Wednesday, 19 October 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Minister: Chiropractic Services To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows- That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Drummond,Dr Everingham,Mr Gayler,Mrs Kelly and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to Undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms. Entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations. Deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ''community'' provide an environment conducive to the development, including the moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of the principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all members of parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman and Mr Newman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the 1983 Budget imposition of the excise on grape spirit used in fortifying wine places at risk the future of the fortified wine industry in Australia. That the requirement to pay the excise within 7 days of the fortification occurring is inequitable. That the excise will be reflected in increased costs to the consumers of fortified wines of up to 100 per cent and consumer choice will be restricted. That this will cause reduced fortified wine sales which will result in reduced intake of grapes from grapegrowers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will reconsider their previous decision and either withdraw this tax or modify its method of application and collection. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. 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 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 adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows : That because the aforesaid U.N. Convention which has been ratified and is about to be made the subject of lawful application by Parliament contains articles which intend to force a re-structuring of our society in that- (a) Women will have equal responsibilities as well as rights in all areas of society. (b) Role changing between sexes in society and family, with revision of text books, school programs, and teaching methods to that end. (c) Provision of networks of child care centres for infants, and that the implication of all these changes will produce a uni-sex society, eliminating the traditional family as the basic unit of Australian society. Your petitioners therefore humbly beg the Parliament to- (a) Oppose the recommendations of the Bill introduced to Parliament by Senator Ryan on 2nd June 1983 and any other subsequent Bill intending to force such uni- sex and anti-family legislation as above in (a), (b) and (c). (b) To set up a select committee to conduct a wide-ranging public inquiry into ways and means of strengthening and supporting the traditional concept of the family as the basic unit of society. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lusher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that- 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a 'first strike' attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne . 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped, if we are to survive. Your petitioners pray that Members and the House assembled will close Omega. by Mr Steedman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth- Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; Alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; Alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; Alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. Petitions received. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with dismay the offer of 450 jobs with the Health Insurance Commission (Medibank) to current employees of the Department of Health ahead of the 5,000 employees of the voluntary health insurance funds soon to be thrown out of work with the introduction of Medicare; (2) notes also that only 1,500 further positions will be available to offer to the displaced private fund employees; (3) condemns the Minister for Health and the Government for their action in throwing at least 3,500 private fund employees into unemployment; and (4) condemns the Minister for Health for breaking his solemn undertaking to do all in his power to give job preference in the Health Insurance Commission to the displaced employees of the private funds. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) will second: That this House- (1) notes that the latest information from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics forecasts that the net value of rural production in the 1983-84 financial year is expected to increase by 107 per cent in real terms to $4,450m; (2) acknowledges the fact that the rural sector contributes significantly to Australia's overall economic well being; (3) notes that a combination of drought-breaking rains as well as realistic perceptions by Australia's rural producers of the Government's handling of the economy will mean a substantial and welcome increase in farm incomes over the next few years. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) will second: That this House calls upon the Government to publicly indicate- (1) where it claims a mandate to remove all references to God and the Queen of Australia from the Oath of Allegiance; and (2) the grounds upon which it believes Australian citizenship will be enhanced by removing all references to God and the Queen of Australia from the Oath of allegiance. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with alarm the (a) overall decrease in commercial cane sugar content in the harvest of the current Australian sugar cane crop as a result of the prolonged drought of 1982; (b) low international market price of sugar; (c) revaluation of the Australian dollar, and (d) dishonouring of the Government's promise to immediately renegotiate a domestic sugar price, all of which will mean a decrease in real terms, in the final returns for growers and millers in 1983 as compared to the 1982 year's crop; (2) condemns the Government for its lack of sympathy in not giving assistance to the sugar industry in the form of an underwriting scheme, and (3) resolves that, in view of all the problems facing the industry at this time urgent consultation be had between the Commonwealth Government, the Queensland State Government and sugar industry associations, to establish mechanisms and policies to maintain the viability of this great important Australian industry. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and my colleague the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) will second: That this House is of the opinion that there is a serious threat to Commonwealth funds provided by this Parliament to the Queensland Government, arising from the refusal of the Queensland Government to establish a Public Accounts Committee. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(10.37) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will enable Commonwealth and State governments to obtain advisory opinions on the validity of provisions of statutes and on certain other important constitutional questions. A proposed constitutional alteration to allow Commonwealth and State governments to obtain advisory opinions from the High Court of Australia on certain important questions of constitutional law was recommended by the Judicature Committee of the Australian Constitutional Convention in 1977. At about the same time and quite independently, the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs compiled its report in favour of an advisory jurisdiction for the High Court. When the Constitutional Convention met in Perth in 1978 it endorsed by 54 votes to 36 the Judicature Committee's recommendations. The Senate Committee's recommendation, which differed on points of detail, was not put to the vote but was circulated for the information of delegates. Following the Perth meeting, the Convention's Standing Committee-Standing Committee D-undertook a range of inquiries on matters referred to it by the Perth Convention. At Senator Durack's initiative it reactivated consideration of advisory opinions with a view to synthesizing, if possible, the recommendations of the Judicature Committee and those of the Senate Committee. Discussions took place between representatives of the two committees and agreement was reached on a revised proposal which slightly broadened the jurisdiction. The revised proposal was again considered by the Convention at its Adelaide meeting in April of this year and again was approved by a substantial majority, namely, 51 to 35. At both the Perth and the Adelaide conventions the advisory opinions proposal was-I am pleased to report- supported by Federal Liberal and National Party delegates. In moving the endorsement of the revised proposal at Adelaide, Senator Tate pointed out that an advisory jurisdiction is perfectly consistent with the exercise of judicial power and the independence of the judiciary. He said: It needs to be emphasised from the outset that the proposal sought to confer on our highest tribunal a further dimension of judicial power, which it had disabled itself from exercising in 1927. We are not dealing with mere political advice or some adjunct to the executive of parliamentary functions, but with questions of law only, and that needs to be emphasised. We are dealing with questions of large and radical moment, undoubtedly, but nevertheless true questions of law, particularly, apt to be vested in the ultimate arbiter of constitutional issues. Indeed, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has stated that, in relation to a similar Canadian jurisdiction, it is a true exercise of judicial power and, indeed, the court of the Judicial Committee itself exercises such an advisory jurisdiction. In the form in which it was introduced into the Senate, the Bill was based on the Adelaide Convention resolution. It still gives effect to that resolution in general terms except that the capacity to obtain an advisory opinion in respect of provisions of a Bill before the passage of the Bill through both Houses has now been removed. The Arguments The arguments in favour of and against advisory opinions have now been canvassed in some detail in the reports of the Senate Committee, of the Convention's Judicature Committee, and of Standing Committee D, as well as in the proceedings of the Perth and Adelaide conventions and, more recently, during the passage of the Bill through the Senate. In broad terms the arguments in favour are as follows: Advisory opinions would save taxpayers expense and resources by enabling governments to check the constitutional validity of major proposals at an early stage; by enabling rulings to be obtained at an early stage, advisory opinions would reduce the tendency for differing perceptions of major constitutional issues to develop into matters of political confrontation; and advisory opinions would assist in the development of a more rational basis for the planning of major constitutional initiatives. The arguments that have been put against advisory opinions can be broadly categorised as relating to, firstly, the independence of the judiciary. It is said that advisory opinions would make the High Court into an adjunct of government and sap its independence- Mr Hodgman —Hear, hear! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —secondly, the danger of overloading the Court- Mr Hodgman —Hear, hear! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —thirdly, the difficulty of giving an opinion in the absence of a concrete fact situation- Mr Hodgman —Hear, hear! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —fourthly, the uncertain status of advisory opinions- Mr Hodgman —Hear, hear! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —and fifthly, the availability of alternative means of adjudication such as the declaratory judgment. Mr Hodgman —That is why the High Court is dead against it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I note that the honourable member is against it on every issue. In relation to the fears expressed for the Court's independence and workload, the simple fact is that these fears have not been realised in Canada, where the Supreme Court has had an advisory jurisdiction for many years. Moreover, the careful limitation on the making of references that is contained in the Bill would, I believe, rule out any abuse of the process. Provision is also made for facts to be specified in some detail for the purpose of a reference and, where necessary, for references to be amended. So far as the status of advisory opinions is concerned, it is clear that governments would observe them as they observe other court rulings. It is true that advisory opinions would be subject to being overruled at a later date, but that is also true of any court decision. The last argument is that other means-the declaratory judgment is usually instanced-are available for testing the validity of legislation. While it is true that the increasing readiness of the High Court to hear actions for a declaratory judgment, at the suit of the Commonwealth or State Attorney-General, has assisted good government, there are still occasions where such means are not available or are inappropriate. By way of example of the potential usefulness of an advisory jurisdiction I mention the lengthy time it took for the establishment of an effective Trade Practices Commission and the virtual paralysis for a year of the office of the Commissioner while the first legislation was under challenge. Even where the declaratory judgment procedure is available, there are advantages in being able to obtain a ruling without seeking it in the adversary system. The Bill It remains for me only to explain briefly those aspects of the Bill which I have not dealt with in outlining the arguments for and against it. References may be made on the validity of the provisions of any Act or of any Bill which is before the Parliament and on certain questions of great constitutional importance which have arisen or are likely to arise. References on Commonwealth matters are to be sought only by the Commonwealth and references on State matters are to be sought only by State governments. Provision is also made for the Northern Territory and any other self-governing Territory to avail itself of the procedure in relation to its own legislation and Territory constitutional questions. During its passage through the Senate, amendments were made to the Bill to make clearer the Government's intention that references may be made on particular provisions of Acts or Bills and not only on entire Acts or Bills. The amendments will also ensure that the power of the administrator of a Territory to make a reference is limited to fully self-governing Territories. At the present time only the Northern Territory comes within this category. The Government also accepted an amendment moved by Senator Durack to make clearer the intention that the High Court should be able to hear argument from a person who, in its opinion , has sufficient interest in a question referred by the Commonwealth or by a State or self-governing Territory. An amendment by Senator Hill to narrow the jurisdiction by excluding from the jurisdiction Bills that are still under consideration by the Parliament was opposed by the Government but was nevertheless passed. The effect of that amendment is to require that a Bill be passed by both Houses and awaiting assent before it can be the subject of a reference. Although this represents a significant diminution of the utility of an advisory jurisdiction the proposal still represents, in the Government's view , a very worthwhile reform. Conclusion An advisory jurisdiction will not eliminate the need for judicial review. Nor will it reduce the responsibility of governments to act within the constraints of the Constitution. Used selectively, however, it should be effective in minimising unconstitutional legislation and in facilitating the proper development of major government initiatives. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(10.46) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Transfer of Prisoners Bill has evolved as a result of agreement by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to introduce a legislative scheme to permit the transfer of prisoners between the various Australian jurisdictions for welfare purposes or trial. State and Northern Territory legislation will deal with the transfer of prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for offences against State or Northern Territory laws. The Transfer of Prisoners Bill will deal with the transfer of prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for offences against Commonwealth laws and prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for offences against the laws of the Australian Capital Territory, Norfolk Island, Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands. As I have indicated, prisoners may be transferred for the purposes of welfare or trial. The transfer of prisoners for welfare purposes will assist the rehabilitation of prisoners and minimise the hardships caused to the families of prisoners. Procedures for this type of transfer are to be initiated by written application of the prisoner to the Commonwealth Attorney-General. The Attorney- General may make an order for the transfer of a 'Commonwealth' prisoner from one State or Territory to another if the appropriate Minister in the receiving jurisdiction consents and the Attorney-General considers that the transfer would be in the interests of the administration of justice and the welfare of the prisoner. It should be noted that these two considerations are not exclusive and that the Attorney-General may accordingly consider any other relevant matter in exercising his discretion. The transfer of prisoners for the purposes of trial will remedy a deficiency in Australian law which prevents a prisoner being moved from one jurisdiction to another to stand trial until he has served his prison term in the first jurisdiction. If the prison term in the first jurisdiction is a lengthy one there are obvious difficulties for the prosecution. Such transfers will accordingly benefit the administration of justice within Australia. It will also be of benefit to prisoners who are anxious to have all outstanding charges in different jurisdictions dealt with rather than serve a sentence in one jurisdiction and thereafter be extradited to another jurisdiction. Procedures for this type of transfer depend on whether the charge in respect of which the prisoner is to be transferred is a Federal or Territory charge or a State charge. Where the charge is a Federal or Territory charge the Commonwealth Attorney-General may, either of his own motion or at the request of the prisoner , apply to a court of summary jurisdiction in the jurisdiction in which the prisoner is imprisoned for an order transferring the prisoner to the other State or Territory. That application shall not be made unless the appropriate Minister in the receiving jurisdiction consents. Where the charge is a State charge, the application is made by the appropriate State Minister, either of his own motion or at the request of the prisoner and the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth must consent. The court of summary jurisdiction is obliged to make an order of transfer unless it considers that the charge is trivial, the application has not been made in the interests of justice, the transfer would prejudice the conduct of proceedings to which the prisoner is a party or it would be unjust to grant the application. The decision of a court of summary jurisdiction is reviewable by the Supreme Court. The Bill must of necessity deal with various technical matters relating to the status of prisoners who are transferred, the effect of the transfer on the sentence of imprisonment and the procedures for returning prisoners, transferred for trial to the original jurisdiction. To simplify release procedures Territory prisoners who are transferred become prisoners of the jurisdiction to which they are transferred. Thus, an Australian Capital Territory prisoner who is transferred to Queensland will become a Queensland prisoner. This change of status is not necessary in respect of Federal prisoners who will continue to be housed in State gaols throughout Australia as Federal prisoners. To change their status if they were transferred would only complicate release procedures as such prisoners are released pursuant to Commonwealth law. As far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, the broad effect is that once a prisoner is transferred the sentence imposed in the first jurisdiction is deemed for all purposes, including the exercise of the royal prerogative, remissions and release on parole, to have been imposed in the jurisdiction to which he has been transferred. Remissions earnt and non-parole periods fixed in the original jurisdiction are applied in the receiving jurisdiction. Where a prisoner is transferred from jurisdiction 'A' to jurisdiction 'B' for trial there is provision for his transfer back to jurisdiction 'A' if he does not receive any sentence in jurisdiction 'B' or a sentence shorter than the unserved balance of the sentence applicable in jurisdiction 'A'. The costs which will have to be borne by the Commonwealth as a result of enactment of this legislation are not substantial. The Commonwealth will have to bear the travelling costs of Federal and Territory offenders transferred for welfare purposes and all offenders who are transferred to answer Commonwealth or Territory charges. Existing arrangements provide for the Commonwealth to bear the cost of housing Territory prisoners and the States to bear the cost of housing Federal prisoners. The Commonwealth will not incur any additional costs with respect to the housing of prisoners because of this legislation. It is estimated that about 10 to 15 Federal and Territory prisoners will be transferred per annum with the likelihood of more prisoners seeking transfer this financial year than in subsequent years. The travelling costs of transferring prisoners under escort should average out at approximately $1,000 per prisoner transferred. The introduction of this Bill represents the Commonwealth's contribution to a legislative scheme which will greatly benefit the system of administration of justice within Australia, assist the rehabilitation of prisoners and reduce the hardships suffered by the members of prisoners' families. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(10.53) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Transfer of Prisoners (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 is necessary because of the existence of other Commonwealth legislation which authorises the removal of prisoners. The Removal of Prisoners (Australian Capital Territory) Act 1968 and the Removal of Prisoners (Territories) Act 1923 authorise the removal of prisoners from the Australian Capital Territory and the other Territories-including the Northern Territory-respectively and, in certain circumstances, their return. The Transfer of Prisoners Bill will also authorise the transfer of prisoners. Accordingly, there is the possibility of conflict between that Bill and these two Acts. The Transfer of Prisoners (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 is intended to resolve these possible conflicts. Because of the difficulty in identifying the circumstances in which a removal Act should be used rather than the transfer legislation and vice versa, the Bill provides for the Commonwealth Attorney-General to make a choice of the appropriate law according to the circumstances of each individual case. In addition, it should be noted that the Removal of Prisoners (Territories) Act will be amended by the Bill to no longer apply to transfers from the Northern Territory. This amendment has been requested by the Northern Territory. Henceforth, all transfers from the Northern Territory will be dealt with by the Northern Territory transfers of prisoners legislation. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hayden, and read a first time. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(10.55) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to amend, as appropriate, existing Australian legislation to enable the ratification of the 1978 Torres Strait Treaty. That Treaty, as honourable members will recall, is an important milestone in the history of Australia's relations with Papua New Guinea, our closest neighbour. It provides a solution to the problems of territorial and maritime jurisdiction in the Torres Strait, which at one stage had the potential to disrupt our good bilateral relations. The Torres Strait area includes many islands forming part of Australia-some only a few kilometres from the Papua New Guinea coast. The Treaty takes account of the interests of the traditional inhabitants of the Torres Strait who have enjoyed and will continue to enjoy wide freedom of movement in the area, of the interests of commercial fishermen and mining companies, of the need to protect the marine environment, and of our ultimate right to take restrictive measures necessary to meet any problems which arise. The Treaty balances all these considerations. As part of the novel regime that it requires, it establishes a 'protected zone' to facilitate administration of the key area of the Strait. It is a matter for regret to us all that, although nearly five years have passed since the Treaty was signed, it has not yet been ratified by Australia and Papua New Guinea. This has not been the result of any lack of will on the part of anybody-in Australia, successive governments have given it unqualified support and I know that this has also been the case in Papua New Guinea-rather it is because of the novelty and complexity of the Treaty's provisions and the need to co-ordinate implementing legislation in two national and one State jurisdictions-the Commonwealth, Papua New Guinea and Queensland. It has not been a simple matter to harmonise Commonwealth and State interests, especially in relation to fisheries administration. My colleague the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), who will shortly be introducing the Torres Strait Fisheries Bill, will comment on the detailed fisheries arrangements that are now proposed. Since the Treaty pays particular attention to the interests of traditional inhabitants in the Torres Strait area, the people of that area have been consulted, both during the period leading to the signing of the Treaty in 1978 and more recently, when the objectives of the proposed fisheries legislation were explained to them. This process of consultation will continue; indeed, the Treaty makes a number of arrangements for the participation of traditional inhabitants in its operation. The people known as Torres Strait Islanders have been in occupation of this area since time immemorial. They are the original owners of this land. The Commonwealth accepts that these people have the right to recognition of their just claims. We recognise their interest in these lands, as Australian citizens of indigenous descent. My colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has foreshadowed legislation to take a consistent national approach to Aboriginal land rights. The same principles will apply as much to the Torres Strait Islands as in any other parts of Australia. The Bill before us, which would not have any measurable financial impact, would amend 10 Commonwealth Acts. I shall describe briefly the effect of each of the amendments. The Fisheries Act 1952 and the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968 are amended by disapplying those Acts in the future to the protected zone and to any waters outside the protected zone proclaimed to be waters in which the Torres Strait Fisheries Act applies to a particular fishery. The powers of officers, and the offences relating to obstruction of officers, are preserved in those waters under both the amended Acts to enable fisheries enforcement staff to cross protected zone boundaries without diminution of their authority. The Torres Strait Fisheries Bill will authorise the making of arrangements between the Commonwealth and Queensland for management under a single law of a particular fishery in the protected zone or in an area outside that zone proclaimed in relation to that fishery, including, in either case, in Queensland coastal waters. The present Bill, therefore, amends the Fisheries Act to preclude an arrangement under that Act from having effect in relation to that fishery in those areas. The Fisheries Act is further amended to allow a Papua New Guinea boat that has an entry under the Torres Strait Fisheries Act to land its catch from the protected zone in any place in Australia. This authority will be granted under the Torres Strait Fisheries Act in specific cases and will not be a right that Papua New Guinea boats will enjoy automatically. Both these fisheries-related amendments contain savings provisions in respect of matters that occur before the amendments come into force. The Coral Sea Islands Act 1969 is amended to adjust the boundaries of the area which includes the Coral Sea Islands Territory, to take account of the boundaries established by the Treaty. This amendment will neither add to, nor subtract from, the islands currently comprising the Coral Sea Islands under the Act. Another amendment converts the geographic co-ordinates which define the Territory to the Australian geodetic datum. This enables the points to be more accurately plotted on the earth's surface. The Treaty requires Customs procedures to be applied by each party in such a way that there is no hindrance to the free movement and performance of traditional activities in the protected zone and its declared vicinity by the traditional inhabitants of the other party. Part IV of the Bill, which inserts a new section 30A in the Customs Act, is designed to achieve this end by providing for exemptions to be able to be made from specified provisions of the Customs Acts. Not all of the provisions of the Customs Acts will be exempted however, as it will be necessary to continue to impose controls over such things as narcotic drugs. This action is permissible under Article 16 of the Treaty, which allows each party to apply such measures as it considers necessary to meet problems which arise. Part V of the Bill inserts a new provision into the Customs Tariff Act to exempt goods relevant to the Treaty from Customs duties. The Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 is amended to ensure that Papua New Guinea wrecks of special significance are placed in a similar category of protection to old dutch shipwrecks as provided for in the Historic Shipwrecks Amendment Act 1980. Papua New Guinea wrecks located in waters adjacent to Queensland will continue to be protected should Queensland ever request that the Historic Shipwrecks Act cease to apply in relation to its waters. In addition, where the Governor-General is satisfied that arrangements which have been made with respect to Papua New Guinea shipwrecks and Papua New Guinea relics make it appropriate, he may by proclamation declare that the principal Act ceases to apply to them. The Migration Act 1958 is amended to exempt from entry permit requirements citizens of Papua New Guinea who are traditional inhabitants engaged in traditional activities in the protected zone area. However, the exemption will not apply to persons who would be prohibited from entry by virtue of suffering from prescribed diseases or having a criminal record or having been deported or excluded from Australia or another country in the past. Equally, the exemption will not apply to persons who cease to be inhabitants of the protected zone, who remain in Australia otherwise than in order to perform traditional activities or who enter a part of Australia which is not in or in the vicinity of the protected zone. Finally, it is proposed that the carriers of traditional inhabitants will be exempted from the provisions of the Act relating to the carriage of persons without visas or return endorsements. The Petroleum ( Submerged Lands) Act 1967 is amended to ensure that the northern boundary of the Queensland adjacent area will coincide with the Torres Strait Treaty seabed line . I turn now to the amendments to the Quarantine Act. That Act regulates for quarantine purposes the entry into Australia of persons, vessels and goods from any overseas place. Certain animals, plants and goods are prohibited entry, and all those not totally prohibited must pass quarantine clearance before being released to the importer. People entering the country are screened for various exotic diseases. In this way we protect ourselves, our rural industries and our unique range of plant and animal life. The Bill amends the Quarantine Act to allow the Governor-General to make special provision in relation to traditional inhabitants going about traditional activities, and for their vessels and goods. At the same time, however, the Government will take steps to ensure that proper quarantine controls are maintained. I draw honourable members' attention to clause 31 of the Bill, which proposes that the Governor-General be empowered to allow the entry of specific articles, animals or plants which otherwise would be prohibited imports. That provision will allow the Governor-General to exempt goods that are brought into a part of Australia that is in the protected zone by a traditional inhabitant for use in connection with the performance of a traditional activity. Clause 32 of the Bill amends the Quarantine Act to allow the Minister for Health to exempt from all or specified provisions of that Act or its regulations traditional vessels that enter a part of Australia that is in the protected zone and on board which there are, apart from any government officials, only traditional inhabitants. By the exercise of this power the Minister will be able to allow the free movement of such traditional vessels in and around those parts of Australia that are within the protected zone. Without such an exemption persons on a vessel from a part of the protected zone outside Australia who wanted to land in Australia would first have to go to a first port of entry, such as Cairns or Thursday Island. The Government is determined to do all that is required to prevent these relaxations from lessening this country's quarantine security. The Minister for Health will be proposing compensating measures to the Governor-General, who has power under the Quarantine Act to regulate the movements of animals, plants and goods from those parts of Australia that are within the protected zone to any other part of Australia. The Minister will be able to ensure that, if an exotic disease is introduced into the protected zone, it will be excluded from the rest of Australia. The Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 is amended by this Bill to reflect the fact that hunting of certain wildlife for subsistence and cultural purposes is an important traditional activity recognised by the Treaty. The Treaty also provides that each party may implement within its area of jurisdiction measures to protect species of indigenous fauna and flora which are or may become threatened with extinction, or which either party has an obligation to protect under international law. The Government reaffirms its commitment to nature conservation in the Torres Strait. In particular, it will maintain safeguards to ensure compliance with Australia's obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. My colleague the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment will initiate programs to monitor wildlife populations in the Torres Strait region, with particular emphasis on dugong and marine turtle. In conclusion, and on a general note, I draw honourable members' attention again to the fact that, while we have accepted an obligation to apply procedures in such a way as not to prevent nor hinder the free movement or traditional activities of traditional inhabitants of Papua New Guinea, the Treaty reserves our right to apply immigration, customs, health and quarantine measures, temporary or otherwise, as we consider necessary to meet any problems which may arise. Papua New Guinea has, of course, reciprocal rights and duties in this regard. This Bill, together with the Torres Strait Fisheries Bill, would provide the complete legislative framework for Australia's ratification of the Torres Strait Treaty. We expect that it will lie on the table now for a time, so that all interested groups can become fully familiar with its details before we proceed to consider it further here. We expect too that in both Port Moresby and Brisbane complementary legislation will very soon be introduced, so that we can move forward together in all three jurisdictions to complete the formalities of implementation of a treaty which has been widely recognised as providing an innovative and balanced solution to a complex problem. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill implements the fisheries aspects of the Torres Strait Treaty. In conjunction with clauses 4 and 14 of the Torres Strait Treaty (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, it replaces the provisions of the Fisheries Act 1952 and the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968, in the protected zone and , for particular fisheries outside but near the protected zone with provisions that will enable the Commonwealth to manage the fisheries in waters under Australian jurisdiction in accordance with the Treaty. The Queensland and Papua New Guinea parliaments will also be enacting legislation for the same purpose. Considerable work has been done to ensure that the three Bills will be in harmony with each other. Subject only to progress toward commencement of the similar Acts in Queensland and Papua New Guinea, ratification of the Treaty and commencement of the new legislation will occur simultaneously. Many interests will need to be taken into account before I, and the Queensland and Papua New Guinea Ministers responsible for fisheries matters, exercise the powers provided in these Bills to deal with a variety of fishery management issues. Officials and scientists of the three governments will need to consult each other and Commonwealth and Queensland officials will need to consult traditional inhabitants and commercial fishermen, about the advice they offer to Ministers concerning application of measures which the Bills will authorise. These consultations have already started. Australian and Papua New Guinea scientists met in July 1981 and February 1983 to discuss research into the fish stocks which will provide a basis for future management decisions. Officials have consulted commercial fishermen about managing the fisheries in the protected zone pending ratification of the Treaty and commencement of the new legislative provisions. These consultations will continue and intensify as that commencement approaches and thereafter. Consultations are also being held with the people of the Torres Strait and adjacent coastal areas, particularly as they will have special rights to the fisheries resources of the protected zone. Officials have visited the area to discuss the Treaty and last week explained the Bill to representatives of the Torres Strait people whom the Treaty defines as traditional inhabitants. These people will have a significant voice in the deliberations of the Torres Strait Joint Advisory Council established under the Treaty, including fisheries matters . The Bill provides for the Minister and the Protected Zone Joint Authority, established under Part V, to consult the Australian traditional inhabitants appointed to the Joint Advisory Council about fishery matters under the Bill affecting the interests of the Australian traditional inhabitants. As a domestic Australian measure, beyond the requirements of the Treaty, the Bill makes special provision, to which I will refer later in more detail, for commercial fishing operations by Australian traditional inhabitants. It proposes a minimum of control over such operations, subject only to the requirements of the Treaty and of effective management and conservation of the fish stocks. As well, it enshrines the right expressed in the Treaty of traditional inhabitants of both countries to undertake traditional fishing in the protected zone for their own and their dependants' consumption, with a minimum of regulation or restriction. I have circulated a detailed explanatory memorandum dealing with the provisions of the Bill so I will not take the time of the House with an extensive summary. However, I believe that honourable members would wish me to deal at this time with the Bill's chief principles, especially insofar as they give effect to the Treaty. In the defined area of Australian jurisdiction, the Bill applies to all fishing except recreational fishing with use of Australian boats by people who are not traditional inhabitants, which will be regulated under Queensland law. The area of Australian jurisdiction comprises the protected zone, south of the fisheries jurisdiction line in the Treaty. The area does not include Queensland coastal waters except where the Commonwealth and Queensland agree