. Clause 11 (Deportation of non-citizens upon security grounds after report by Commissioner). Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(10.31) —I move: (4) Clause 11, page 4, lines 16 to 20, omit proposed sub-section (1), substitute the following sub-section: ''(1) If it appears to the Minister that the conduct (whether in Australia or elsewhere) of a person who is a non-citizen (not being a person who has been present in Australia as a permanent resident for a period of at least 10 years or for periods that, in the aggregate, amount to a period of at least 10 years) constitutes, or has constituted, a threat to the security of the Commonwealth, of a State or of an internal or external Territory, the Minister may, subject to this section, order the deportation of the person.'.'. Amendment No. 4 inserts a new sub-section relating to the deportation of non- citizens on the basis of their conduct which constitutes or has constituted a threat to the security of Australia. The new sub-section provides a statutory immunity to permanent residents of not less than 10 years in Australia. Section 14 of the current Act allows the Minister to order the deportation of an alien- of course that obnoxious term will now be removed from the Act-or an immigrant with less than five years residency from Australia on the Minister's perception of conduct. It is a very wide power available to a Minister. There is no attempt to define aspects of such conduct. It is totally obnoxious as a section. It allows the Minister to deport on the basis of very generalised security definitions. There is a process of review by a commissioner appointed by the Governor-General with the Minister retaining the final power of decision. That is the scenario at the moment. I, as the Minister, can say that a certain person because of conduct I do not have to explain shall not be a member of the Australian community, and I can deport him. He then has 30 days to appeal to a commissioner who must be appointed by me. I then make the final decision. When we talk about the new aspects of section 12 and section 14 with regard to criminal deportation and deportation on security grounds and make a great fuss about the 10 years, we say nothing about the fact that honourable members opposite introduced this Act in the first place and left it sitting there, stagnant and rotten, for 25 years. The Opposition now has the audacity to criticise me in the first few months of my office when I try to do something about these things yet still retain some sort of security provision. The Migration Amendment Bill has narrowed this section to security grounds alone. That is what honourable members must get into their heads right from the start. There is no longer power on behalf of the Minister to deport anyone on grounds other than criminal activity or security. Nothing that I might dream up, no prejudice of mine, can be enacted on anyone. I repeat: The Migration Amendment Bill has narrowed section 14 to security grounds alone. We will further limit the sections of the Crimes Act under which conviction becomes a trigger for a ministerial decision to deport. I will refer to that in a moment. The Bill does not alter the right to request within 30 days a review by a commissioner or otherwise disturb that appeal system. The Government has decided to restrict further the basis for ordering deportations under section 14 (1) on security grounds by providing immunity after a permanent resident has resided in Australia for an aggregate period of 10 years, less time spent in prison. Exactly the same situation will apply to consideration of deportation on security grounds under section 14 (1) as applies to the criminal deportation procedure. If we cannot make up our minds whether anyone is a threat on security grounds after 10 years the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation must be a lot more incompetent than even I thought it was. Shortly I will move amendments to limit the Crimes Act provisions which trigger deportations under section 14 (2) but will have the review process in place. The review process will cover persons being considered for deportation under the new sections 14 (1) and 14 (2); that is, both conduct and conviction. There will still be a right of appeal, but the 10 year period of immunity will apply only to section 14 (1); that is, the conduct provision, not the conviction provision. So the 10 year period does not pertain to those who have actually been convicted . We have moved from an extraordinarily wide and unfettered discretion under which the Minister has unbridled power to order deportation based upon a person' s alleged conduct-I am putting it this way now so before we start the arguments about section 14 we get the overall effect in advance-to a situation where the Minister may order deportation purely on security grounds with immunity after 10 years unless a conviction has occured and with an appeal provision still in place. That is the totality of what we have done. In conclusion I stress that section 14-I wish honourable members would understand this-relates to security grounds for deportation and not for criminal deportation, which is covered in section 12. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.38) —The Opposition supports the amendment. Amendment agreed to. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.38) —I move: (1) Clause 11, page 4, after proposed sub-section (1) insert the following sub- section: '' ' (1A) Where a person who is a non-citizen has either before or after the commencement of this sub-section been convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs, or has been convicted in Australia of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than five years, the Minister may subject to this section, order the deportation of the person.'. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) in his remarks a few moments ago emphasised the point that section 14 deals with security whereas section 12 deals with criminal matters. To that extent he is correct, but what he has not told this House is that the power to deport on the basis of criminal conviction under his legislation runs out at the end of 10 years unless the person is charged with offences involving sedition, treachery or treason. As the Minister knows full well, there has not been a conviction and deportation of a person in relation to sedition, treachery or treason in this country this century and, in the view of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), there has not been a conviction for probably 200 years. One would have to go back to Governor Bligh. I am amazed and disappointed at the response of Government members who have participated in this debate. I would have thought that some of them would have recognised that the law, as it will become if our amendment is not agreed to, is so narrow that there will be no more deportations of people once they have been in this country for 10 years. They can be murderers or gangsters. The honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) spoke with some feeling. The honourable member, and other members from New South Wales, must know that organised crime in that State has been a matter of debate in this Parliament and the New South Wales Parliament. To tell the people of Australia that people can murder, be involved in drug trafficking and organised crime without being deported is, as I said earlier today, to give those people carte blanche. Al Capone, in 1983 in Australia, could not be deported. I refer to one other serious matter. I did not want to raise it. But, in view of the comments made by two honourable members, I will do so. Do honourable members realise that if the Government's legislation is passed without my amendment, they will not be able to deport somebody from Australia if he or she is convicted of spying or harbouring a spy? Under section 77 of the Crimes Act, a person is liable to a sentence of seven years imprisonment for espionage and under section 81 of the Crimes Act a person is liable to a sentence of seven years imprisonment. If that is put into the context of the Ivanov case, a person harbouring a Soviet spy will be subject to prosecution and to seven years imprisonment. But the Hawke socialist Government says: 'No, we won't deport that person from this country'. I ask Government members to name me one civilised country in the world that does not reserve the right to expel and deport a spy. The Minister is saying that a person who has lived in Australia for 10 years can be a spy or can harbour a spy. He can harbour Mr Valeriy Ivanov. And I do not take that matter any further. The most serious aspect in this respect is that this socialist Government has a national security record which is so deplorable that it is already condemned by the people of Australia, 40 per cent of whom believe that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has not handled the Combe-Ivanov affair very well. You will now place on the statute books that you cannot deport a spy. You cannot deport a Soviet spy under the Hawke Government. Mr Leo McLeay —A point of order, Mr Chairman. Mr HODGMAN —And you, member for Nugan Hand, know that better than most. Mr Leo McLeay —Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. The honourable member is not speaking to the Bill. There are ample provisions in the Bill to deport spies when it is deemed necessary to do so. The CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member is very much directing himself to the provisions of the Bill and, indeed, to the amendment that he has moved. I call the honourable member for Denison. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Mr Chairman. I note the presence in the chamber of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), who is a lawyer of great standing. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to correct me if I say anything wrong. I have previously referred to this matter, but because of the interjection by the honourable member for Grayndler I will have to do so again. I will tell you for what crimes people can be deported after they have lived here for 10 years. If I put one foot out of line, the Deputy Prime Minister can correct me. If you look, Minister, at your Bill-I say this through you, Mr Johnson-you can only deport people who have lived here for 10 years for convictions for certain offences. I referred to them earlier this evening, but I will put them on the record again. Section 24 of the Crimes Act refers to treason; section 24AA refers to treachery ; section 24AB-and this is not funny-refers to sabotage; section 24C deals with offences which cover the ones to which I have just referred; section 24D is interesting because it refers to seditious words. Mr West —No. That is going to be taken out. Mr HODGMAN —That will be taken out. It is funny that people can be bulleted out of the country for seditious words, but not for spying. That is unbelievable. Section 25 refers to incitement to munity; section 26 refers to assisting prisoners of war to escape; and section 27 refers to unlawful drilling. People cannot be deported for offences under section 28 which refers to interfering with political liberty-that is really great-or for offences under section 29 with regard to destroying or damaging of Commonwealth property. Mr Goodluck —You cannot get rid of Bellamy. Mr HODGMAN —Exactly. People cannot be deported under section 30 which refers to the seizure of goods in Commonwealth custody. The only other sections under which a person can be deported are section 6, which refers to being an accessory after the fact, section 7 which relates to attempts to commit any offence against Commonwealth law, section 7A which relates to inciting and section 86 (1 ) which refers to conspiracy. I challenge any member of the Government to deny that a person who is convicted of an offence under sections 77 and 78 of the Crimes Act-that is, espionage or, in simple language, spying-who is liable to seven year's imprisonment can not be deported. If that person harbours a spy and is prosecuted under section 81, he or she could be gaoled for seven years. Have you done your homework? Do you really mean to tell the people of Australia that you will not reserve the power to deport a spy because he or she has been in this country for 10 years? You have all gone off in a tizzy over drug trafficking. I do not know why you have put yourselves in a position of protecting murderers and drug traffickers. You have also put yourself in the position of protecting spies. You can call me a fascist, a maggot, or whatever you like. But what I have said, in law, is correct. If you cannot understand your own Bills, I suggest that you, Mr Deputy Prime Minister, should adjourn this debate and obtain an opinion on this legislation. I will stake my professional reputation on the fact that what I have said is true and correct. I will tell you now that you will be the laughing stock of the world if you pass this legislation without accepting my amendment. Australia will be the only country in the world which is not prepared to deport people who are spies or who harbour spies. You can have the laugh on me. Mr Deputy Prime Minister, you and I have sat on the Committee of Privileges. We do not agree on many things. I invite any lawyer of repute to dispute what I have said. The fact is that you have not done your homework. You will place on the statute books a power to deport people for treason, sedition and treachery, which have never occurred in this country. There has never been a trial on any those matters. But you will not deport murderers, drug traffickers or spies. If you believe that that is good government, I tell you that the people of Australia will have a pretty good look at you, because this is the crummiest piece of socialist legislation I have seen in my life. I appeal to you to look again at this matter. The Deputy Prime Minister is in the chamber. If he does not agree with what I have said, let him contradict me here and now. Nowhere have you given your Minister power to deport a spy. Nowhere have you given him power to deport somebody who harbours a spy. Is that the way that you will protect the national security of Australia? If it is, you should all be ashamed. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(10.48) —We will not accept your amendment. Once again, I draw your attention to the fact that your Migration Act, not mine, has been lying around for 25 years and you have left section 14 of the Act the way it has been for 25 years; that is, a Minister has absolute discretion to decide the nature of the conduct on which a person can be deported from Australia. Nothing has been done at all to tidy up the generalised section 14 (2) which simply talks about treachery, seditious words and all of the nonsense which you have just reiterated. That is what you have left in the Act for 25 years. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. In the early stage of this debate I remind the Committee that it is necessary to direct remarks through the Chair rather than to have a personal debate between the leader of the one side and the leader on the other. That has occurred frequently. I call the Minister. Mr WEST —Thank you, Mr Chairman. I will be guided by your remarks. The proposed amendment of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) is, in our view, riddled with inequalities and inconsistencies when one looks at the policy and philosophy as we put it forward in the Migration Act. His proposal starts with a conviction for what the honourable member terms loosely as trafficking in dangerous drugs. It then goes on to cover conviction and imprisonment for not less than five years. Honourable members will recall that on 4 May 1983 I made a statement to the House relating to the Government's criminal deportation policy. Convictions for drug trafficking are certainly a major factor for me to consider when deciding whether I should exercise my power to deport a convicted non- citizen. I do not believe that Parliament should legislate to create a separate class of offenders, apart from security matters, who are subject to different considerations. As I said previously and now repeat, non-citizens, wherever they come from, should be able to settle in this country of their choice without fear of deportation after 10 years' lawful permanent residence in Australia. To deny this specific statutory period of liability to a particular class of offenders, apart from the security matters, is to introduce inequality of treatment amongst non-citizens. The next point which I think ought to be made is that it is totally inappropriate to introduce this type of amendment as moved by the honourable member for Denison into the scope of proposed new section 14 which deals only with security matters. How many times do I have to repeat that to the Committee? The Opposition's amendment is sloppy; it could not even draft the amendment to the appropriate section of the Act-proposed new section 12 dealing with criminal departations. Why did the honourable member not go to that? Proposed new section 14 deals with conduct and conviction with respect to security matters and with an appeal system. Mr Hodgman —After 10 years. Mr WEST —Yes. Quite frankly, if the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation cannot decide within 10 years of a person arriving in Australia whether that person is a spy or will be treacherous or seditious, and if 10 years is not long enough for it to compile its secret reports, it is more incompetent than even I thought it was. Certainly there has to be a time after which we are responsible for people, no matter how bad they are, because we cannot be a greater migration country and have it both ways. That is the position as I see it and, unfortunately for the Opposition, we have the numbers here. At any rate, we will not introduce into proposed new section 14, which deals only with security matters, any other matter dealing with conduct or conviction under a specific provision of the Crimes Act. While I am on this point I would refer to earlier suggestions relating to conviction under some other provisions of the Crimes Act which are not identified in proposed new section 14 (2). Honourable members, including the honourable member for Denison, may be assured that non-citizens convicted under the Commonwealth Crimes Act or any other legislation, Commonwealth or State, may always be deported under proposed new section 12 when they are within the 10- year period of liability. The Opposition has deplored this immunity after 10 years; yet in all its nonsense it has missed the point. The Oppostition let stand for 25 years a piece of legislation which differentiated between migrants who are Commonwealth citizens and aliens who are non-Commonwealth citizens. One element of the differentiation that I have removed is that migrants could be deported after five years but aliens could be deported at any time. Mr Coleman —We all agree on that. Mr WEST —If that is so, why did not the Opposition, when in government, not only do something about removing the discrimination but also do something about this dreadful position which it says will exist after 10 years but which has always existed after five years for Commonwealth citizens? Honourable members opposite are really saying that people who come from non-Commonwealth countries-the hundreds of thousands of Yugoslavs, Greeks and Italians-are somehow lesser people than Commonwealth citizens. That is the imputation of what they are saying. They did nothing about the fact that a Commonwealth citizen under the current Act is immune from deportation after five years, whether on security grounds, whether convicted of spying or of a crime, or because the Minister does not like him. That was the position. I have removed all the discrimination and said: 'After 10 years everyone who is a permanent resident of Australia can be considered part of Australia'. What is the other side of the coin? Let us say that a 12-year-old Greek or Italian comes here and stays for 15 or 20 years. We will have moulded him. He will have been here for most of his life and will have been through our schools and universities and have lived under our social system. If at the end of that time he does something such as grow marihuana, do we then say: 'We do not want you. We will send you back from whence you came and that country or government can be responsible for you after we have been responsible for creating the type of citizen you are now'? That is not acceptable to us. Quite frankly, I deplore the confusion in deportation policy that existed under Ministers of the previous Government. When I got this job one of the first things that my departmental officers said to me was: 'There were almost 200 deportation cases jammed up under the former Government. You have to set out a new deportation policy to make it absolutely clear who is eligible for deportation and who is not. Then we have to amend the Migration Act'. So we set our minds to it. One of the first cases I had to make a decision on concerned the Barbaro men. I will tell the Committee about that very quickly. They were part of the Pochi case. The then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), decided that he would deport Pochi. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal judge said: 'No, do not deport Pochi'. We all remember that the honourable member for Balaclava made a statement in the House saying why he had to deport Pochi. What happened? As soon as he got the portfolio of Employment and Industrial Relations, the former member for Petrie, Mr Hodges, got the job and said: 'No, we will not deport Pochi after all'. What sort of caper are they putting the Pochi family through after all this? In the end the former Government said: 'No, we will not deport Pochi'. The funny thing was that it did nothing about the Barbaro men who were convicted of exactly the same crime as Pochi. That is what I am trying to redress here. One has to see this Bill as part of the package on deportation policy that I announced in May. That statement will complement this legislation on all matters . We can then say that we have a responsible and mature policy on criminal and security deportation and that we have responsibility for these people after 10 years, whether we like it or not. We can still deport them after 10 years, but matters we will take into consideration will be, firstly, the nature of the crime; secondly, whether there is a risk of recidivism; thirdly, the contributions they have made or can be reasonably expected to make; and, fourthly, the rights of other Australian citizens or permanent residents whose rights should be taken into consideration, such as spouses and children. For the first time we have a consistent, fair and firm policy on deportation. Although it might seem to be a fringe matter, it affects the lives of people who live in Australia. I make no apologies for what I am doing here and I will reject the Opposition's amendment. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.59) —More in sorrow than in anger I have to say that the most charitable view one can take of the comments of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) is that he does not understand his own Bill. Either it has not been explained to him or, if it has, it has not got through. I say to the Minister and to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen ), who is in the chamber, that they will be asked publicly to explain. They have the numbers tonight-that is an unfortunate choice of words-but they will be asked publicly to explain a little down the track. People such as the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard), who worked hard and prepared a good speech on this Bill, will ask why they have given the Minister power to deport for sedition, treachery and treason but have not given him power to deport spies. They give him power to deport for an offence which carries a three-year sentence but they do not give him power to deport for an offence which carries a seven- year sentence. I have read to the Government-this is the third and final time that I will do it-section 78 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, which the Government, as a government of the Commonwealth, is obliged to uphold. Section 78 provides that people who are guilty of espionage, that is, spying, shall be sentenced to seven years imprisonment following conviction on indictment. I draw to the Minister's attention-the record will demonstrate that I have done this before-the provisions of section 81. It provides for a penalty upon indictment for people who harbour spies. We are in no doubt-because the Hansard transcript of this debate will go to the Australian Law Journal and every other legal publication in the country-that a non-citizen who has been in this country for more than 10 years and who harbours a Soviet spy will not be subject to deportation. The Minister has been told this. He has been warned and he has ignored the warning. The Minister will bluster. He says that he has the numbers and he is going to use them. He will tonight do a great disservice to this nation, because his will be the first government, probably in the Western world, that has specifically legislated that it will not deport spies, murderers, drug traffickers or other criminals if they have been here for 10 years and one day. Shame on the Government! The people of Australia will judge the Hawke socialist Government harshly for bringing in this legislation. Mr West —What about the immigrants? Mr HODGMAN —The Minister blusters. The Minister waffled for 10 minutes on a matter upon which the Opposition has supported him. He does not understand his Bill but, worse still, he does not even understand when he is being supported on both sides of the House. The most charitable thing one can say about the Minister is that he does not even know why he is here. I have told him and the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has told him the facts. The fact of the matter is that in a few minutes a division will be called and voters' names will be taken down. I am proud to say that the Opposition will stand on the side of deporting spies, people who harbour spies, murderers, gangsters and drug traffickers. The last thing I shall tell the Minister is this: The ethnic communities do not appreciate this go-soft attitude on the deportation of drug offenders. I told the Minister earlier that I would not comment upon decisions made by previous Ministers, and I will not. I simply say that, of the ethnic communities with which I have discussed the question of deportation, more have supported the original decision taken in one of those cases than have supported the latter decision. The Government makes history tonight by being the first government to make it the law of this country that spies are not to be deported. The people at the Soviet Embassy must be very proud of the Government. In Moscow the Soviets will cheer and cheer and cheer. Mr West —I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. Is the honourable member addressing his remarks to the Bill? I am sick and tired of all this reference to being friends of Moscow and all the rest of it. The CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member has concluded his speech. There is no redress in this situation. Mr West —I would not expect a redress from him. Can I just say-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. There is no point of order. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(11.04) —Section 14 relates to security. The Opposition's amendment relates to criminal deportation and should have been applied to section 12. Section 12 should have been amended by honourable members opposite long ago but they did not do so. They left section 12 in a situation which meant they were even deporting people in mental institutions, prostitutes and people in charitable institutions. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Hodgman's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 62 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Katter, R. C.Anthony, J. D. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J Millar, P. C.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Street, A. A.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Kent, L.Beddall, D. P. Keogh, L. J.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E.Blewett, N. Lindsay, E. J.Bowen, Lionel McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Campbell, G. Mayer, H.Charles, D. E. Mildren, J. B.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, L.Everingham, D. N. Scholes, G. G. D.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Steedman, A. P.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(11.15) —by leave-I move: (5) Clause 11, page 4, lines 28 and 29, omit '24D, 25, 26 or 27', substitute '25 or 26'. (6) Clause 11, page 4, line 31, omit ', 7 or 7A', substitute 'or 7'. Amendment No. 5 omits sections 24D and 27 of the Crimes Act from the ambit of the new section 14 (2) of the Migration Act. Section 24D deals with offences relating to seditious words and section 27 relates to unlawful military drilling . It is not considered appropriate that a conviction under the provisions of those sections of the Crimes Act should be the basis for deportation under proposed new section 14 (2) of the Migration Act. Because of the nature of the crimes mentioned in proposed new section 14 (2) such as treason, sabotage, et cetera, a convicted non-citizen will not enjoy any immunity from deportation on the basis of his length of permanent residence but will be entitled to a review by a commissioner within the provisions of proposed new section 14. I hope the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has got that straight. Amendment No. 6 omits section 7A of the Crimes Act from the ambit of proposed new section 14 (2). Section 7A deals with inciting or urging the commission of certain offences. As I have said, the Government does not consider it appropriate to include section 7A in proposed new section 14 (2). Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.17) —For the benefit of honourable members on both sides of the chamber, I indicate that the Opposition will not call for a division again tonight on this matter. I just want to ask the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) where on earth he is now going. He has amended what he put to us barely days ago by taking out reference to people who incite and who attempt to incite, but fail. In other words, if persons are convicted of attempted treason, sabotage, sedition or treachery but not, thanks to the result of the last vote, attempted spying, the Government will not be able to deport them. I invite any lawyer worth his or her salt to tell me why the Government is going to reward people who are unsuccessful in their attempt to commit crime. The person who commits sabotage will be deported. The person who tries to sabotage but mucks it up will not be deported. The person who harbours a Soviet spy can do that as much as he likes and as long as he likes and the Hawke Government will say: 'Brother, you are welcome in our ranks. We are not going to deport you'. As I said earlier tonight the Minister has made history by creating in this country something which I think would be unique in the Western world-that is, the sanctity and the safety of spies. That he should do this when the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies is still sitting is unbelievable. It is bad enough that the Government has now legislated for an Australian A1 Capone to be as safe as a church after 10 years and one day in Australia. But when, in the provisions of this legislation, the Government adds spies but leaves out inciters and those who attempt to incite I say to the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) that he has some funny friends and that he ought to get a new lawyer. Amendments agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Proposed new clause 11A (Definition of permanent resident). Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(11.20) —I move: (7) After clause 11, page 4, insert the following new clause: ''11A. After section 14 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: Definition of permanent resident '14A. (1) Where a person has been convicted of any offence (other than an offence the conviction in respect of which was subsequently quashed) the period (if any) for which the person was confined in a prison for that offence shall be disregarded in determining, for the purposes of section 12 and sub-section 14 (1), the length of time that that person has been present in Australia as a permanent resident. '(2) In section 12 and sub-section 14 (1), ''permanent resident'' means a person (including an Australian citizen) whose continued presence in Australia is not subject to any limitation as to time imposed by law, but does not include - (a) in relation to any period before the commencement of this sub-section-a person who was, during that period, a prohibited immigrant within the meaning of this Act as in force at that time; or (b) in relation to any period after the commencement of this sub-section-a person who is, during that period, a prohibited non-citizen. '(3) For the purposes of this section- (a) a reference to a prison includes a reference to any custodial institution at which a person convicted of an offence may be required to serve the whole or a part of any sentence imposed upon him by reason of that conviction; and (b) a reference to a period during which a person was confined in a prison includes a reference to a period- (i) during which the person was an escapee from a prison; or (ii) during which the person was undergoing a sentence of periodic detention in a prison.'.''. This amendment inserts proposed new section 14A to define 'permanent resident' for the purpose of new section 12 and new sub-section 14 (1). The interpretative provisions contained in new section 14A are substantially the same as those contained in clause 10 of the Bill. Basically, under these provisions, the period of 10 years of permanent residence shall be determined on the basis of legal presence or the aggregate of periods of legal presence of a non-citizen as a permanent resident. A period of confinement in a prison as a result of conviction for any offence is to be excluded. Proposed new clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill, by leave, taken as a whole. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(11.22) —by leave-I move: (8) Clause 13, page 5, after paragraph (a) insert the following paragraph: ''(aa ) by omitting paragraphs (1) (b) and (ba) and substitutiong the following paragraphs: '(b) at the time of, or prior to, that person's entry into Australia , the person- (i) produces or produced, or causes or caused to be produced, to the Minister or to an officer, in respect of that entry- (A) a permit, certificate, passport, visa, return endorsement, identification card or any other document that was not issued to the person, is forged or was obtained by false representation; or (B) a passenger card that contains information that is false or misleading in a material particular; or (ii) makes or made, or causes or caused to be made, to the Minister or to an officer, in respect of that entry, a statement that is false or misleading in a material particular; '(ba) at the time of, or prior to, the grant of a visa or a return endorsement in respect of the person, the person- (i) produces or produced, or causes or caused to be produced, to the Minister or to an officer, in respect of the grant of that visa or return endorsement, a document of the kind referred to in sub- sub-paragraph (b) (i) (A); or (ii) makes or made, or causes or caused to be made, to the Minister or to an officer, in respect of the grant of that visa or return endorsement, a statement that is false or misleading in a material particular; or'.''. (9) Clause 13, page 5, after paragraph (b) insert the following paragraph: ''(ba ) by inserting after sub-section (1) the following sub-section: '(1AA) where- (a ) a further entry permit has, either before or after the commencement of this sub-section, been granted to a person authorizing the person to remain in Australia; (b) that entry permit was granted while the person was in Australia; and (c) the person, in respect of the grant of that entry permit- (i) produced, or caused to be produced, to the Minister or to an officer a document that was not issued to that person, is forged or was obtained by false representation or that contains information that is false or misleading in a material particular; or (ii) made, or caused to be made, to the Minister or to an officer a statement that is false or misleading in a material particular, that person shall, notwithstanding section 10, be deemed to be a prohibited non -citizen unless he is the holder of an entry permit endorsed with a statement that the person granting that permit recognises him to be a person referred to in this sub-section.'.''. (10) Clause 17, page 6, lines 9 to 12, omit paragraph (e), substitute the following paragraph: ''(e) by omitting paragraphs (1) (b) and (c) and substituting the following paragraphs: '(b) becomes a prohibited non-citizen by reason of being a person to whom paragraph 8 (3) (a) or (c) applies; or (c) becomes a prohibited non-citizen by virtue of sub-section 16 (1) or (1AA) by reason that- (i) he produced, or caused to be produced, after the commencement of the Migration Amendment Act 1983, to the Minister or to an officer- (A) a document that, to his knowledge was not issued to him, is forged or was obtained by false representation; or (B) a passenger card that, to his knowledge, contains information that is false or misleading in a material particular; or (ii) he made, or caused to be made, after the commencement of the Migration Amendment Act 1983, to the Minister or to an officer, a statement that, to his knowledge, was false or misleading in a material particular,'; and''. (11) Clause 17, page 6, lines 18 and 19, omit ''or he had ceased to be a prohibited non-citizen by virtue of sub-section 7 (4)''. (12) Clause 19, page 6, lines 29 to 32, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: False papers, &c. ''19. Section 31 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting from sub-section (1) 'an immigrant' (wherever occurring) and substituting 'a non-citizen'; (b) by inserting in paragraph (1) (a) ', or cause to be presented,' after ' present'; (c) by omitting paragraph (1) (b) and substituting the following paragraph: '(b) make, or cause to be made, to the Minister or to an officer a statement that, to his knowledge, is false or misleading in a material particular; or'; Amendment No. 10 contains additional consequential amendments to section 27 of the Act as a result of the proposed new amendments. Amendment No. 11 contains an additional amendment to section 27 of the Act as a result of the repeal of sub- section 7 (4). Amendment No. 12 inserts new consequential amendments to section 31 of the Act as a result of the proposed new amendments. Amendment No. 13 is simply a technical drafting matter. Amendment No. 14 inserts a new transitional provision as a result of the proposed amendments to section 16 of the Act. Amendment No. 15 is a drafting matter to delete the reference to sub-section 7 ( 4) which is being repealed. I have introduced one further amendment, amendment 12A, which we have also circulated. It reads: Clause 23, page 7, lines 8 and 9, omit paragraph (b) and substitute the following paragraph: '(b) by omitting from sub-section (4) ''24'' and substituting ''48''.' I think that I should give a brief explanation for this last action. Mr Hodgman —The Opposition is not opposed to it. Mr WEST —The fact is that we have picked up an unintended consequence as a result of taking out the 24 hours, which is really a time period by which the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs or the Minister gives a directive, to an airline which has brought into Australia an unauthorised arrival, to take out that person within 72 hours. The problem is that to remove the 24 hours as a time period removes what is in fact a trigger which determines the length of time by which a person can be kept in prison or in detention, because it relates back to sub-section 4 of section 36. If no action is taken within or after 24 hours, then we deal with people under sections 38 and 39 from within Australia as prohibited immigrants, and that gives them recourse to a magistrate. The problem was that by removing the 24 hours they may have been kept in detention for a period which could be almost indefinite. Of course, a Labor government would not do that, so we have picked up the consequence of that. As we still want to give the Department more time to arrange the departure with the airline we have inserted '48' instead of '24' hours. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.27) —The Opposition agrees with the amendments. I was delighted to hear the Minister's remarks about the last amendment. If the House accepts that amendment, I shall not need to proceed with my second amendment, because effectively it does much the same thing with only 24 hours difference. Amendments agreed to. Remainder of Bill, as amended, agreed to. The CHAIRMAN —The question now is that I report the Bill with amendments. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.28) —This is the last occasion on which I shall speak on this matter. I ask the Government to look very carefully in the cold light of day, tomorrow morning, at the legislation which is passed. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) said, and said correctly, 'we have got the numbers', but I ask him to look again at the matter and I invite him to consider very carefuly what has been said about espionage and the harbouring of spies before this Bill reaches the Senate. I am prepared to suggest that the Minister does not have the numbers necessarily in the Senate. It would be a tragedy for this nation if his Government persists in the course of action it has demonstrated tonight in refusing to make it possible for a Minister to deport a spy and people who harbour spies. Combe and Ivanov are one matter, but what the Minister is doing is putting into the law of this country something of which all Australians will be ashamed, whether he is ashamed or not. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr West)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 23 August, on motion by Mr West: 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 West) read a third time. Department of Housing and Construction-North Richmond Housing Estate-Bradmill Textiles Mill-Queensland Government Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(11.32) —It sometimes might seem traditional for Western Australians to complain that their State gets unfair treatment from the Commonwealth. It seems to be equally traditional for others to dismiss such complaints as Western Australian parochialism. But the complaint I am bringing to honourable members' attention tonight is amply justified by facts and figures . Put simply, it is this: The Department of Housing and Construction is discriminating against Western Australian professionals and firms when it contracts out design work. This matter was first brought to my attention by the Practising Architects Association of Western Australia more than two years ago. Since then I have been asking questions on notice and corresponding with successive Ministers in an attempt to find out the policy and the practice of contracting Commonwealth design work to the private sector. The answers provided have been inconsistent, sometimes implausible and, on at least one occasion, downright wrong. But after more than two years of trying I am now satisfied with the accuracy of the information I have. This is the situation: For some years it has been Commonwealth policy to contract out to private practitioners some 50 per cent of the design workload for major construction projects. These practitioners are mostly architects, engineers and quantity surveyors, but interior designers and other specialists are also included at different times. The reason for this policy is straightforward; it is to save the Government taxpayers' money by allowing the Department to manage with a smaller design staff of its own. If the work were not contracted out, the Department would have to maintain a large enough design staff to cope with peak workloads that are only sometimes reached. For the rest of the time the departmental staff would be underemployed. Keeping a substantial proportion of the work within the Department of course ensures that expertise is directly available within the Public Service when it is needed. That was the policy and, as I understand it, it still is. It is not applied in Western Australia, but elsewhere it is applied. In the financial year 1981-82, the 50 per cent target was very nearly reached for Australia as a whole. The figures show that 48.5 per cent of design work let by the Commonwealth went to the private sector. I do not quibble with that; in fact I support it: But for Western Australia the figure was 11.5 per cent. Over the last three financial years the average for Australia as a whole was 44.3 per cent; for Western Australia it was only 12 per cent. In other words, Western Australian consultants are getting little more than one-tenth of the design work for Commonwealth projects in Western Australia compared with a national figure of nearly half of the work contracted to the private sector generally. This is by far the lowest figure for any State. It is less than half the figure for Queensland which is the next lowest State. It is even less than the proportion for the Northern Territory. The Department and its Ministers have not come up with any convincing explanation for this state of affairs. To me and to my constituents in the Practising Architects Association of Western Australia, it looks like a deliberate policy of discrimination against them as Western Australian professionals. I ask the present Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) to put an end to this discrimination by seeing that an equitable percentage of design and consultancy work is let to qualified Western Australians. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(11.37) —I wish to raise tonight a matter concerning the Richmond housing estate in my electorate. Mr Ian Cameron —Get on to a subject that has a bit of guts in it. Mr HAND —This subject has a bit of guts in it, my friend, and if you listen, you will be- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the honourable member for Melbourne to address the Chair and not to take notice of disorderly interjections. Mr HAND —Over the last two days, 42 people from the Richmond high-rise estate have been lobbying members of the Parliament. The Richmond estate, to give some understanding of the size of it, is one of the largest high rise public housing estates in Victoria. There are 1,260 units on the estate and there are between 5 ,500 and 6,000 people living on it. The estate is only six hectares in size. I ask the Government and Opposition members to consider the effects of 6,000 people living in that area. I mention this matter because of the vicious attack by the Opposition on the ethnic communities. I wish to tell the House about the make-up of the ethnic groups in that estate, especially having heard the remarks of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) in the last debate. On this estate, 27 per cent of the 6,000 residents are Vietnamese; 25 per cent are English or New Zealanders; 13 per cent are Turkish; 9 per cent are Timorese; 6 per cent are Yugoslav; 3 per cent are Greek; 3 per cent are Spanish; and 13.5 per cent is made up of other groups. Sixty per cent of the estate population is on rebated rents. By definition they are dependent upon social security payments or on low wages not much more than the social security level. Twenty per cent of the people on the estate are aged between 15 and 24; 23 per cent are aged between 5 and 15; and 11.5 per cent are under 4 years. I turn now to the matter of the unemployed on the estate. It is estimated that in excess of 50 per cent of the young people-that is, people aged between 15 and 24 years-are unemployed. These people have asked in their submission to the Government-I support them-that the Government consider changes to the current unemployment and training schemes in order to make them more flexible, creative and responsive to the needs of communities such as the North Richmond housing estate. These people need help on a practical level. I should like to see the Government develop a pilot scheme in the area which would allow these people to undertake a study course. That study course would involve training people to be better skilled in their financial affairs, planning their affairs, developing small business skills and managing human resources. I ask honourable members to consider the effects of 6,000 people living in that area and to compare that area with a country town of 6,000 people which would have a police station, a hospital, a dozen doctors, football ovals and all sorts of other resources. These people live in an area of that size in which they have one community hall. They have nothing else. There is no other recreational area in which the children in the area can play. All they are asking for is some funds from the Government. I understand from discussions with the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford)-I am pleased to report this-that he has sent the submission to his Department for consideration and we anxiously await his Department's decision. On behalf of these people, I strongly urge the Government to support their application for funds to develop a program where we can, as a government, give these people and the children in that area a better quality of life. Mr O'KEEFE(Paterson)(11.41) —My speech tonight concerns the closure of the Bradmill Textiles Pty Ltd Rutherford plant at Maitland. On Friday 29 July, in company with His Worship, the Mayor of Maitland, Alderman Ron Walsh, I visited the Town Hall and met Mr Rod Hartley, the General Manager and top executive in Australia of Bradmill's huge textile enterprise, to discuss the closure of the Rutherford textile mill at Maitland. Mr Hartley informed us that the directors of Bradmill had decided to close their textile mill at Rutherford by Christmas 1983. He indicated that this decision was final and informed us that the Rutherford mill had lost $9.6m in its operations since 1980, although it was then showing small profits. He also stated that the employees would be granted reasonable severance pay according to their years of service. After meeting the Mayor and me, Mr Hartley visited the Rutherford plant and informed the employees of the company's decision. Naturally great concern was expressed by the 600 employees of the textile mill, the closure of which would cause considerable problems for the men and women employed there as well as their wives, husbands and children. The number of people involved could be some 2,000 persons, taking into consideration the family units. If the mill closes the economic effect on the city of Maitland would, of course, be disastrous. A public meeting was held at the Maitland Town Hall on Wednesday 10 August. It was attended by some 500 employees, by Mr John Roughley, Secretary of the Australian Textile Workers Union, Mr Dave Wetherall of the Trades and Labour Council, the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown), who is present tonight, and the local member of the Legislative Assembly for Maitland, Mr Alan Walsh. The meeting was extremely orderly. It finally passed a unanimous resolution that a deputation of the parliamentary members, the union representatives and one representative from the Rutherford plant be formed and wait on the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) to request Federal Government assistance to keep the Bradmill textile mill operating and, if possible, to arrange a meeting with Mr Rod Hartley to see whether arrangements of this nature could be made. Mr Dave Wetherall of the Trades and Labour Council was appointed co-ordinator of the delegation. So far he has not been able to arrange an appointment with the Ministers concerned. This is a very important matter and I ask the Ministers concerned to meet this important delegation in the immediate future because great concern is being experienced in Maitland by all the employees in this wonderful textile industry. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(11.44) —After the last election in Queensland Mr Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, currently the Premier, waited on the Governor of Queensland and informed him that the coalition led by him commanded a majority of seats in the Queensland House of Assembly. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) , who is trying to interject, can bleat as loudly as the sheep he so vividly represents but I am not going to be put off. Solely because of the demonstrable truth of the claim that the Premier made at that time the Governor appointed him as the head of the Queensland Government. The most basic convention of any parliamentary democracy is the convention that the Government is drawn from the party or coalition of parties which holds the majority of seats in the legislative chamber. A moment's reflection would tell anybody that there would be no point in having elections at all if this convention were not observed. This convention is not being observed in Queensland. The Premier of Queensland now heads a government which does not have a majority of seats on the floor of the Queensland House. It follows that in Queensland the most basic assumption of any parliamentary democracy has now been subverted. Mr Ian Cameron —Are you scared to go to the polls? Mr WELLS —Unreflective members opposite, like the honourable member for Maranoa, might very well say that since an election has now been called this whole argument is theoretical. In fact, it has very practical consequences. Mr Bjelke- Petersen will go into this election clothed in the pride and panoply of power. He will go to the electors of Queensland as Premier, holding a position to which he is no longer entitled. As Premier, he and his Ministers have the advantages of the primary attention of the media. They have recourse to the power of the purse. They have extra staff. They have logistical advantages which flow from being in government, not the least of these being the Government aircraft, which is paid for by the people of Queensland and used for the benefit of Johannes Bjelke-Petersen. They retain the power of intimidation, a power which has been used more ruthlessly by the Government in Queensland than by any other government in the history of this country. If anybody says that the great principle that a government is drawn from the party which has the majority of seats in the House of Assembly does not matter because there is going to be an election, then that person just has not thought about it. Mr Ian Cameron —Wait until Joh- Mr WELLS —And you, sir, have not thought about anything. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member that he addresses his remarks through the Chair and should consider what he is saying. Mr WELLS —There is a remedy for this undemocratic situation. The Leader of the Opposition in Queensland, Mr Keith Wright, has called on the Government to recall the Parliament to test whether the present Premier does in fact command a majority of the seats in the House. It is this test which Mr Bjelke-Petersen is seeking to shirk by saying that he will not even call the Parliament together to bring down the Budget-a Budget which Mr Wright has described as an illegal Budget, illegal because it would be imposed by a government which does not have a constitutional entitlement to govern. There are constitutional means of redress, and this might surprise honourable members opposite. Under section 12 of the Constitution of the State of Queensland, the Governor has a discretion to recall the Parliament. This would force the Bjelke-Petersen Government to face the motion of no confidence which it is so unconstitutionally trying to avoid and it would enable the elected representatives of the people of Queensland to determine who will have custody of the people's affairs between now and the election. I am talking about a matter of constitutional law, not merely of politics. It would not be legally valid or appropriate to test section 12 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court by seeking a writ of injunction or mandamus against the Governor. However, it was established in the 1962 Western Australian case of Tonkin v. Brand that the writ of declaration was available in these circumstances. Edmund Burke, a philosopher with whom honourable members opposite would agree if only they were capable of understanding him, said that this was like a case of allowing the sick parts of the Constitution to be regenerated by those parts which remained healthy. The matter is in fact quite simple, so simple that it is probably understood even by the newly appointed National Party members of the Queensland Cabinet. Either one is in favour of democracy or one is not. If one is in favour of democracy, one believes in majority rule. One does not subscribe to the view which Mr Bjelke-Petersen expressed at a National Party conference when he said: 'We have got to get away from talking about majority rule-it just doesn't add up '. Further, if one believes in representative democracy then one believes that the Cabinet should be drawn from the party or parties which hold the majority of seats in the legislative chamber. If one does not believe in these things, one does not believe in democracy. If one believes, as Mr Bjelke-Petersen obviously believes, that it is appropriate to govern without a majority of the seats, without a majority of the votes, in defiance of the will of the Parliament and in defiance of the will of the people, then one is a totalitarian. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11.49 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 24 August 1983: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposals for collection of information-1983- No. 7-Survey of real estate agencies, 1982-83 No. 8-Survey of legal services, 1982-83 No. 9-Census of superannuation funds, 1982-83 No. 10-Quarterly survey of Australian direct investment abroad Lands Acquisition Act-Statements (2) of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1) The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 39 Dr Everingham asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the Nicholas Rothwell article published on page 14 of the Australian of 21 March 1983. (2) If so, do private United States of America interests advocate developing nuclear fuel reprocessing for fast breeder and other reactors at Barnwell in competition with United Kingdom and French reprocessors. (3) If the position is as stated, is the call for government guarantee or subsidy based on claims that this will reduce waste disposal problems and uranium costs and increase effectiveness of safeguards against proliferation of nuclear weapons by suggesting stronger International Atomic Energy Agency controls. (4) Has the Agency proved ineffective in enforcing its present controls. (5) What principal claims have been made that would suggest reprocessing adds to nuclear energy risks. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) Certain private interests have advocated the development of commercial reprocessing facilities at Barnwell. Seen in the context of the cumulative holdings of spent light water reactor fuel in the US, the scale of operations envisaged for Barnwell, with a maximum throughput of 1,500 tonnes per annum, could be expected to have little effect on UK and French reprocessing operations . (3) Against a background of differing attitudes to nuclear reprocessing by the current and previous American Administrations the Australian article suggests that the Barnwell consortium requires federal guarantees as commercial protection against further government policy changes. Advocates of commercial reprocessing at Barnwell claim public benefits from the proposal in its contribution to the disposal of spent fuel and increased safeguards effectiveness. The safeguards benefits of Barnwell would be in providing an opportunity to demonstrate the techniques applicable to safeguarding future large-scale reprocessing plants, an area identified by the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE) exercise, concluded in 1980, as requiring attention. (4) No. Where IAEA safeguards are applicable, they are regarded by most IAEA member countries as providing an effective deterrence against the illegal use of nuclear materials and facilities. This is not to say, however, that there is no room for improvement in the political and technical processes involved in maintaining effective and efficient nuclear safeguards. Australia is committed to ensuring that all possible influences are brought to bear in furthering the effectiveness of international non-proliferation arrangements. As regards reprocessing plants, INFCE concluded that while current IAEA safeguards techniques were generally capable of providing effective international safeguards for existing operating plants, new and improved techniques would be required for future industrial-scale plutonium handling facilities. Since INFCE there have been a number of activities in this area, including: the International Working Group on Reprocessing Plant Safeguards, which concluded its work in October 1981; the Tokai Advanced Safeguards Technology Exercise (TASTEX) for the testing and demonstration of advanced safeguards techniques for reprocessing plants, which concluded in May 1981; work under several national programs of support for IAEA safeguards; and various specialised IAEA meetings of experts. (5) The claim that reprocessing adds to nuclear energy risks may refer to the fact that in some circumstances recovered plutonium may be a weapons-usable material, or that the development of reprocessing introduces risks through the possible spread of technology. The claim may also reflect the concern some people have that availability of commercial grade plutonium from reprocessing spent fuel will encourage the development of fast breeder reactors, leading to the so-called 'plutonium economy' in which there may be regular trading and transportation of large quantities of commercial grade plutonium. Question No. 100 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1983: Are students in receipt of Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS) allowances, which have a family allowance component, being disadvantaged by not having the full amount of family allowance forgone added to the TEAS allowance; if so, is the Minister contemplating any action to remove this apparent anomaly. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Family allowance, which is the responsibility of the Department of Social Security, is not payable in respect of students who are in receipt of allowances under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS). This situation has existed since 1978 at which time an additional amount of $5.25 a week was added to the basic TEAS allowance in place of the family allowance payment. The amount of $5.25 a week was set as a flat rate and did not take into account the actual level of family allowance forgone by families of different sizes and compositions. While there have been increases in family allowance in the 1981-82 and 1982-83 Budgets and while the overall TEAS payment has increased since 1978, there has been no specific increase in the amount that is added to the basic TEAS entitlement in place of family allowance. Most families will, of course, receive more money overall when a child goes onto TEAS. My Department will be examining the matter however, as part of its overall review of TEAS. Question No. 154 Dr Charlesworth asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: (1) Is the Government committed to the funding of the Jesus People Inc. in Perth. (2) How will future levels of assistance be afforded to the Jesus People. (3) Which other organisations concerned with homeless youth in the Electoral Division of Perth are receiving government assistance and what is the level of assistance given. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) The Jesus People Inc. received a capital grant in 1981-82 under the Homeless Persons Assistance Program and receives recurrent subsidies under this program in connection with the operation of a homeless persons centre. Any future applications for grants from the organisation will be assessed in relation to other organisations' applications and will be accorded a relevant priority for funding bearing in mind competing needs and the availability of funds. (3) Youthcare (Centrecare Inc.) operates three centres in Wembley, East Perth and North Perth. The organisation has received an equipment grant of $202 and is currently receiving the following subsidies in respect of these centres: (a) food/accommodation and meals subsidy of approximately $450 per month (b) rental subsidy of $563.32 per month (c) salary subsidy of $368.33 per month Question No. 155 Dr Charlesworth asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: (1) Is the Government committed to the continued funding of women's refuges in Perth. (2) Is the number of homeless women without children in the Electoral Division of Perth increasing; if so, will special assistance be forthcoming for them. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes; and as an indication of its continuing commitment to provide crisis accommodation for homeless women and children throughout Australia, the Government recently announced that it would provide $4m to set up the national Women's Emergency Services Program. The Program, to co-ordinate the provision of emergency services for women and children escaping from intolerable domestic situations will be undertaken in co- operation with the States and community groups. (2) There are no statistics on the number of homeless women in the Perth Electorate. However, since there has been an increase in applications from organisations providing accommodation for homeless women and children in the Perth area, I have every reason to believe that the demand for services of this type has risen at the same level as in other parts of Australia. Commonwealth support for crisis accommodation including youth refuges and shelter for the chronically homeless is currently under review. Details about funding will be made in the context of that review. It is, nevertheless, one of the Government's priorities to provide new services in areas of high need. Question No. 165 Mr Wells asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 18 May 1983: (1) Is it a fact that if two pensioners are separated by means of illness and live in two different homes, some distance apart, their income, for the purpose of supplementary benefit, is still assessed on the basis of the married rate rather than on the basis of a single rate. (2) Is it also a fact that if they were living separately because of a marital breakdown they would receive two separate pension incomes. (3) If so, is any action available to the Minister to remedy this disparity. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Where a married couple are separated as a result of illness, each may be paid the maximum single rate of pension and each may attract the maximum rate of supplementary assistance. In determining the rate of pension and supplementary assistance payable, each is deemed to receive half the income of the couple. (2) Where a pensioner couple are permanently separated due to marital breakdown , they are treated as single persons and not as a married couple. Accordingly, each may receive the maximum single rate of pension and each may attract the maximum rate of supplementary assistance. In determining the rate of pension and supplementary assistance payable to each, the pensioner's own income is taken into account. (3) In (1) above, the continued existence of the marriage is recognised through the application of the income test applicable to a married couple while special consideration is given through payment of single rates of pension and supplementary assistance to the fact that the couple are no longer able to enjoy the economies of living together. In (2) above, the pensioners are treated as any other single person. It is not considered appropriate to vary this situation . Question No. 172 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: (1) How many persons are receiving supporting parents benefits from the Department of Social Security. (2) How many of these persons reside within the electoral division of Moore. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) As at 8 April 1983 there were 135,816 supporting parent beneficiaries. (2) It is estimated that about 930 of these persons reside in the electoral division of Moore. Question No. 210 Mr Reeves asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, 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 Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: $ 1978-79 4,023,675 *1979-80 4,262,982 1980-81 5,276,325 1981-82 6,167,754 1982-83 6,623,197 The above amounts include expenditure under employment training and assistance schemes, and for salaries, overtime and administrative expenses for the following Departments and Statutory Authorities. Department of Employment and Industrial Relations (May 1982 to June 1983) former Department of Employment and Youth Affairs (Dec. 1978 to May 1982) former Department of Industrial Relations (Dec. 1978 to May 1982) former Department of Employment and Industrial Relations (June to Dec. 1978) Conciliation and Arbitration Commission Public Service Arbitrator's Office Australian Trade Union Training Authority former Industrial Relations Bureau There were no capital works programs undertaken in the Northern Territory by any of these Departments and Statutory Authorities during the years 1978-79 to 1982-83. * For 1979-80 the former Department of Industrial Relations did not separately cost State/Territory salaries expenditure for its own staff and those of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and the amounts are therefore unavailable. Question No. 232 Mr Reeves asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, 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 Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: DEPARTMENT OF TERRITORIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT Expenditure by the Department in or related to the Northern Territory Description 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $ $ $ $ $ Salaries and administrative expenses incurred by the Department 608, 908 537,137 522,476 645,521 437,940 Contribution to the Northern Territory Government for social infrastructure costs of Jabiru township . . 948,000 8,245 ,959 9,974,000 1,576,271 608,908 1,485,137 8,768,435 10,619,521 2,014,211 NOTES: 1. Expenditure in 1978-79 to 1981-82 incurred by Department of Home Affairs and Environment. 2. In 1982-83 expenditure to 10.3.83 incurred by Department of Home Affairs and Environment. Expenditure incurred by Department of Territories and Local Government from 11.3.83 to 30.6.83. Question No. 285 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: Will he provide an analysis of prosecutions for Federal award breaches in each State for each of the years 1980 to 1982. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Penalties State Award Breaches (Total) Orders $ $ 1980 South Australia Transport Workers Award 1972 2 150 1981 Queensland Hotels and Retail Liquor Industry Award 1975 8 400 551 Municipal Officers (Queensland) Consolidated Award 1975 1 160 Metal Industry Award 1971 1 20 Western Australia Horse Training Industry Award 1976 3 1,425 Australian Capital Territory Liquor & Allied Industries Catering, Cafe, Restaurant et cetera (ACT) Consolidated Award 1979 2 100 Northern Territory Northern Territory Cattle Industry Award 1975 3 475 2,657 1982 New South Wales Graphic Arts Award 1977 3 200 Vehicle Industry-Repair, Services and Retail-Award 1980 1 150 Vehicle Industry-Repair, Services and Retail-Award 1980 3 150 Victoria Vehicle Industry-Repair, Services and Retail-Award 1980 2 900 Vehicle Industry-Repair, Services and Retail-Award 1976 5 1,850 Queensland Metal Industry Award 1971 2 125 Federal Meat Industry Interim Award 1965 1 50 Federal Meat Industry Interim Award 1965 2 50 Horse Training Industry Award 1968 1 40 Transport Workers (Interstate Drivers) Consolidated Award 1980 2 150 South Australia Pastoral Industry Award 1965 1 200 National Building Trades Construction Award 1975 6 96 2,572 Australian Capital Territory Country Printing Award 1959 2 250 1,311 Clerks (ACT) Award 1978 1 (a) 200 128 Liquor and Allied Industries Catering, Cafe, Restaurant etcetera (ACT) Consolidated Award 1979 3 375 Horse Training Industry Award 1976 4 300 Tasmania Furnishing Trades (Consolidated) Award 1975 2 (b) 75 1,109 Hotels and Retail Liquor Industry Award 1975 3 40 (a) 1 further breach not sustained (b) 2 further breaches adjourned 'sine die' Comparison of the detail herein with that published in this regard in successive annual reports of the former Industrial Relations Bureau discloses a disparity in respect of Queensland. Appendix D of the Bureau's Annual Report for 1980-81 shows an incorrect figure of sixteen breaches prosecuted in Queensland. The number of breaches prosecuted in that State during that year was nine. The term Orders used herein means orders for payments to be made to the employees concerned. Question No. 298 Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 26 May 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts' recent report on the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. (2) Has he determined not to proceed with the sale of the Belconnen Mall; if so , will the comments of the Public Accounts Committee concerning certain directors be taken into account when reconstructing the board of the Authority. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The Government has withdrawn the Belconnen Mall from sale. The Governor-General made appointments to the Canberra Commercial Development Authority on 3 June 1983. In making recommendations for appointments the Government had regard to the findings of the Public Accounts Committee's 181st Report. The Government accepted the need to appoint a nominee of the Permanent Head of the Department of Territories and Local Government. It did not accept the recommendations that those subject to criticism in the Report not be re- appointed. The Committee had recommended that the Attorney-General initiate a full investigation into the security of tender documents relating to contracts for the construction of the Belconnen Mall. In January 1982 the former Attorney- General advised the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee that on the evidence available to him neither the Chairman of the Authority nor a contractor to the Authority has been involved in committing any illegal or unlawful act. The Attorney-General was of the opinion that the claims of impropriety consisted of 'unsubstantiated allegations' and 'hearsay'. The Committee concluded that it found no evidence of impropriety on the part of any member of the board or the staff of the Authority. Furthermore the then Attorney-General has found that specific allegations recommended by the Committee for further enquiry were unsubstantiated. Question No. 24 Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: What sum is being spent annually by the tobacco industry in sponsorship of Australian sport. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Tobacco companies estimate that current annual spending by the major companies directly on sports sponsorship is in the region of $13m. Question No. 97 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 5 May 1983: What is the Australian steel content of the North West Gas Project. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honouraable member's question: The North West Shelf Project Group has advised that up until 10 June 1983 the North West Gas Project had incorporated 22,000 tonnes of Australian steel. Question No. 110 Mr Mountford asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 10 May 1983: Further to my question No. 5277 placed on the notice paper on 14 October 1982 concerning the Australian Aid program in the Samar region of The Philippines, (a ) does the program rely on fertilisers, pesticides, new varieties of crops and more complicated technology; if so (i) why and (ii) what damage, if any, is done in the long term to the soil by the use of such farming techniques, (b) will the increased use of technology lead to less farm employment, (c) is the aim of the agricultural developments to increase crops for export in preference to increasing local food production, (d) can he indicate (i) how the subsistence farmers can afford to pay for these developments and (ii) whether subsistence farmers could be squeezed off their land by this program, (e) which pesticides, if any, are used in this program, (f) have any studies been done on (i) possible damage by pesticides to agricultural workers, especially those in rice fields, ( ii) the effects of any pesticides and fertilisers on fish and bird life and (iii ) the effect of the agricultural use of pesticides and fertilisers on existing livestock, and (g) can he indicate (i) what type and tonnage of vehicles are carring the agricultural supplies and produce on the road network, and (ii) what are the specifications of the roads. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The project has inter-related programs directed to small farmers covering the development of improved cropping and livestock systems, the supply of better services to the farmers (including extension, soil analysis and marketing), and a program to train farmers and technicians and encourage self-supporting community institutions. The cropping system program draws on technology currently available in the Philippines and varifies it for the Northern Samar physical, social and economic environment. The cropping program includes the use of fertilisers and chemicals, introduction of improved farm management practices (including better cropping patterns and soil management), and provision of improved small farm equipment (such as water buffalo-drawn plows). Question No. 223 Mr Reeves asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, 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 as follows: The Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism was created on 11 March 1983. For the period 11 March to 30 June 1983, the Department made payments totalling $611,977 to the Northern Territory Treasury under the International Standard Sports Facilities (ISSF) Program for the Marrara International Indoor Sports Complex, Darwin. Payments to the Northern Territory under the ISSF Program for the full financial year 1982-83 totalled $835,073, and related to the Marrara Complex. There were no payments to the Northern Territory under the ISSF Program in previous years. The Australian Tourist Commission promotes the Northern Territory widely under the total 'Australia' umbrella. There is, however, no separate program of expenditure to promote the Northern Territory solely. The Australian Institute of Sport has not made any expenditure of the type referred to in the honourable member's question. (i) These technological elements are used in this program in order to increase productivity and income, to enrich the long term capability of the soil, to make better use of the limited land available for cropping, and to increase farm employment. (ii) Traditional farming practices, especially the slash and burn farming pattern currently employed in upland areas and continuous monocropping in the lowlands, have significant long term detrimental effects on the soil environment . They result in soil erosion, heavy siltation in river systems, soil compacting and nutrient degradation. By offering alternative programs that concentrate on soil conservation and soil rejuvenation, the project is reducing the existing risk of long term environmental degradation. (b) Introduction of the technology can be expected to increase farm employment. The labour requirement of the agricultural innovations is significantly greater than that which farmers have been used to providing under traditional rice cultivation methods. The improved technology will increase yields in the project area from 2 tonnes per hectare to up to 6 tonnes per hectare and labour will be required to harvest, transport and distribute the improved output and to handle the delivery, repair and maintenance of farm inputs. (c) The aim of the agricultural program is to raise the economic and social well being of the small farmers in Northern Samar by strengthening government agencies' support capabilities and ensuring that farmers have access to improved farming practices. The program has emphasised increased production of rice, the major staple of the local community. Production increases may change the province from net importer to self sufficiency or posibly net exporter to other parts of the Philippines and local dietary levels should improve as a result. Although the main emphasis is on the development of lowland rice farming, the project is directly involved in activities in other cropping areas. For example, suitable farming methods for upland crops such as maize, vegetables and leguminous crops are currently being developed on research areas and evaluated on farmer's fields. The aim of the upland programs is to reduce the tenant's dependence on copra by providing supplementary income from intercropping activities. Crops included in the upland program would supplement local food production and, as in the case of rice, may result in increased export should local production exceed local demand. (d) (i) Subsistence farmers do not pay cash for the improved technology. Project assistance is given to farmers through the provision of capital items such as farm implements, as well as fertiliser and seed, to farmers associations . The farmer members hire the implements from the associations and are supplied with other inputs with repayment in kind being made after harvest. The technology package which has been developed by the Philippine Ministry of Agriculture with project assistance is geared towards ensuring that farmers have adequate supplies from their harvest to increase their economic well-being and meet their rental commitments. (ii) The program deals with small farmers, owners and tenants whose average farm size is 1.36 ha compared to the Northern Samar rice land farm average of 1. 8 ha. While there can be no guarantee that farmers will not be dispossessed, the small size of their holdings and the lack of any visible trend towards this suggests that this would be unlikely. This aspect will continue to be closely monitored by the project. (e) Pesticides used include: Azinphos ethyl plus BPMC, monocrotophos, endosulfan, melathion, carbaryl, zinc oxide, carbofuran, and butachlor. (f) (i-iii) No. However, all pesticides and fertilisers used on the program have been screened by the Fertilisers and Pesticide Authority (FPA) of the Philippines. All chemicals are labelled to ensure safe and proper use by farm workers and the provincial health services have been informed about procedures to be followed in cases of accidental poisoning. Practical farmer training classes include the use and safe handling of chemicals. Farmers' use of chemicals in the project area is guided by Ministry of Agriculture extension staff and monitored by project personnel to ensure compliance with FPA recommendations on environment effects of agricultural chemicals. (g) (i) A range of vehicle types is used to carry agricultural supplies and produce, including two-axle trucks which can be safely loaded to 12 tonnes gross . (ii) The roads are being constructed to the Philippine Government general specifications for roads and bridges, 1976. The Philippine Government meets 60 percent of road construction costs. Road construction to date has been confined to upgrading a national highway along the coast of Northern Samar. This road is two-lane concrete which will withstand damage from frequent typhoons in the area and need little maintenance. Feeder (farm-to-market) roads which can be accommodated within budgetary allocations will be constructed with a gravel surface to specifications drawn up in conjunction with Australian personnel. Question No. 226 Mr Reeves asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 25 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 answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The total amounts of expenditure and/or capital works programs undertaken by the Department of Health 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 were: (a) Expenditures incurred by the then Northern Territory Division of the Department from 1 July 1978 to 31 December 1978, i.e. prior to the transfer of the Division to the Government of the Northern Territory on its attaining self- government on 1 January 1979: (i) Northern Territory Hospitals-$14,384,641 (ii) Northern Territory Health Services- $7,079,234 (iii) Northern Territory Plant and Equipment- $205,131 (b) Expenditure associated with the office of the Commonwealth Department of Health, located in Darwin: ACTUAL EXPENDITURE 78-79 79-80 80-81 81 82 82-83 $ $ $ $ $ General administrative expenses 531,707 669,745 686,740 763,314 982, 806 Plant and equipment 6,436 1,423 4,527 636 7,672 Question No. 259 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 9 December 1982, saying that transponders on the Australian domestic communications satellite should not be available to the 3 major networks because that would exclude regional television stations and localism in Australian programming and that it would also exclude the development of new services in outback Australia; if so, does that statement represent Government policy. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am aware of Senator Button's statement. Policies on the use of the satellite system for broadcasting (including television) purposes have yet to be determined. When the necessary decisions have been reached an announcement of Government policy will be made.