that a particular fishery is to be managed under Commonwealth law from the coast to the limits of the Australian jurisdiction. To give effect to the Treaty definition of 'protected zone commercial fisheries ', the Bill provides that, in relation to a particular fishery in a subsidiary arrangement under Article 22 of the Treaty, Australia or Papua New Guinea may agree to include areas outside but near the protected zone in the area of Australian or Papua New Guinea jurisdiction, as the case may be, in relation to that fishery. It is proposed that this would happen where, for the good management of the fish stock inside the protected zone, Australia and Papua New Guinea agree that it is necessary to apply the measures in the subsidiary arrangement to the stock in agreed areas outside but near that zone. To stimulate commercial fishing enterprise among Australian traditional inhabitants, a special category of commercial fishing has been created exclusively for them. Only Australian traditional inhabitants or other people employed to provide them with technical advice or training will be allowed to engage in what are to be called the community fisheries. Traditional inhabitants under obligations to act in accordance with the instructions or principals not themselves entitled to undertake community fishing will be regarded as commercial fishermen in the normal way. This will contribute significantly to protection of the traditional inhabitants from outside exploitation in their fishing activities. Community fishermen will not be required to hold master fishermen's licences. The Minister may declare that, for reasons of fishery management, community fishing boats are to be licensed in a particular fishery but unless he does so licences will not be required. A traditional inhabitant will be able voluntarily to take out for his boat a licence that Australia can nominate to Papua New Guinea to be endorsed for a fishery in waters under Papua New Guinea jurisdiction which is subject to an arrangement under Article 22 of the Treaty. There will be no charge for the endorsement and probably only a nominal fee for the Australian licence. While the Minister may prohibit such matters as taking fish undersized, out of season or by particular methods in the course of community fishing, he may also publish notices reserving particular fisheries for community fishermen, including activities on shore relating to such fisheries. The provisions of the Bill relating to community fishing manifest the Government's intention to give effect to the spirit of Article 11 of the Treaty beyond the specific requirements of that Article. The concept of community fishing is an additional benefit for Australian traditional inhabitants, enabling them to undertake commercial fishing in the protected zone under conditions of considerable freedom from regulation. The Treaty definition of 'traditional inhabitant' requires that they be resident in the protected zone or the adjacent coastal area and maintain traditional customary associations with the protected zone. Both Australia and Papua New Guinea will have to agree on what is declared to be the adjacent coastal area for each country. As honourable members will know, there are communities of Torres Strait Islanders living on the mainland. It is proposed that the declaration of the adjacent coastal area should include the people of Bamaga, on the north-western hinterland of Cape York Peninsula. Torres Strait Islanders will not be able to undertake traditional or community fishing in the protected zone from other ports, for example, Cooktown, Cairns or Townsville. The Treaty provides for the privilege of traditional fishing to be enjoyed by residents of only the protected zone and the adjacent coastal area and it would not be proper to extend that concept to areas that are manifestly not adjacent to the protected zone. Islanders normally resident in places beyond the protected zone or the adjacent coastal area will be able to undertake traditional or community fishing if they return there to resume long term residence. One of the most complex provisions of the Treaty is Article 23, which requires Australia and Papua New Guinea, whenever they agree to manage a commercial fishery jointly in the protected zone, to determine the annual total allowable catch for the fishery and then to share the catch in accordance with the provisions of that Article. Clause 14 of the Bill provides, in conjunction with appropriate administrative measures, for enforcing the total allowable catch to fulfil Australia's quota obligations. The maximum penalty for knowingly providing false or misleading catch information in a quota fishery will be $5,000 or two years gaol, or both. For continuing to fish after the fishery is closed for the remainder of the year, the maximum penalty will be $5,000. These penalties reflect the seriousness with which the Government regards attempts to evade Treaty responsibilities. The Bill makes special provision for collection of information of the catches of community fishermen in quota fisheries from processing plants or processing boats, so as to relieve community fishermen of the burden of acquiring radio equipment for reporting purposes. In any event, the quota requirements of the Treaty are to be phased in from the fifth to the tenth year after ratification. The licensing provisions of the Bill require only the master of a commercial fishing boat to be licensed and do not extend that requirement to the master of a community fishing boat. Boats are to be licensed to take, process and carry their own catch; a separate licence is required for boats used to process and carry the catches of other boats. While the Bill provides for licensing of foreign boats, that is, boats other than Australian or Papua New Guinean, it reflects the requirement of Article 27 of the Treaty that no foreign boat will be licensed to fish in the protected zone without the specific agreement of the responsible Ministers in Australia and Papua New Guinea. There is little prospect of a foreign boat coming within the Government's present fishery licensing policy to allow it to fish in the area of Australian jurisdiction. The current policy of the Papua New Guinea Government is similar to ours in that it encourages local residents to occupy protected zone commercial fisheries in Papua New Guinea jurisdiction. The Bill provides for Australia to endorse a Papua New Guinea licence for a boat which the Papua New Guinea Government nominates to fish in an area of Australian jurisdiction. This is a reciprocal measure that will happen only in relation to fisheries which are the subject of an arrangement under Article 22 of the Treaty. In accordance with paragraph 26 (2) of the Treaty the Bill ensures that no fee is payable for an endorsement. Part V of the Bill, which is not specifically required to give effect to the Treaty, provides for the establishment of a Protected Zone Joint Authority comprising the Commonwealth and Queensland Ministers responsible for fisheries matters in the protected zone. The Joint Authority will have the power to manage particular fisheries, such as those covered by arrangements with Papua Guinea under Article 22 of the Treaty. The establishment of the Joint Authority provides for the Commonwealth and Queensland to jointly participate in the management of the major fisheries in the zone. I also point out that the provisions of Part V of the Bill are subject to any decision that the Government may take about the future of the off-shore constitutional settlement. Because the Bill does not require individual employee fishermen to be licensed, it cannot provide the useful sanction of cancellation of the licence following conviction for a major offence. The Bill therefore gives courts a discretionary power to order persons convicted of breach of a condition of a boat licence or of a prohibition in a notice to stay off commercial fishing boats in the protected zone for a specified period or incur maximum penalty of $2,000 or six months' imprisonment. The Minister will have a discretionary power to suspend a boat licence or a master-fisherman's licence if the holder is charged with breach of a ministerial prohibition or a condition of the licence and to cancel such a licence if the holder is convicted under any Commonwealth, State, or Papua New Guinea fisheries law. Paragraph 28 (13) of the Treaty requires cancellations following conviction for a breach of Papua New Guinea law. Article 28 of the Treaty contains unique enforcement provisions. Each country will prosecute persons of its nationality authorised by both countries to operate in fisheries governed by an Article 22 arrangement and who commit offences in relation to such fisheries in waters under the other country's jurisdiction. Each country will prosecute persons of the other nationality who breach its exclusive fisheries jurisdiction by either unauthorised fishing in any fishery or by contravening management measures in Article 22 fisheries for which the person or his boat is not licensed by both countries. The Bill therefore provides for Australian offenders against Papua New Guinea law to be dealt with by Australian courts in the circumstances specified in Article 28. The Bill requires the Minister's consent for the prosecution of persons charged with offences in the area of Australian jurisdiction with the use of a Papua New Guinea boat. The Bill does not confer on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal jurisdiction over decisions made under it. The whole question of Commonwealth review powers over actions by State officials performing duties authorised under Commonwealth law is a difficult one and the Government intends to discuss it with the State at an appropriate time. Until the matter is resolved, the review powers of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and of the Federal Court of Australia under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act will in any event apply to decisions of Commonwealth and Queensland officials pursuant to the Bill. After consultation with the States, the Government will consider whether to amend the Torres Strait Fisheries Act, as it will then be, in relation to proposed jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Those provisions of the Bill with which I have not dealt in detail follow the precedents of the Fisheries Act and relate to the powers necessary to manage the fisheries and to enforce the Bill in the manner required by both the Treaty and the standards of justice in Australia. The explanatory memorandum deals comprehensively with all the provisions of the Bill. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. [COGNATE BILL: MIGRATION AMENDMENT(EMIGRATION OF CERTAINCHILDREN) BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 18 October, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Before the debate is resumed on the Family Law Amendment Bill I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and the Migration Amendment (Emigration of Certain Children) Bill 1983. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(11.25) —Before the debate on the Family Law Amendment Bill was adjourned last night I had referred to some of the history of the family law legislation and some of the experiences under the 1959 Act which was known at the time as the Matrimonial Causes Act and which, as I said, was then regarded as a fairly radical measure. As I pointed out, under that Act there were a number of grounds for divorce but all of those grounds had as part of them the concept of fault. There were as well a number of defences such as condonation, connivance and collusion. I can recall appearing in cases, either for the petitioner or for the respondent, when the issue was to prove adultery and the defence was that the adultry had been condoned. One had to go through a process which can only be described as elaborate, artificial, uncivilised and undignified for all concerned. Personally I think that the removal of the concept of fault which was achieved by the 1975 legislation was a very great improvement in the law. I believe that there is general but by no means universal acceptance of the proposition that marriage is now to be regarded as a civil contract-a civil contract of a special kind perhaps but, nevertheless, a civil contract. I know that within our community many will not agree to that proposition, particulary certain church groups. I wholly understand their views. But I think that we must continue to regard marriage as a civil contract. It is a contract which is to be dealt with by the civil courts. This has at least produced a number of benefits; that is, the easier and I think more civilised procedures of the Family Law Act. I can think of two: First, people are not trapped in marriages who would be trapped under the old rules; second, with the acceptance in the community that divorce is a fairly inevitable, or if not inevitable a fairly natural consequence of the breakdown of a marriage, there has grown up an acceptance of the fact of divorce and that no stigma should attach to a person because that person is a divorcee. I think some of us will remember that not too many years ago there was still a stigma attached to somebody who was a divorcee, particularly if that person had been the so-called guilty party. That being the situation, what then is the court's role? In general terms, it has two roles: First of all, to adjudicate on the dissolution and annulment of marriages and on conflicting financial claims; secondly, to exercise what might be described as a supervisory jurisdiction in the interests and welfare of the children of marriages. Those are the two broad functions that the court discharges. Of the many facets of this Bill there are two to which I should like to refer in a few minutes. Before doing so I should, perhaps, take up some of the criticisms which are made of the Family Law Act and of the amendments which are proposed to that Act. It is said that the family has become a less stable unit. That is probably correct but, of course, the causes for the family becoming a less stable unit are something else again. I do not think it is possible to chart precisely the development of the social map of Australia as revealed through what has happened in the family law courts over the past ten, fifteen or twenty years. But one is left with the impression, I think, that family law reflects the times and that the Family Law Act has not altered our social patterns but merely reflects changes in those patterns. It has been reactive to social change and it is reactive to our times, which are more urgent, more questioning, more mobile and fluid and perhaps more self-centred and more neurotic than they used to be. This is a more complex age and, I think, a more selfish age and that is reflected in our attitudes to marriage and to the family unit. But however one might regret some of the changes, let us deal with society as it stands. I refer to some facets of the Bill under the heading 'adjudication', that is, the courts' role to adjudicate on marriages and on financial issues. I refer first to the provisions concerning conciliation. These provisions have been outlined in the second reading speech. Without going through them in detail, it is perhaps enough to say that there has been a praiseworthy attempt to enlarge the conciliation processes under the Family Law Act. For example, clause 9 of the Bill requires that the Family Court, any other court exercising jurisdiction under the Act and legal practitioners must direct the attention of the parties or persons considering taking proceedings to the facilities for counselling. Clause 21 of the Bill contains a specific provision to the effect that where in dissolution proceedings the husband and wife have been married for less than two years the application cannot be heard unless before the application is actually filed in the court the parties have considered reconciliation and have done this with a marriage counsellor. There are other specific provisions to be found in clause 9, also on the subject of conciliation. My own experience is derived under the Matrimonial Causes Act and very little of it under the Family Law Act but human nature has not changed very much. My observation is that the conciliation procedures attempts to reconcile, when people have reached the point of going to court for the purposes of getting a dissolution, are usually perfectly useless. One can introduce the most elaborate and praiseworthy procedures but once people get to the point of seriously contemplating going to court to have a marriage dissolved, the breakdown is usually so great and the bitterness usually so entrenched that it would require the assistance of God himself to bring them together. Again dealing with the Family Court's role as an adjudicator, I refer to the proposal contained in clause 52 of the Bill to open up the courts. This was referred to specifically in the second reading speech. The effect of what is proposed is that proceedings would, it seems to me, ordinarily be held in open court, although the Court is empowered to exclude persons from the courtroom. I would generally support this practice because I think it is essential that the courts be open to the public and to the critics of the court system. Court systems have never been perfect. We always need to monitor them to see how we can improve them and unless we see how courts behave it is very difficult to make a judgment. So, perhaps with some caution, I welcome this proposal. I simply add the caveat of caution to ensure that the proposal, together with the proposal that limited publicity be permitted, will not be abused. The unpleasantness of having one's personal life, particularly one's family life, exposed in court, is sufficiently bad that I think one has to be very careful to make sure that the experience is not worse than it unavoidably is and to make sure that in the future we do not see the kind of perfectly disgusting reports that used to appear in the newspapers many years ago when a good way to sell newspapers was to find a good juicy divorce, regardless of the effect that the publicity may have had on the persons concerned, their families, friends or relatives. Next, and still on the subject of adjudication, there has been an attempt to reduce the number of situations requiring resort to different court systems. I welcome this. It is one of the curses of the Federal system that one can be uncertain of which court to go to. Does one go to a Federal court or to a State court? I find perfectly lamentable the cause of problems concerning jurisdictions, problems which the governments concerned are sometimes unable to resolve because of competing views about sovereignty. It is quite lamentable that in those circumstances a person may be put at risk and be told after some days 'I am very sorry you have come to the wrong court', or that in respect of the same subject matter-perhaps on a question of guardianship tied up or allied with some matrimonial claim-there could ever be any doubt that one court, and only one court, was competent to give a decision and one which, subject to appeal, was binding. I turn to the subject of divorce by post, as it is somewhat inaccurately called . Taken into consideration with the provision for joint applications for a divorce, I suppose nothing could be more eloquent of the changes in our society. It brings to mind a judge sitting quietly by himself, going through the papers and ponderously arriving at the decision that a divorce should be granted. I throw my mind back to 1961 when I had come to the Bar and when the occasional undefended divorce was a means of earning five guineas or so. One had a great horror in those days of actually losing an undefended divorce, which one of my colleagues, a very able person, managed to do on one occasion, as one can imagine, to the mortification and anger of his client. However, one would go to court; one would go through the solemn procedure of reading the evidence, sweating because one was not sure that everything had been covered. One would get to the end of the case, the judge would say yes, and the divorce would be granted. Sometimes that would take 15 minutes, sometimes it would take more. Some judges were very much quicker, of course. On balance, I think we can welcome this provision, confined as it is to certain cases which do not involve problems concerning the custody or guardianship of young children. Lastly, under the heading of adjudication, I want to say something about the proposal in clause 35 of the Bill that overseas pensions are to be taken into account as well as pensions from within the Commonwealth or a State or Territory of the Commonwealth. The Leader of the House (Mr Lionel Bowen) was kind enough to refer me to some figures on widow's pensions as well as supporting parent's benefits, and those figures are really perfectly astonishing. One sees that in 1963 the amount paid for widow's pensions was about $31m, and in 1982 the amount paid was $770m. An analysis of selected characteristics of widow's pensions for 1982 shows that divorcees received some $46m and deserted wives $44m. If one looks at the figures on supporting parent's benefits one sees that in 1974 the figure was $40.5m in round terms and in 1982 it had grown to around $606m. So long as the courts are required to pay regard to pensions when dealing with the maintenance question then there is a very strong inducement to abuse and to use the system for purposes for which I do not think it was intended. I think we should look at that very closely indeed because the costs are getting out of control. It seems to me that there is no reason why, as a general rule, a person should be entitled to call in aid payments made by the state for the purposes of reducing what he should otherwise have to pay by way of maintenance. Moving now to what I call the supervisory jurisdiction, I should like to make two comments. Firstly, I think the proposal to enlarge the category of children falling within the Family Law Act to include foster and stepchildren is a very sensible and humane proposal. Secondly, however, there is the subject of children's views in divorce cases. Clause 29 of the Family Law Amendment Bill provides: the court shall consider any wishes expressed by the child in relation to the custody or guardianship of, or access to, the child . . . and shall give those wishes such weight as the court considers appropriate in the circumstances of the case; It also provides that the Court shall take into account the attitude of the child. One problem about taking into account the views of a child, regardless of age, and even allowing for the qualification that it is up to the Court to determine what weight should be given to the views of that child, is that the opportunity is provided for a parent who has custody of a child to inculcate and entrench an attitude to the other parent which, on its face, is one of deep animosity. All of us know how this can be done, how a mother or father who has custody or guardianship of a child pending the resolution of proceedings can teach that child to think that the other partner-the husband or wife-has behaved in a perfectly dreadful manner and is somebody who should be treated with contempt and hatred. Human nature being such, this does happen, and it happens all too often. I am somewhat uneasy about a provision which requires that the Court shall have regard to the wishes of a child regardless of that child's age and shall take account of the attitudes of that child. As I have said, that attitude can become entrenched. The other partner has very little opportunity to break the circuit because in order to break the circuit he or she has to get sufficient access. Until that access can be provided there is no opportunity to break the circuit. If one has regard to the attitude of the child and to the child's wishes, all of which may be instilled into the child by the other parent, the Court will say: ' No, we cannot let you have the child now'. When the next occasion arises the Court will also say: 'Look, I can only say that over the last six months the child's views have not changed'. I think we should regard this provision with the greatest of care. If there is some way to monitor its application I should like that to be done. I should like to conclude with some general remarks. There is no doubt that our society has changed very greatly. Some figures provided by Senator Walters in the other place show just how greatly it has changed, and I seek leave to incorporate these figures in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Number of Percent- Percent- Children age of age of Ratio of Number Involved Number B/grooms Brides Divorce of in of Previously Previously to Year Divorces Divorces Marriages Divorced Divorced Marriage 1970 12,249 16,895 116,066 6.36 6.10 1:9.5 1971 13,002 18,451 117,637 6.62 6. 35 1:9.0 1972 15,707 22,061 114,029 7.29 7.06 1:7.3 1973 16,266 23,078 112, 700 8.29 7.85 1:6.9 1974 17,744 25,505 110,673 8.53 8.02 1:6.2 1975 24,307 34 ,992 103,973 10.3 9.9 1:4.3 1976 63,267 73,645 109,973 17.6 16.5 1:1.7 1977 45,175 57,878 104,918 19.4 18.3 1:2.3 1978 40,633 51,599 102,958 19.5 18.5 1:2.5 1979 37,873 46,130 104,396 20.0 18.7 1:2.8 1980 39,258 46,836 109,240 20.2 18.8 1:2.8 1981 41,412 49,616 113,905 20.4 19.2 1:2.75 1982 44,088 53,010 117,275 20.8 19.5 1:2.66 Mr SPENDER —One sees that in 1970 there were 12,249 divorces and in 1982 there were 44,088 divorces. There was a huge blowout in 1976, when there were 63,267 divorces. In 1970 the ratio of divorce to marriage was 1:9.5 and in 1982 it was 1:2.66. One might ask the question: What next? Are we going to have a contract renewable on a yearly basis, rather like a lease of a home unit? One does not know. Looking at those figures, one can say only that it is a source of continuing amazement that people, after becoming divorced, should once again embrace the institution from which they had to spend so much time, trouble and usually a fair amount of money extricating themselves. I see that in 1982 the percentage of bridegrooms previously divorced was 20.8 per cent, closely followed by the wives, who I am sorry to say were lagging. They achieved a figure of only 19.5 per cent. One can say only that those persons illustrate the optimism of human nature since those who leave a marriage and can then shortly afterwards enter another marriage illustrate not only the strength and durability of the human spirit but also its optimism. As somebody once observed, it must be a triumph of optimism over experience to remarry once one has been through the courts. We can really do nothing to make things very much easier in divorces. We have no Solomons on our benches and we have no Solomons in this House. My observation is that in the courts the struggle is over money and children, and quite frequently with money coming first. There is also an accumulation of bitterness which the parties are at pains and are almost joyful to vent whenever they get the opportunity. But allowing for all the shortcomings of the system, it is our task, so far as possible, to make proceedings in the courts for the dissolution of marriage and all its attendant procedures as easy as possible. The pain can never be removed, but it can perhaps be alleviated. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(11.51) —I find myself in a position of agreeing almost entirely with the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), so I hope that I will be able to add something to his remarks, rather than to detract from them. I would like, however, to correct one comment that he made last night about members of the Opposition having a conscience vote on this issue. Government members also have a conscience vote on a number of clauses in the Family Law Amendment Bill 1983. Mr Spender —I am sorry to say that I was unaware of that. I thought it was a Government issue at this stage. Ms MAYER —That is quite all right. I have some problem about assuming that conscience is necessarily involved, but as that is a purely private matter, I will make no further comment. The honourable member for North Sydney made some very cogent comments on the background to the Family Law Act which were most helpful in putting these amendments into perspective. He has reminded this House that before the Family Law Act was originally passed under a previous Labor Attorney-General, now Mr Justice Murphy of the High Court, the legal provision for the dissolution of marriage and the care of children of the marriage was more reflective of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The amendments to the Family Law Act in 1981 provided some improvements to a law which broke new ground when it was originally passed and which clearly, in the light of experience, was going to need amendment. The amendments in the Bill now being debated make further improvements which take into account both developments in Australian society and the recommendations of the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act and the Watson report for the Family Law Council . Experience in the courts for those people who are not in the legal profession is very limited. The law generally means trouble as far as these people are concerned. Just as illness indicates that one goes to a doctor, legal problems would indicate that one seek legal advice. But that fact is that people have more familiarity with illness than they do with legal situations. I think that the Family Law Act needs to be continually looked at to make sure that people who have to deal with the law-perhaps in this single instance in their lives-are able to do so with the least possible fear and ignorance of the provisions of the law. In moving the amendments to the Family Law Act, the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) said: Any government that cares for people and is concerned to minimise unhappiness and social conflict must give paramount consideration to family law matters. It is true that, free from the burden of attributing fault, the Family Court can concentrate on matters of importance. The matter of overwhelming importance, in my opinion, is the best possible arrangement for the welfare of the children of the marriage. We have already been reminded that 44,088 marriages were dissolved last year. The evidence is before us therefore, that marriage, however hopefully and earnestly entered into, is an especially difficult relationship which often simply does not work. Even if the decision to abandon the marriage affected only the two people who originally entered into the contract, that decision is difficult to make and harrowing to implement, because no one enters into divorce proceedings lightly or as some kind of a game. When there are children in the family, however, it is much more difficult. In those circumstances, the law must address itself to the most thoughtful way of dealing with all the factors, taking into consideration both people and their children. It is important, therefore, that the law should be so constructed that if the nature and the circumstances of the people concerned permit, the marriage can be dissolved leaving the smallest possible residue of continuing unhappiness and bitterness. In many cases this is so, but where hostility and disagreement occur and continue, it is the rights and protection of the children of the family that must be addressed. Nothing exacerbates already poor relations more than the issues of custody, access and maintenance. I wish to deal this morning with the amendments which change the provisions for children. These amendments, like several others, are based on recommendations of the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act and the Watson report for the Family Law Council. The need for these amendments reflects the changing understanding of parenthood and the implications of that change for the law. As a society, we have moved from regarding only children born into a marriage as having need of the protection of the law in the case of divorce. We know that a family may include adopted children-adopted by one or both parents- children from previous marriages of one or both of the partners, children born as a result of advances in medical science and children who are part of the family without having any of those relationships with it. The Joint Committee report points out that provision for most of these children was included in the original Act. But a High Court judgment limited the provisions of the Act to the natural and adopted children of both parties to the marriage. This effectively left in limbo children outside the two categories or required parents to settle custody matters for the same family in both the Family Court and the appropriate State Supreme Court. Otherwise, it was left to two people already in conflict to reach a sensible and amicable agreement. That is a most unlikely outcome. If custody hearings could deal with only two of the six possible classes of children listed by the amendment, the possibility of continuing dissension is virtually built into the legislation. That is clearly undesirable and I think it is a persuasive argument for the amendment. The inclusion in the amendment of children born as a result of in vitro fertilisation and embryo transplant or by artificial insemination, including those by a donor not of the marriage, straightens out a situation created by the successful developments of these medical procedures. The very significant number of children born as a result of these procedures need to have the protection of the family law, as does the child who lives with a family, as part of that family, but who is neither a natural or adopted child of either parent, provision for whom is properly included in the amendment. Many families include children such as these-children perhaps from the extended family whose natural parents are for some reason unable to care for them, but for whom adoption is not appropriate, children not of the family who may have been informally fostered and whose natural parent or parents have disappeared and children who have, for many reasons like that and others, entered and become a normal part of a family. These children have as much need for and as much right to the care and concern of the Family Court. They should have the right to express a choice, to be maintained and be secure and to have the same treatment as other children in the same family. The inclusion of the extra four categories of children in the family law legislation corrects a situation which could adversely affect, and no doubt has adversely affected, many children. Of the 44,088 divorces in 1982 to which I previously referred, 38.4 per cent of those couples had no children and 3.5 per cent had four or more children. A total of 53,010 children were affected by divorce in 1982. That number illustrates the responsibility that we have to make the best possible arrangements under the law for those children. Custody arrangements are not always easily or amicably arrived at. From January to July of this year, 7,435 people were involved in confidential court-ordered counselling, and 8,553 people were involved in non-confidential court-ordered counselling. Most of this counselling dealt with custody and access matters. These figures illustrate the good sense of the amendment requiring that there should be no final order in custody and guardianship cases until the parties have attended a conference with a court counsellor. There is no magic in counselling. Counselling will not solve all of the problems that arise in this very difficult area. However, it is an advance on the present system. At a seminar organised by the National Women's Advisory Council in Geelong earlier this year on the subject of custody and maintenance matters in the family law, the point was very strongly put that it is more likely that a satisfactory discussion of these very emotional matters can take place in the presence of a third person not involved in the outcome and able to be objective than in the other ways that are available to the disputing parties. I think in that situation one would have to agree that it is better for people to argue about things, or put their points of view about things which they are seeing emotionally only in the light of their own interest, before a third person who can put unemotionally the facts as he or she sees them. That counselling session which must take place before a final order is granted, I think, will motivate people to be as reasonable as they can in those circumstances, because being unreasonable would clearly be counterproductive to the custody order that they might wish to have. So, I hope that that amendmen will provide some advance towards the better settlement of custody and access matters. The only people who suffer when custody and access matters are in dispute continually, of course, are the children. The parents who are in dispute may be affected adversely by it and may find themselves unhappy because of it, but adults can deal with that situation. Children cannot, of course, do that easily. However, a custody order is not the end of it. Children grow, develop and change , and so do their parents. Lifestyles and circumstances change. A custody order made at one time may not be in the best interests of a child at another time. To deal with this situation the Bill contains an amendment to allow one of the parties to a marriage to take proceedings with respect to the welfare of a child . This will give the Family Court powers similar to the wardship powers of State supreme courts and the continuing ability to deal with the needs of the children of a dissolved marriage. The need for coherence and continuity in this area does not need to be canvassed, as the benefit to the child is obvious. Another amendment which I believe to be necessary to the wellbeing of children in the unfortunate position of being threatened with or subjected to violence from a person, usually a parent or a step-parent, is the amendment which will permit the Family Court to attach an arrest order to an injunction. That desperate position that many women and children are in is attested to by the numbers who need to take advantage of women's refuges. The horrifying stories of violence committed and threatened not only point to the necessity of this power for the protection of those threatened and abused but also will make it possible for women who presently are too afraid of doing so to seek dissolution of their marriages. Very large numbers of women who are presently in refugees or who have been in refuges in the past are so afraid to go out on the street, so afraid to appear in any public place at all, that they will not take the action which will dissolve the marriage to the person who has been threatening them and in fact carrying out violence on them. I believe it is necessary for us to make it possible for those women to take advantage of the law which is there to dissolve a situation which nobody should have to put up with. It is in a situation in which both parents have failed to carry out their responsibilities that another amendment allows a third person to take proceedings in the Family Court with respect to the welfare of a child or children. This will allow another family member, for example, who is prepared to take responsibility for a child to do so legally should the Court so determine. This situation exists informally today in many families in which grandparents or other family members regard the welfare of the children in the wider family to be their responsibility. They will be able to ask the Family Court to consider the best interests of the child and possibly give legal status to their guardianship. Again this is a recognition of a situation which exists in the community. While we tend to believe that only parents are responsible for their children and that only parents take responsibility for their children, in fact every community will have families in which grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins and all sorts of members of the wider family regard the responsibility for all the children in the family as theirs and will carry out that responsibility carefully and in the best interests of the children. This amendment recognises that that can and should be made a legal situation where possible. There are other amendments which deal with the position of children of a dissolved marriage, but I believe the ones that I have dealt with provide for a great many of the sorts of problems that have become apparent and for which recommendations have been made in the two excellent reports I have mentioned. I believe they show a real understanding of and concern for the children in a very difficult situation. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(12.05) —In speaking on the Family Law Amendment Bill and the Migration Amendment (Emigration of Certain Children) Bill I will be concentrating on the child custody system established by the Family Law Act, a system which I think is more than unsatisfactory. It can even be called a disaster. But I do not want to be entirely negative and, before dealing with that issue, I want to welcome those clauses of the Family Law Amendment Bill which are genuine reforms of the principal Act. These derived ultimately from the 1980 report of the Ruddock Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) has every right to be pleased that his labours and those of his colleagues have at last borne legislative fruit. These include opening the court, with qualifications, to the public and the media under clause 52, measures which will go some way towards demystifying a court which in its general philosophy and values is in many respects out of step with, perhaps in some ways ahead of, broad public opinion and which is consequently the object of much suspicion and distrust by many people whose complaints cannot all be dismissed as those of bad losers. Is that surprising? Many people are still mentally attuned to the old system of matrimonial offences and are confused by the new no-fault system. For example, a deserted father who did not sponsor the divorce and who worked hard to keep his family intact knows that he would have obtained custody of his child under the fault system; yet the Family Court operating under the no-fault system grants or may grant custody to the deserting mother. No wonder the father is confused and lacks respect for the law. He sees the present system as providing an incentive for wives to leave their husbands, obtain custody of the children and then obtain financial orders against their husbands. It is this sort of experience and sense of disillusionment with the law that has led to the formation of such bodies as the Lone Fathers Association, whose grievances, I believe, cannot indefinitely be ignored. Opening the courts to the public and the Press, with qualifications, will not remove those grievances-that calls for a different solution-but it will at least help the public get a better understanding of the new law. In any case, it is absurd and hypocritical to talk of protecting privacy when the reports of the cases appear almost contemporaneously in CCH reports and at length in various case books and text books. Other clauses in this Bill correcting jurisdictional discrepancies are also to be welcomed. I have genuine doubts, however, about so-called divorce by post in undefended cases. I appreciate the argument that divorce is itself a sufficient trauma for there to be no need in undefended cases for a party or his or her representative to be present in court at the dissolution. Neverthless, I accept the argument of the churches that this clause will contribute further to the trivialising of marriage. If marriage requires a serious ceremony at its beginning, it requires at least mere attendence at a court by the party or a representative at its termination. I maintain this view although I recognise that the amended clause 53 excluding all cases involving children of the marriage under 18 years of age is an improvement on the original draft. Let me turn now to the changes that the Bill will make to the child custody system, or rather those it does not make. This is a major issue affecting, I calculate, possibly one million children in Australia since one in every three marriages ends in divorce and two in every three divorces involve children under 18. The usual regime preferred by the Family Court is one of sole custody with one parent, usually the mother, having custody and the other parent, the father, having access and paying maintenance. But the system is not working, since when parents separate-and the figures are on the record-only 40 per cent of non- custodial parents continue seeing the children and only 50 per cent of the fathers regularly pay maintenance. If continuing contact with both father and mother is a key to the good psychological development of the children of divorce , the system is failing to deliver this. Perhaps one could go as far as to say that the present regime is damaging children. One thing is sure: It does not encourage a co-operative attitude between divorcing parents. The usual attitudes are those of adversarial, winner-takes-all contests, which, incidentally, soak up the vast bulk of the legal aid available. The Australian Legal Aid Office told the Ruddock Committee that in the three years after the Family Law Act came into operation 80 per cent of its funds and its officers' time was spent on family law matters. The Family Court is a most unusual court. Its task is far harder than that of the old divorce court operating a matrimonial offence system, which had the task of establishing whether an offence had been committed and which then awarded custody to the guiltless party. That, at least, was a judicial task and the parties knew more or less where they stood. With the elimination of matrimonial offences and the introduction of the statutory requirement that the welfare of the child is paramount, the Family Court and its welfare workers have to evaluate and predict the capacity of either parent to provide a suitable environment for the child. This is not a judicial task involving rules of law and legal rules of thumb. It is a predictive and psychological task. It is in most cases an impossible task, except where one of the parents is an obvious sadist, or alcoholic or is otherwise unsuitable. When we consider further that the Family Court's general preference is for sole custody to one parent, we reach the problem which this Bill does not really touch. Since the Ruddock Committee deliberated, there have been a number of developments which, in the nature of things, it could not have considered. There has been a growing and widespread realisation of how badly the sole custody regime, with access by the non-custodial parent, works. We all know the stories. Too often parents slander each other or the non-custodial parent attempts to undermine the custodial parent by lavishing gifts and meals on the child or children. Many non-custodial parents stop seeing their children because it all becomes too painful for them. The custodial parent places difficulties in the way of access. The non-custodial parent has in general an inferior status, feels it, and eventually gives up. Many non-custodial parents who do not see their children still love them, but the present system has killed the parent-child relationship and produced, in one telling American phrase, the category of ' disposable parents'. At the same time as the realisation of these facts and the literature on the problem have grown, there have been other linked developments. There is now evidence that despite the shattering tensions which the child of a divorce experiences, it is still better for a child to have a continuing and good relationship with the non-custodial parent. In particular, there is an increasing amount of literature on the role of fathers and on the harmful effects of fathers' absence-still the norm in sole custody regimes, despite Gronow v. Gronow-on both girls and boys. Two other important developments since the legislation now before the House was prepared should be mentioned. One is the change in the Californian law, on which recent Australian law has been based, to establish a presumption in favour of joint physical custody of the children of divorced parents; a presumption which may be rebutted by evidence that one of the parents is unfit by reason, for example, of alcoholism. It means simply the abandonment of the norm of sole custody, which is, after all, a legacy of fault divorce, and an attempt to maintain for the shattered children of divorce the norm of having two custodial parents. The other relevant development was the establishment in Australia in 1980 of the Institute of Family Studies which has shown itself sceptical of the sole custody regime and in favour of joint physical custody wherever possible. I refer to the report of its National Conference in Canberra in 1981, 'Parenting after Separation-Alternative Patterns of Child Care', in which most of the speakers favoured joint physical custody; that is, the parents sharing approximately equal amounts of time with the child. This proposition will need long discussion. Many arguments are raised by people with whom I have discussed this issue-that joint custody would not work with hostile parents; that it confuses children; that it would only work with modern or trendy middle-class people. I do not dismiss these arguments out of hand, but I think they are overstated. It seems to me that if the welfare of the child is paramount, joint custody is the ideal, and, on Californian experience, it is a workable idea, that in time might apply to, say, 50 per cent of cases; no more, I should think, but no less. As Geoffrey Lehmann, a Sydney lawyer and exponent of joint physical custody, put it in a recent paper: Joint custody is not experimental or radical. It is simply a re-incarnation of the old-fashioned moralistic view that parents should stay together for the sake of the children. I regret that this Bill does not begin to enter this territory, but I think this will occur next time round. Meanwhile, the Law Reform Commission has before it a reference regarding division of matrimonial property on divorce. I urge the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Government now to consider referring the question of joint physical custody to the Commission for inquiry to advance this possible line of reform of the present disaster area. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(12.17) —I congratulate the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) and the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) for their fair and humane comments on the Family Law Amendment Bill. It is a pleasure to be able to participate in this debate and not feel obliged to engage in petty party political point- scoring as part of one's speech. My interest in this area dates back to 1962 when I was appointed as a welfare officer under the old Matrimonial Causes Act. I was involved quite a bit in the counselling role of the courts in those early days. In supporting the Family Law Amendment Bill 1983 I briefly refer to its background. The Family Law Act came into operation on 5 January 1976. It was a milestone in the development of family law in Australia and received general support on both sides of this House. However, it was found in practice to be deficient in many ways; it created procedural and jurisdictional problems. The former Government introduced the Family Law Amendment Bill 1981 to rectify some of these problems following the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act which reviewed the operation of the original Act. However, it soon became clear that to make the Bill workable and to overcome the problems encountered in the original Act, further amendments were required. In March 1982 the then Attorney-General, Senator Durack, foreshadowed further amendments to the Bill. However, when the Thirty-second Parliament was prorogued the Bill had not passed the second reading stage in the Senate. This Bill is intended to implement wholly or in part a number of the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee, including all the amendments proposed in the 1981 Bill. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has already referred in his second reading speech to the fact that a number of other recommendations have been implemented administratively. He also made the point that the Family Law Council , the Law Council of Australia, judges of the Family Court and others had made suggestions for the reform of the Act and many of these suggestions had been taken up in this Bill. There can be no doubt that family law affects more Australians, both adults and children, than any other single area of civil law. This Bill is of considerable social importance in that it highlights and attempts to deal with serious social problems that affect thousands of Australian families. We have already heard the statistics from previous speakers in the debate. The number of divorces in 1970 was 12,247. Last year it was 44,082. Those figures really underline the extent of the tragedy to a parent or a child affected by marital stress which leads in turn to separation and divorce. One point must be made. It is claimed by some critics that the Family Law Act of 1975 has contributed to family breakdown and the subsequent high divorce rate . This is a nonsense. There are many reasons for the rise in the divorce rate over the past 10 years. Not least are the stresses caused by unemployment and poverty in Australia. What the Act has done is allow divorce with less trauma, less complication and at a lower cost than was previously possible. Is it wrong that today every married couple who wish to divorce can do so? One hundred years ago this was the prerogative of the rich. It is against this background that the present amendments must be assessed. Certainly the national Press has not been unsympathetic to these proposals. The Sydney Morning Herald dated 14 June 1983 headed its editorial 'Overdue Reforms of Family Law'. It stated: The upshot-of these reforms-should be a marked improvement in the system, but the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, is right to note that legislation of this kind must be kept constantly under review to ensure that it reflects changing social conditions and continues to achieve maximum public benefit. I am sure the House would agree that family law, as well as the law in general, should be kept constantly under review so that it reflects changing social conditions and seeks to achieve maximum public benefit. The Advertiser in its editorial dated 6 June 1983, under the more conservative heading 'Family Law Changes', stated: The Family Law amendments announced last week by the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, are long overdue and mostly to be welcomed. They also reflect the impatience of the Government to act decisively to amend an Act which affects the lives of more adults and children than any other, but which has desperately needed reform for some time. I concur with those comments. Let me now look at some of the amendments contained in the Bill. The Attorney-General stated in his second reading speech that these fall into three broad categories: Firstly, those which expand the jurisdiction of the Family Court; secondly, those which relate to the structure and procedures of the Family Court; and thirdly, those which affect the substantive law applied to courts exercising jurisdiction under the Act. Clause 4 of the Bill adopts the Joint Select Committee's recommendation that the category be extended to cover step-children and even foster children. This clause also proposes a broader definition of child of the marriage to include children conceived by artificial insemination whether by the use of donated genetic material or in-vitro fertilisation. Unfortunately, there are limitations to this proposal. I feel that these should be pointed out to the House. The Family Court will have jurisdiction over a child conceived by artificial insemination only if the child's mother was married at the time of the child's conception or birth and the medical procedures were carried out at the consent of the husband or, alternatively, if the child is deemed to be a child of the husband under any Act or law. Thus, the child conceived by artificial insemination where the mother is either single or living in a de facto relationship will still be excluded from the jurisdiction of the Family Court. One can imagine the case of a woman undergoing artificial insemination with her husband's consent yet who is living apart from the husband . In this case the Family Court would have jurisdiction over the child yet in the case of a de facto relationship the Court would lack jurisdiction. The exclusion of the ex-nuptial child is discriminatory. I share the wish of the Minister who said in his second reading speech that perhaps the Commonwealth will one day be able to legislate for the guardianship, custody and maintenance of all children in Australia. To do this will require either an appropriate referral of powers by the States or a constitutional amendment. The Family Law Act contained provisions enabling State family courts to be created. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, Western Australia, under its then Attorney-General, Mr Ian Medcalf, took advantage of those provisions in the Act to set up the State Family Court at a very early stage. That Court has all jurisdiction, both State and Commonwealth, in family law matters. It has been in operation for a number of years. We have the benefit of that experience and the opportunity to assess its performance. I feel it is fair to say that no major jurisdictional problems have been encountered since that Court came into being. As the present State Attorney-General, Mr Joe Berinson, at the Australian Constitutional Convention held in April this year, said: Because of that framework, there has been a total absence of jurisdictional disputes or confusion. The court works remarkably well and . . . it has worked without difficulty. Under existing law only the parties to the marriage can institute custody, guardianship or access proceedings in the Family Court. This has meant that the Family Court has been powerless and unable to offer protection in cases where the welfare of the child of the marriage is in jeopardy by insufficient care and control by the parents. The only redress at the moment is when one of the parties to the marriage initiates proceedings in the Family Court. The amended Act will allow, under clause 3 (h), a third party, such as a concerned relative, to initiate custody and related proceedings in the Family Court against one or both parties to the marriage. In addition, the child of the marriage will be able to initiate such proceedings against one or both parties to the marriage. This I feel is a new clause which is to be supported by everyone. Another weakness of the present Act is that in custody proceedings pressure may be exerted by either party upon the child to express preference for a particular party when that may not be the genuine wish of the child. We have already heard from the honourable member for North Sydney and the honourable member for Wentworth that they view the current proposal with a degree of uncertainty although they support it in general terms. Clause 29 of the Bill requires the Family Court to take into consideration any wishes of the child, no matter what age, and to give such wishes the weight it considers appropriate. I believe that the word 'weight' becomes important here. Obviously the Court would take into consideration some of the concerns expressed by the honourable member for Wentworth. An important related reform enables a child of the marriage as well as parties to the marriage, to obtain the assistance of counselling facilities in the Family Court. I should like to discuss the counselling aspects of the Court. However, as time is short I will only go so far as to say that I welcome the new procedures in this area I turn now to the question which has generated perhaps more heat than reason- the so-called divorce by post. The Bill, as introduced in the Senate, would have enabled all undefended divorce actions in certain circumstances to be dealt with without the necessity of either the parties or their legal representatives to attend before the Court. This apparently attracted a great deal of opposition in recent years. In response to the critics, the Government decided to move another amendment, now included in clause 53, that will still allow undefended divorce applications to be dealt with in this way but only where there are no children of the marriage under 18 years of age. The effect of this amendment is to answer most of the objections to the original proposal while preserving much of the benefit of the simplified procedure. I have spoken on only a few of the amendments which are being introduced in this Bill. The Bill has received a fair degree of support from both sides of the House. I consider that these amendments are a big step forward in improving family law in Australia. Yet, as I stated earlier, there is a need to continually review and, where necessary, improve the law. I support the amendments contained in this Bill. Mr ADERMANN(Fisher)(12.34) —In speaking to the amendments to the Family Law Act , I want to be constructive but I am bound to put forward some general, if unpopular, observations as a starting point. It gives me no great pleasure to do that. This should not be interpreted as any criticism of the work of the Ruddock Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act and the very excellent report it produced, nor should it be interpreted as any criticism of this Government or governments in general. Probably it is a judgment on all of us and most certainly on the society in which we live. I recognise very clearly why the original Family Law Act was placed on the statute books and why it replaced the Matrimonial Causes Act. I was a member of this House when it was passed. I recognise the concern which faced the Parliament at that time. For instance, there were long, almost impossible delays in cases of desertion before an aggrieved marriage partner could gain a divorce. The cost and complication of divorce, even in uncontested cases, was a big problem. The no- fault grounds were probably motivated by the seedy private investigation procedures of trying to catch out an errant partner with photographs and evidence. The less reputable weekly newspapers filled their pages with lurid details of these bedroom escapades. So we enacted the family law legislation. Despite the motives, despite the problems it was intended to rectify, this Act has created a situation worse in some ways than existed before it appeared. I believe that we tackled these problems from the wrong direction. We sought largely to remove the impediments to divorce rather than to attend to the causes of divorce and the importance of the marriage contract. Hence we set out rules to dissolve marriages and to divide the spoils and the children. Now we are seeking to amend the legislation without really altering that philosophy. If I am to be constructive I must first clearly state what we are facing. I stress that the observations I make are my own and are not the voice of any political party room. My views have been reinforced, not dissipated, by the procession of people coming to my office with a multitude of heartbreaking situations if not directly attributable to, at least associated with, this Act. First, despite the impressive title 'Family Law Act', no single piece of legislation on the statute books has done more than this Act to weaken, if not destroy, the family and the institution of marriage. I freely and unashamedly admit that I speak from the Christian standpoint. My perception of the family and marriage is moulded by those Christian beliefs. If others do not accept those values that is their right and their business, but I surely have an equal right to have an opportunity to state my views. Divorce has become so easy that the whole concept of marriage has been changed. Whereas marriage was regarded as something to be contemplated very seriously and soberly and as a contract which was envisaged for a lifetime, that no longer applies. None of us would pretend that it does. Marriage is so frequently regarded as imposing no responsibility and no obligation. It is lightly and experimentally entered into and at the first disagreement it is dissolved-I say that with sadness. It may sound trite but it is my experience at least that a solid, successful and happy marriage is strengthened and reinforced by the overcoming of problems and the solution of difficulties by the partners to the marriage. Instead of problems bringing greater solidarity and happiness to marriage we see increasingly that the first step is dissolution and not, as previously, an earnest endeavour first to consolidate the marriage. For all its attractions and recommendations, the facility of no-fault, expeditious and cheap divorce has changed society and perceptions in a manner which to me at least is very sad. I am not saying that for that reason we should go back to the enforced perpetuation of a marriage because it is impossible to dissolve it, nor am I putting in a commercial for the seedy investigators with the shingles they use to put out saying 'Divorce Evidence Obtained'. I am saying that perhaps we have cured one disaster by introducing other forms of disaster. Thus I cannot accept that to go further along the path by amendment to provide what we call divorce by post is anything but an intensification of that process. The Act is unfortunately titled. It is not a family law Act; it is an Act to provide for the dissolution of marriage and a division of property and children. It does not provide for harmonious settlement of custody and property matters. It creates acrimony, bitterness and tragedy. I would be surprised if other members did not find, as I do, that its effect is a constant stream of tearful, often heartbroken constituents narrating situations of real tragedy; parents unhappy with custody decisions and effectively being debarred from any meaningful access to, and time with, their children; pleas to try to get decisions changed, which of course a mere member of Parliament cannot and should not do. Properties or businesses which have been built up for years, perhaps after a lifetime of sacrifice and toil, have to be demolished to meet settlement terms. Even the home is the centre of argument and must often be sold, no matter what other circumstances exist. I am not critical of the judges of the Family Court of Australia, even if I cannot always understand the rationale of particular decisions. The fault is not with the Court, it is with our grappling with the legislation under which the courts must operate. Under that legislation the family is not regarded as a solid, valuable unit. It can be destroyed by litigation and sadly, as has been pointed out, the children are the pawns in the game. As solicitors for the various parties go all out to gain the most advantage in the interests of their clients we have acrimony, argument and bitterness, and the unfortunate children witnessing this arena of conflict are tragically mentally scarred for the whole of their lives. That is not a conservative old philosophy; that is observation, often reinforced by what is happening in our society and what we see in our offices. Conciliation, guidance and counselling are not working. One partner can refuse to co-operate, and all the words and provisions of the Act do not mean a thing in that circumstance. So we are faced again, as we inevitably will continue to be faced, with amendments to the Family Law Act. I wish, with the benefit of hindsight, that we could start all over again, but we have an Act and we have circumstances which have demonstrated areas of deficiency. We are trying to amend the Act, to patch it up and to make it better. I listened carefully to the comments of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). I have carefully reread his second reading speech in Hansard. I accept the sincerity with which he proclaimed the Family Law Act as a great landmark in social legislation and a great achievement. He was sincere. It is without malice or political antagonism that I say that I cannot agree with that judgment. That will already be clear from what I have said. Let me comment on some of the particular amendments proposed to the Act. I refer again to the amendment, even though modified in the Senate, that enables-granted under restricted circumstances-some undefended divorce applications to be dealt with without the necessity of either of the parties or their representatives attending before the court. What such expedition does to impress upon society the seriousness with which marriage should be contemplated before being undertaken and the fact that divorce should be the very last step contemplated to resolve difficulties, completely escapes me. It is not only for that reason that I have no enthusiasm for the amendment. Let me raise another problem which on a couple of occasions has been brought to my attention. Constituents have told me that divorce proceedings have been undertaken and concluded and that the marriage in which they are a partner was dissolved and decisions on custody or property matters handed down without their even being aware of them until the matter was over. Then of course it was too late to bring matters forward for consideration. I know it is claimed that divorce by post will reduce some of the acrimony which personal appearance may engender, but that is not the real consideration, surely . Surely if the marriage was undertaken with responsiblity and contemplation there should be no less contemplation of the implications and the repercussions of divorce. This is in no way engendered by abrogating the whole matter in absentia to a court to sort out. This leads me to certain other observations made by the Minister in support of other amendments. These deal with proposals to reinforce the principle of counselling with a view to conciliation. Of course I accept that principle and hope that the Minister's expectations are not subject to disenchantment. I believe that counselling and conciliation have not been as seriously and determinedly carried out as I hoped they would be when the Family Law Act first became law. I do not know the percentage of marriages, if any, saved by the counselling and conciliation procedures which are carried out pursuant to the Act. Pessimistically perhaps, from my own observations, the process appears to be largely a non-event-at least not effectively sustained. Countless occasions have been brought to my attention in which partners, desperately anxious to save their marriage, have complained that they found it impossible to get their spouse to attend counselling sessions with them. Apparently the court could not do anything at all in the matter. It is of little use having trained and wise counsellors unless it is mandatory for estranged married partners to attend such counselling. Surely every bona fide marriage is worth the most serious endeavours to preserve it. I accept that the Government is sincere in endeavouring to strengthen and reinforce the counselling and conciliation processes by these amendments. I am not at all sure that they go nearly far enough along the road. I am not at all sure that they will effectively deal with the problems that I have briefly tried to outline, but at least they have an intent and a purpose designed to preserve the marriage. I cannot criticise that sort of intent or that purpose. But again I observe that one amendment-the divorce in absentia-must weaken the process of preservation, sitting as it does very uncomfortably beside these other amendments which allegedly are designed to strengthen the process of counselling and conciliation. I hope very sincerely that the Minister's hope will be realised. In his second reading speech he said: . . . every effort must be made to resolve disputes by processes of conciliation and counselling and that recourse to the court and the adversary process must be a last resort. One amendment seems somewhat to hamstring this effort. It limits to marriages of two years or less the requirement that an application cannot be heard by the court unless reconciliation with the assistance of a marriage counsellor has been considered. This is an inordinately short marriage duration and I would have hoped that it applied to all applications for divorce-or at least most applications for divorce-whatever the length of marriage. To limit it to two short years simply means that the process can be evaded by waiting for a short lapse of time-perhaps weeks or perhaps a month or two-so that that procedure does not then become enforceable. True, the amendment is slightly better than the original sub-section 14 (6) of the Act but it still falls short of what is at least my perception of what should be required in the field of counselling and conciliation. My DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond)-Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted. In accordance with sessional order 101A the debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) is leaving Australia today to attend a general conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation in Paris from 24 to 28 October and to hold discussions in other European capitals on education and youth policy issues. Senator Ryan will return to Australia on 6 November. In her absence the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) will act as Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) continues to represent Senator Ryan in this chamber. Mr STEELE HALL —I address my question to the Prime Minister following my question yesterday to the Special Minister of State concerning allegations about Mr Jackson, the New South Wales Minister for Corrective Services. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Wran, admitted yesterday that he did not know who was the prominent racing figure who associated with Mr Jackson and in so doing has indicated that he has not been informed of the content of the telephone interceptions? Is the Prime Minister aware that the Deputy Premier, Mr Ferguson, said yesterday that he had not been told that Mr Jackson had associated regularly with persons connected with a well-known drug trafficker and has thereby indicated that he is unaware of the content of the telephone interceptions? I ask the Prime Minister: Why is it that the Premier and Deputy Premier are unaware of the information when, in fact, the previous Special Minister of State visited Mr Ferguson on 16 May under specific instructions from the Prime Minister to inform him of these matters? Will the Prime Minister now take action to ensure that those two gentlemen are given all the information, including the content of the telephone taps which has been perused by his own Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, to allow a full and frank inquiry to be held by the New South Wales authorities into these allegations? Mr HAWKE —The honourable member for Boothby still seems to be suffering under a basic misapprehension as to the appropriate course of action in these matters. I will let him know again what it is. I hope that on this occasion he will understand. When the information became available to the Special Minister of State in May that there could be possible breaches of the law, the Special Minister of State took steps immediately to convey that fact at the political level. As the honourable member will recall, this was done on 16 May. Simultaneously with that the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Major-General Grey, was in contact with Commissioner Abbott of the New South Wales Police Force. Once this Government had discharged its obligation of indicating the possibility of any problems, it had discharged all that it properly should do in those circumstances. Mr Steele Hall —Surely you should have passed the information on. Mr HAWKE —If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, I ask him for God's sake to shut up. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I remind honourable members that until the House comes to order Question Time is being used up. Mr HAWKE —As I indicated on a previous occasion when this matter was raised, honourable members on the other side of the House seem to have very adjustable principles when it comes to the matter of the relations between Federal governments and State governments and their respective responsibilities. We have a clear understanding of what it is proper to do in these circumstances and we did it. What is conveyed in terms of the contents of the tapes is obviously-I would have thought the honourable member would understand this-not a matter to be dealt with at the political level. We convey the fact that there could be a problem; then it is a matter for the New South Wales Government to handle. What is transmitted in respect of the contents of the tapes will be a matter between the Australian Federal Police and the State police. I repeat that we as a government have done everything that we were required to do. We did it expeditiously. We are not-to satisfy the aspirations of these desperate people on the other side of the House who have nothing of substance to cling to in the present political situation-going to do anything to assist them in their desperation which will involve an improper intervention by this Government in the affairs of New South Wales. I repeat that what we have done on this occasion is the course of action that we would follow on any other such occasion. As soon as any indication is given to us of the possibility of any infringement of the laws of a State, we will convey that information, that possibility, to the State, whichever State it is. The way in which it is then handled is a matter for the authorities of that State. I make it quite clear- this is perhaps more particularly relevant to the question that was asked yesterday-that there is no way in the world that in this place this Government will disclose the contents of conversations obtained by the Federal Police in the pursuit of its inquiries in regard to drugs. It may be that honourable members opposite would like to have those lurid details available for their purposes, but we attach a greater importance to making sure that the appropriate task of the Federal Police is not inhibited by that unsustainable sort of practice. Mr WELLS —Has the attention of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs been drawn to articles in the Brisbane Courier-Mail of 15 October and 17 October indicating that Australian Labor Party candidates in the forthcoming State election have been denied access to Aboriginal people on far northern reserves? Are these reserves under the control of the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement? Is the head of that Department Mr P. J. Killoran, who happens to be the National Party candidate for the electorate concerned? Has the Minister noted allegations that officers of the candidate's Department have threatened Aboriginal people with the loss of their social security benefits or of credit at reserve stores if they vote for the Labor Party candidate? Can the Minister assure the House that Commonwealth benefits will not be at risk whatever the outcome of the Queensland election? Finally, will the Minister refer these matters to the Human Rights Commission as they appear to constitute a serious infringement of civil liberties? Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. A Minister has a range of ministerial responsibilities. I suggest to you that nothing in the honourable gentleman's question seemed in any way to relate to responsibility exercised by the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Mr Holding —Mr Speaker, on the point of order: The High Court of Australia has held that the constitutional responsibility for Aboriginal affairs and matters pertaining to people of the Aboriginal race clearly rests with the Commonwealth. Equally, I have been asked: Has there been or is there a serious threat to the civil liberties of Aboriginal people? I would have thought that, having regard to our constitutional responsibility, the question is clearly in order. Mr SPEAKER —I rule that the question is in order. I call the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Mr HOLDING —Yes, my attention has been drawn to the articles mentioned by the honourable member-- Mr McVeigh —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to standing order 144 which says: The following general rules shall apply to questions: Questions cannot be debated. Questions should not contain- (a) statements of facts or names of persons . . . Mr Killoran's name was mentioned and I believe that the question is out of order . Mr SPEAKER —The remainder of the question dealt with matters that are properly within the province of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Mr HOLDING —My attention has been drawn to the articles. It is a sad day indeed when the official apparatus of the Queensland Government, supposedly created for the benefit of the Aboriginal and Islander people, is perverted in order to obtain some minimal political gain for candidates for and on behalf of the Government of Queensland and the National Party. I was concerned about the articles and requested an immediate investigation by officers of my Department. I understand that the Labor candidate for Barron River, Mrs Wendy Lilja, sought permission to visit the Aboriginal reserve at Wujal Wujal recently. She received a telegram from the manager, that is, Mr Killoran's subordinate-- Mr McVeigh —Mr Speaker, he has mentioned the name. Mr HOLDING —I am perfectly happy to name any Australian who wants to abuse the civil rights of Aboriginal people. I am surprised that the honourable member would want to defend such a person. This gentleman, who happens to be Mr Killoran's subordinate, purported to refuse permission. When Mrs Wendy Lilja went to the reserve anyway she discovered, of course, that the telegram that had been sent to her could not have come from the council because it had not been consulted and it welcomed her visit. Of even more concern is the allegation which is being consciously made by members of the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement-again subordinates of Mr Killoran-that any Aboriginals who vote against the National Party or against Mr Killoran can expect to have their children taken from them and to lose their social welfare pensions. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HOLDING —I find it extraordinary that honourable gentlemen opposite who want to moralise are prepared not to treat these very serious allegations with the seriousness that they deserve. Having regard to the background of the Aboriginal people on these reserves, there can be no more serious exercise in intimidation or political blackmail-- Mr Anthony —You would not be interested, except for the State election. Mr HOLDING —Let it go on record that the Leader of the National Party supports this kind of political thuggery. You are a mealy-mouthed spokesman for a bunch of political thugs. That is your problem. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order and the Minister will return to his answer. Mr HOLDING —Having regard to the history of what occurs on the reserves in Queensland, I repeat that there can be no more serious threat to any Aboriginal people than to tell them that if they vote in a certain way they are likely to lose their children and their social welfare payments. Mr Sinclair —Address the Speaker. Follow the rules of the place. Mr HOLDING —There is no point in addressing anybody who looks as silly as you. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I indicate to the Minister that the interjection was a valid one. If he turns away from the microphone I have difficulty hearing him. Mr HOLDING —I am sorry about that. These matters are now under investigation. It is our intention to refer them to the Human Rights Commission because these incidents are just one more example of the colonialist mentality of the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement and its Director who has, throughout the current political campaign, deliberately confused his position as a senior public servant, having real control over the lives and destinies of the Aboriginal people, with his role as a candidate. He has been perfectly happy to do that to the disadvantage of candidates from all political parties other than the National Party, and I include candidates from the Liberal Party. They are as much victims of this situation as are candidates from the Labor Party. Of course , the real victim is the system of political democracy itself. I give an assurance to the Aboriginal people of Queensland that in no circumstances will these threats be tolerated by the Commonwealth. We will act on them. I assure the Aboriginal people of Queensland that there is absolutely no threat either to their children or to their social welfare payments. Mr Anthony —You will not worry after Saturday. Mr HOLDING —It is a matter of regret that any Minister of the Commonwealth has to give that kind of assurance over the persistent, woeful interjections of the Leader of the National Party. Mr Sinclair —Make a statement. This is ridiculous. Mr HOLDING —You would be an expert in the ridiculous, my friend. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister to draw his answer to a conclusion. Mr HOLDING —The conclusion is this: I do not have any doubt at all that in the privacy of the ballot box Aboriginal people in Queensland will make their comment on the policies of the National Party and the attempts to exploit the situation that have grossly involved Mr Killoran. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Treasurer to the letter of 17 October 1983 from the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in Perth in relation to Coomel Pty Ltd. In doing so let me assure the honourable gentleman that I do not take issue in any way with the contents of that letter. I believe that the Deputy Commissioner in that letter correctly interprets and applies the 1982 recoupment legislation passed by this Parliament. I ask: Is it not a fact that this letter confirms that the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act 1982 applies to the ownership of shares by Coomel Pty Ltd in Metro Industries Ltd at the time of the sale by that latter company of the company known as Treamog Pty Ltd? Is it not also a fact that the Deputy Commissioner proposes to exercise his discretion to relieve Coomel of any recoupment liability arising from its ownership of shares in the circumstances I have just stated, on the ground that Coomel did not derive any benefit from the sale of Treamog by Metro? Can the Treasurer therefore assure the House that other shareholders in public companies which might be affected by the 1982 recoupment legislation, who likewise derived no benefit from sales by those companies, will receive precisely the same treatment from the Australian Taxation Office? Can the Treasurer also assure the House that any assessments already issued under the 1982 legislation to public company shareholders who derived no benefit from sales affected by that legislation will be cancelled forthwith? Mr KEATING —I take it that the clear implication in the honourable gentleman's question is that in no way have I exercised any influence on the Commissioner of Taxation in respect of that notice. Mr Peacock —He did not say that at all. Mr KEATING —Let us be clear about that. It is, I think, clear that there is a discretion in the legislation which the honourable gentleman himself introduced. If, in the Commissioner's view, there is no benefit an assessment need not be raised, but that discretion resides with the Commissioner. The matter gets back to this question of innocence. The point is whether innocence can be distinguished and I think it is difficult for anyone to determine from this distance whether in fact there was a benefit from shares as a result of the bottoming of a particular company. The power to make that judgment resides with the Taxation Commissioner. He has that discretion. That discretion has been exercised in the case of Coomel and the matter is one for the Taxation Commissioner. Mr KEOGH —Has the attention of the Minister for Finance been drawn to reports that the Queensland Government is in danger of running out of Supply? Is there any action which the Commonwealth Government can take through grants to the States to assist the functioning of the Queensland Government following the forthcoming election, particularly if a period of unstable government is the outcome of that election? Mr DAWKINS —There have been suggestions that the Queensland Government may run out of funds as early as mid-November. This does create problems for any government elected after 22 October, given that on the occasion of the last election it took 37 days for the return of the writs. That would take a government somewhere into December at least. I think it is important to make the point that the Queensland Government is continuing to receive funds; that is, notwithstanding certain observations that have been made in the last day or two, the vast majority of Queenslanders are continuing to pay their taxes legally, whether they be Federal or State taxes. The point is that the Queensland Government is receiving funds. The difficulty is that the Parliament has not sat and has not been able to appropriate for the expenditure of those funds. This Government has, of course, been generous to Queensland as we have been generous to all State governments, although the Queensland Government has not shown an enormous- Mr Lusher —Where do you get your money from? Mr DAWKINS —Does the honourable member really want to have a discussion about this? Mr SPEAKER —I invite the Minister to continue his answer. The honourable member for Hume should take great care. Mr DAWKINS —Under the wage pause program the Queensland Government has still unspent $4.6m of the $15.9m which has been made available to it between February and June for job creation purposes. I also have to report that Queensland was the last Government to agree to the community employment program arrangements and it is now the only State not to have set up machinery to get the CEP off the ground. One of the difficulties in terms of any assistance which the Commonwealth might be able to give to Queensland would depend very much on the co-operation and the preparedness to co-operate of whichever government is elected after the 22nd. I am sure that if Queensland is, as I expect, led by a very co-operative Labor Government headed by Keith Wright we will be able to look at ways in which we might be able to assist the Queensland Government in relation to any short term problems which it might- Mr Anthony —Are you going to discriminate against certain State governments? Mr DAWKINS —No, it is not a question of discriminating. It is a question of whether the Government of Queensland is prepared to be co-operative. If it is prepared to be co-operative in a way in which the current Queensland Government has not been in respect of a number of Commonwealth programs, of course, we could continue to help. Mr HOWARD —I address a question to the Treasurer which is supplementary to the question I just asked him. I preface my question by acknowledging fully that the honourable gentleman is correct in saying that the exercise of discretion in these matters does rest with the Commissioner of Taxation. He is quite entitled to rely upon that formal reply in answering my question. Would not the honourable gentleman agree that it is desirable not only that there be in reality a consistency of treatment between different taxpayers but also that there be the appearance of a consistent treatment between taxpayers in the same interest? Bearing in mind that the honourable gentleman's colleague's taxation position was clarified within 24 hours of application to the Deputy Commissioner 's office, whereas other taxpayers in similar positions have had longer periods to wait, can the honourable gentleman, therefore, take to the Commissioner of Taxation the substance of my earlier question and obtain an assurance from the Commissioner of Taxation that there will be complete consistency of treatment? Mr KEATING —This is a very snide question and one to which I object because the import of the question, what underlies the question, is that in some way the Taxation Commissioner treats people differentially. That was the implication of the honourable member and that was the only import of the interjections. Mr Peacock —Fair treatment for all is what we want. Mr KEATING —Fair treatment for all implies that in some way the Commissioner has given fair treatment to some shareholders and not to others. Mr Peacock —We want to be assured that that is not the case. Mr KEATING —Of course it is not the case. The honourable member should not be foolish enough to seek the assurance. In respect of the notice which was given to my colleague the Minister for Finance by the Deputy Commissioner in Western Australia, the Minister for Finance wrote to me about that matter. I referred his letter to the Taxation Commissioner and in writing back to my colleague I said: . . . this is not a matter over which I have Ministerial or other authority, but in view of the urgency of your request, I have immediately referred your letter to the Commissioner of Taxation . . . The Commissioner is in a position to form his own view about that. Given the fact that Mr Reid was treated by the previous Government in just the same way last year with not simply an assessment in respect of a matter before the Taxation Office but also, indeed, an examination of the affairs of the companies with which Mr Reid was associated-a much more lengthy process-and given the expedition of that procedure, I would be at a loss to understand the point of the Deputy Leader's question. So, as I said earlier, it is a matter for the Taxation Commissioner. This question attacks the integrity of the Taxation Commissioner-particularly the interjection by the Leader of the Opposition which is, of course, uncalled for and unfair. I will not respond any more other than to draw upon the long record of the Taxation Commissioner in these matters. Mr LINDSAY —My question is directed to the Prime Minister who has proved himself to be such a true friend of Queensland people. Are the States co-operating with the Federal Government in introducing the community employment program? Mr HAWKE —Yes, I can say that the States are co-operating with the Federal Government in introducing the community employment program, that is, with the exception of Queensland. Queensland has been allocated $41m under the community employment program. Over 100,000 people are unemployed in Queensland. Yet in those circumstances, with $41m having been made available under this program, Queensland stalled in even agreeing in principle to co-operate. It was rather an historic day when Queensland finally agreed in principle. That was 9 August when the Federal Cabinet went to Brisbane and the coalition collapsed in Queensland. But having agreed in principle to participate the Queensland Government stalled further on making appropriate nominations to the advisory committee under which the money will be disbursed. I would suggest-I do not want to make a great thing of it-that in the interests of the people of Queensland in general and particularly those 100,000 unemployed that incompetence on the part of the Queensland Government simply is not good enough. Honourable members opposite will recall from when they were Ministers that this cavalier attitude of the Queensland Government was a mark of the previous decade when that Government stood off from accepting funds provided by the governments of different political persuasions in Canberra, funds which were made available to help the people of Queensland. The simple fact is that if there is not a change of government after 22 October, and we do not believe that that will be the case, the people of Queensland will again be the losers because there will be a continuation of the instability which is increasingly characterising the political affairs of that State at this time. Mr TUCKEY —I ask the Minister for Finance: Does he recall saying at his private Press conference yesterday that the Commissioner of Taxation had been advised of all relevant facts, in a full and true way, of the transaction covering the sale of land under what I have referred to as the Dawkins scheme and which the Minister said is a practice that is not only widespread but apparently condoned by the Taxation Commissioner? Was the Taxation Commissioner told of the details in the documents provided to members of Coomel Pty Ltd, including the Minister, as tabled by the member for O'Connor, which revealed that interest had been capitalised, resulting in avoidance of income tax? If the information in these documents was not conveyed-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I indicate to the honourable member that on another occasion I have had to rule out of order questions which go purely to the private affairs of the Minister and not to areas of his administration. Mr MacKellar —This was a Press conference. Mr SPEAKER —A Press conference is not a matter of his administration. I ask the honourable member for O'Connor to indicate where the question is-- Mr Dawkins —I am willing to answer it. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister has not helped me. He has said that he is willing to answer the question, but under the Standing Orders the question cannot be addressed to him. I ask the honourable member for O'Connor to relate his question to the Minister's administration. Mr TUCKEY —So that I can assist the Minister for Finance to answer I point out to you, Mr Speaker, that the Minister for Finance administers all the funds that are collected by the Taxation Commissioner and this is a matter that relates to the Taxation Commissioner. If the Taxation Commissioner does not get his fair share, the Minister for Finance obviously would not be able to administer those funds. May I finish the question? Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may finish the question. Mr TUCKEY —If the information in these documents was not conveyed to the Taxation Commissioner at that time, does the Minister, as a member of Coomel, intend to instruct the liquidator to do so? Mr DAWKINS —As the honourable member for O'Connor well knows, it is not for me to instruct the liquidator to do anything. What I indicated to the House before was by way of a letter from the liquidator, in which he indicated that full and true disclosure had been made in relation to these matters. That is where the matter should rest. I notice that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is strangely silent today in relation to these matters. Perhaps he has dodged asking me the questions and has left it to the honourable member for O'Connor. Perhaps that has to do with the fact that a tinge of double standards is coming over him today in respect of revelations that were made last night. Perhaps the Deputy Leader of the Opposition needs to be reminded of what he said in July last year. He said: We have decided on this course of action because of the essentially fraudulent nature of much of the conduct involved. What he was talking about was the introduction of the recoupment measures. He went on to say: The legislation will be directed against people who have in effect taken off with moneys which should have been paid as tax to the Treasurer. He subsequently said in October last year: The only tax to be recovered under the legislation is tax that was legally payable and the payment of which has been illegally evaded. Perhaps his attitude today, given the vituperative way in which he addressed me last week on those matters and accused me of tax evasion, is due to the fact that there is a self-confessed tax evader sitting alongside him on the front bench. Mr MAHER —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. In view of the Minister's reported comments at the weekend about the poor state of military equipment available to meet emergency or disaster requirements, will the Minister advise the House of any plans the Government has to rectify this state of affairs? Mr SCHOLES —I thank the honourable member for his question and for his interest in this important area. I am able to inform the House that action is under way to correct what is a serious or potentially serious deficiency. The Government has today authorised negotiations with the French company Aerospatiale for the supply of six light search and rescue helicopters and an interim spares package. These helicopters, together with the spares package, will cost an estimated $A6. 5m. They will replace the Iroquois UH1B helicopters currently used by the Royal Australian Air Force in a search and rescue role, which reach life-of-type in 1984. The Commonwealth is currently in the process of acquiring 18 AS350B helicopters from Aerospatiale, 12 of which will be used by the RAAF for pilot training and six by the Royal Australian Navy for survey and light utility roles. The same type of helicopter, configured for search and rescue work, has been deemed appropriate to meet the RAAF requirement for a replacement light search and rescue helicopter. The Government has arranged that Australian industry will participate in this project to a minimum of 30 per cent of the total cost. I think it is important to inform the House that, on a regular basis and over many years, the defence forces have played a major part in search and rescue operations for the civil community and in many areas of disaster and other emergencies. It is essential that they have available to them equipment which protects the lives of the servicemen involved and enables them to perform the tasks which the community expects of them and which they do so proficiently. This order will ensure that the RAAF has available to it search and rescue equipment which is necessary to the RAAF and vital to the Australian community. Mr PEACOCK —Does the Minister for Finance recall saying yesterday that the letter from the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in Western Australia substantiated that 'in no way will we'-that is the Dawkins family-'be subject to the provisions of the unpaid company tax Act'? I ask the Minister whether he said: This letter from the Deputy Comissioner indicates that there is no liability for this company . . . in relation to these bottom of the harbour activities. Does the letter, on the contrary, reveal that Coomel Pty Ltd and the Dawkins family are subject to the provisions of the Act and do have a liability and that this liability may be avoided only because the Deputy Commissioner expects to use his discretion to relieve Coomel of its recoupment liability? If so, why did the Minister once again deceive the House over the real contents of the Commissioner's letter? Mr DAWKINS —The Opposition has come an absolute gutser on this one and it knows it. I do not know why it just does not confess, why it just does not acknowledge the fact that is has really- Mr Tuckey —You misled the House. Mr DAWKINS —Oh, yes! We have misled the House, have we? Oh, yes, here is the man who makes unsubstantiated claims, quite dishonest claims, has no regard to the truth whatsoever, and expects me and everyone else in here to take him seriously . As far as the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, we want to know a bit more about some of the people he happens to be harbouring on his front bench. Does he have, for instance, pecuniary interest statements from all the members of his front bench? Does he know how many others of his front benchers are to receive assessments under the unpaid company tax legislation? Is that the real reason why the Opposition will not participate in the declarations of pecuniary interest? No one in this Parliament-probably no one in the history of this Parliament-has revealed as much about his own personal affairs as I have. Nothing in what I have revealed does other than confirm everything I have said in relation to the matters to which the Leader of the Opposition referred in his pathetic attempt to re-write history. Members of the Opposition are very disappointed that the letter from the Taxation Commissioner gave the wrong advice as far as they were concerned. I said entirely what the Commissioner said -that there was no liability. That is a matter which disappoints the Opposition enormously. Mr CHYNOWETH —My question is addressed to the Minister for Science and Technology. How far was the National Technology Conference successful in bringing about what the Minister has called 'the shock of recognition' of Australia's technological position? Was it possible to reach consensus about the adoption of a national technology strategy? Mr BARRY JONES —I would score the success of the Conference at about eight out of 10. Of the three aims that we set out, the first, securing the 'shock of recognition' of where we are, was the least successful. That was so, first of all, because many of the organisations and people there-I include the investment community, trade unions, management, existing industry and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation-were concerned in this new forum to protect their entrenched positions and less concerned about making concessions that will need to be part of an ongoing process. I said at its end that we ought not to see the Conference as an end; it is the beginning of a continuing process. The Conference was useful to promote dialogue and especially to create media attention. Perhaps the most valuable parts of the Conference were the speeches by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Mr Moore —What about yours? Mr BARRY JONES —I add my own to that. The reason was that the speeches gave an indication of clear, certain and decisive government policy. The Government's economic strategy came through the Conference virtually unscathed after three days of close examination. The Prime Minister in particular gave the lead about where we are going. Technology is an area in which it is notoriously difficult to get consensus on a strategy. We recognise that. The problem is that technology is changing so dramatically that, by the time consensus is reached, the game has moved on and the consensus is no longer relevant. It is a bit like Heisenberg's uncertainty thesis. Mr SPEAKER —Can the Minister assure me that that is not unparliamentary? Mr BARRY JONES —I vouch for it. By the time the phenomenon has been measured, it has already changed. Indeed, the measurement changes the phenomenon. Finally, we must recognise that of the 24 nations in the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development, Australia ranks twenty-third in respect of the proportionate value of high technology imports over the value of our exports. That threatens the viability of our economy, our security and our autonomy. Our lead time in certain areas is running out. In a number of the sunrise areas, our lead time is no more than 15 to 18 months. That poses very serious threats for this nation. Mr FISHER —Would the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism be concerned if international and Sheffield Shield cricket were not played in Western Australia this season? Will the Minister ensure that his views in support of sport sponsorship by tobacco companies are well known to his colleagues in Perth before decisions are taken that would deny cricket to the Western Australian public? Mr Howard —That is a real yorker, John! Mr JOHN BROWN —I will play a very straight bat, Mr Speaker. The honourable member who asked the question obviously did not hear the AM program this morning when it was clearly announced that the Western Australian Government was prepared to amend the legislation before the Western Australian Parliament to allow the removal of the anomaly which would prevent the playing of test cricket in Western Australia. Mr McVeigh —That was yesterday morning. Do not mislead the House. Mr JOHN BROWN —If the honourable member wants to be thoroughly precise, it might -- Mr McVeigh —You had a sleep. You are a day behind. Mr JOHN BROWN —From Rip Van Winkle, that is a compliment. Whatever day it was, anyhow. It is fresh enough in my mind to have been this morning. I am quite happy with the amendment being made, because the facts are as outlined in that report. If Perth loses the test, of course, tobacco advertising will be flashing on Perth television screens for seven hours a day, which will be in conflict with the legislation that the Western Australian Government is trying to introduce. If the test is played in Perth, of course, that transmission will be for only two hours a day. I think the people in the Western Australian Government know my views. I know theirs. I respect their view. I hope that they respect mine. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Department of Housing and Construction for 1982-83. The report covers those matters on which I am required to report pursuant to section 53 of the Homes Savings Grant Act 1976 and pursuant to section 64 of the Home Deposit Assistance Act 1982. Mr HICKS(Riverina) —Mr Speaker, I wish to have your indulgence to make a personal explanation on behalf of a colleague who is absent at the moment. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member having indicated to me the nature of the indulgence, I will allow him that indulgence. Mr HICKS —In the Canberra Times of Tuesday, 18 October, there was an article by Teresa Mannix headed 'Queen is asked to send King of Australasia'. The main part of the article stated: Queensland National Party member Mr Ian Cameron has written to Buckingham Palace proposing a novel idea for putting the Governor-General, Sir Ninian Stephen, out of a job. The article goes on to say that Mr Cameron suggested that Prince Andrew or Prince Edward move to Yarralumla to become King of Australasia. I assure the House that the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) has quite a few constructive ideas, but this is not one of them. I draw the attention of the House to this article and assure the House that it was certainly not the idea of the honourable member for Maranoa. Mr SPEAKER —I mention to the House that on this occasion I granted the indulgence because the honourable member for Maranoa is representing this Parliament at a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Deputy Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —If the honourable member wishes to make a personal explanation, he may proceed. Mr HOWARD —During Question Time the Treasurer (Mr Keating), in reply to a question I asked him, incorrectly claimed that I was impugning the integrity of the Commissioner of Taxation. Firstly, in the first part of the question I asked the honourable gentleman, I expressly said that I had no quarrel with the text of the letter referred to yesterday by his colleague, the Minister for Finance ( Mr Dawkins). Secondly, I sought from the honourable gentleman an assurance that there would be total consistency of treatment. The honourable gentleman must be aware of some publicity being given to assessments which are about to be sent out or which have been sent out to some former shareholders in two public companies in Western Australia. There have been some suggestions that some of the people receiving those assessments or likely to receive them derived no financial benefit, as alleged. I do not, on the basis of the Deputy Commissioner 's letter, contest that that was the case in relation to Coomel Pty Ltd. In those circumstances I would have thought that it was wholly reasonable and proper, entirely unobjectionable and not in any way impugning the integrity of the Commissioner of Taxation to seek an assurance of consistency of treatment. I have a high regard for Mr O'Reilly. He was a faithful servant of the former Government and I am sure he will be a faithful and proper servant of the present Government. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —I would like to respond to that point. There is an implication that there is a ministerial discretion-- Mr SPEAKER —Does the Treasurer claim to have been misrepresented? Mr KEATING —I claim to have been similarly misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —I call the Treasurer. Mr KEATING —The implication is that there is a discretion available to me, that in some way I direct the behaviour of the Commissioner of Taxation. That is not the point. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said that I misrepresented him, and then went on to say that he wants to ensure that total consistency is applied, when he knows as well as anyone in this House knows that that is applied by the Commissioner of Taxation. I just wanted to make that point. Assent to the following Bills reported: Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1983 Dairy Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill 1983 Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill 1983 Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The threat to employment, investment and development in Australia's resource industries posed by the Government's continuing failure to reach agreement on uranium policy. 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 ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(2.53) —The performance of the Government on its uranium policy can only be compared with a third rate circus. The Parliament and the nation have sat unhappily through almost every act, watching the Government perform. Faction fighting has made several appearances. Caucus manoeuvres have been booed outside and various ideological positions have been trotted unconvincingly around the ring. Up on the high wire several Ministers have given mediocre displays of tricky footwork and, of course, on the floor around the ring we have seen the left wing going through its usual ritual. But even after seven months of rehersal, the act is not yet ready to open. The ringmaster seems to be losing control of the whole situation. The whole shoddy, tired, dull show is not yet ready for the public. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Government's handling of uranium policy is pathetic. It has made the Australian people and nation the laughing stock of the world. To the outside world it seems impossible that a country as rich in resources as ours should be fumbling with the potential opportunities we have. The Government has endangered the future of an industry worth billions of dollars to this country. Its export earnings are tremendously important and the opportunities are there to provide thousands more jobs for people, if the Government could get on with the job and make a proper decision. In the process of turning procrastination into an art form, the Government has raised questions about its commitment to the resource industries and its ability to decide policies on them, the implications of which spread much wider than just the uranium industry. The urgency of this matter of public importance has been underlined by the fact that this week the Government has once again ducked its responsibilities to make some decision on the issue. The whole question has reportedly been removed from the Cabinet arena. The far reaching debate on uranium policy which the Government has promised over and over again has been postponed yet again. Whatever the reasons-and ministerial staff have a variety of reasons; even that there is an election in Queensland-this shows nothing more than the spineless leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in failing to face up to the important decisions that must be made regarding the Australian uranium industry. It is more and more obvious that the Government is simply incapable of reaching sensible agreement on this issue. It is more and more likely that the Prime Minister, whose proposals for the industry I applaud, as far as they go, will have to eat his words, or at least some of them. What is happening is what I have always believed would happen. Those sensible members of the Australian Labor Party who recognise the realities of the nuclear industry and the world's need for our uranium in order to generate electricity are finding that as each day passes their opponents grow stronger, and pressure on the Labor Party mounts to appease the extremists and to roll the Prime Minister in the process. Let us look at what has been happening. On 2 September, the Prime Minister said to the Business Council of Australia: As far as our Government is concerned, the Federal Government and the Government of South Australia, the Roxby development is going ahead and nothing is going to stop that. Of course, in this House on 21 September the Prime Minister pulled back a little . He said: When I spoke to the Business Council of Australia I expressed my belief as to what would happen. It is still my belief. Of course, it is a matter for discussion. Those discussions drag on and we seem to be no closer to any conclusion. My concern about what that conclusion might be was heightened yesterday by the reported comments of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) to Caucus. The Labor Party has always had to concede that the final word on any decision rests with Caucus. But it has appeared likely that the Cabinet would go to Caucus with a firm decision, a unanimous view. That is the way things normally happen; Cabinet makes a recommendation to the party room and the party room either accepts it or rejects it. But that sort of sensible approach does not seem to be applying. Responding yesterday to repeated questions from one of his colleagues in the Caucus, the Deputy Prime Minister is reported as saying that Cabinet Ministers would have a free vote in Caucus. This meant that whatever Cabinet decided its members would be free to take a different decision outside Cabinet. That has all the potential that one could imagine for divisions within the Government, a so- called government of unity and solidarity. It is also a clear signal that the Deputy Prime Minister was aware of increasing heat being applied to Cabinet Ministers on this issue. In the event, the Deputy Prime Minister was overruled by the Prime Minister. But the Deputy Prime Minister has been overruled before, on the issue of authority to negotiate new contracts. He was proved right in the end because he did get his way. Maybe he will be proved right in what he said yesterday in the Caucus room, that Cabinet Ministers would have the right of a free vote. Again, it highlights the utter division, confusion and uncertainty that rests within the Government. I said earlier that I applauded the stand taken by the Prime Minister as far as it went. He has supported the development of Roxby Downs and so do I. He supported the approval of new contracts for Ranger and Nabarlek and so do I. Neither the Prime Minister, nor his colleagues, have openly supported the development of further mines, notably Jabiluka, Koongarra and Yeelirrie, and I regret that. He has not yet accepted the unassailable logic of the fact that uranium from Roxby is no different from uranium from the other three mines that are urgently awaiting approval to go ahead. To the Prime Minister and those in his Party who share his view that under such pressure at the moment it would be difficult to support these projects I say it is disappointing. As I said, the Government's decisions do not go far enough but, of course, we are delighted to see that within the Labor Party there are people such as the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) who, in writing to his colleagues on 5 October, expressed my views precisely when he said: It is my belief that the left has allowed itself to become an irrational blancmange, quivering in whatever mould the middle-class trendies have chosen to pour it. Equally, I support his statement that: There is an abundant world supply of uranium: if we do not get into this market we can have no effect on uranium at all. Failure to supply our uranium will not stop one bomb or one nuclear reactor being built. That is really good stuff. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie-I do not think he could have put it better-continued: We need a policy of leadership, a policy of development and policy which will enable us to be heard in the world forums and ensure that nuclear energy is used only for peaceful purposes. That is great. That is exactly what we on this side of the House have been saying for years. It is good to see that there are some outspoken, frank, sensible people within the Government. Views such as these were also reported in the interdepartmental committee report on uranium policy circulated to all government members and senators with the backing of the Prime Minister on 11 October. I believe that this paper is a lighthouse in the current confusion over uranium and I have a great deal of praise for those who compiled it as well as for the Prime Minister for circulating it. Mr Milton —It is a bit one-sided. Mr ANTHONY —The honourable member said that it is one-sided. He will not accept the work of the Government's technical people who understand there issues far better. The Prime Minister has asked for the advice of various government departments. A well documented, intellectual, conclusive submission was prepared and what do we see? There is division within the Prime Minister's own Party with some members wanting to sabotage the industry. The report is long and detailed. It is a little too long for me to quote at length this afternoon but I am sure that members on both sides of the House would have studied it closely. I will, however, remind the House of some of its conclusions. On page 5, for example, the report states: . . . Australia's rejection of the nuclear fuel cycle, while possible, would be unlikely to improve its capacity to advance the cause of non-proliferation. At best it might be seen abroad as a quixotic act. More realistically, given Australia's reputation as one of the 'white knights' of non-proliferation, such a step would be likely to be seen as a vote of no-confidence in the international non-proliferation regime based on the NPT, and thus counter- productive of the Government's efforts in regard to disarmament which ascribe a central importance to the NPT. It could also have serious consequences for Australia's position as a supplier of other commodities. I ask honourable members to note the words 'serious consequences for the supply of other commodities'. I hope the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade takes those words fully aboard. They are not my words; they come from a report which has the Prime Minister's backing. What the report says is exactly what the Liberal and National parties have been saying for a long time. Many other sections of the report could be quoted but I refer now to only one other dealing , again, with non-proliferation and our international reputation. On page 23 the report states: . . . Australia's withdrawal as a supplier of uranium from the international nuclear fuel cycle (whether immediately or by phase-out) would represent a vote of no-confidence in the international non-proliferation regime, and could undermine its reputation as a responsible and reliable economic partner, particularly since such action would affect the perceived long-term energy needs of recipient countries. Again I stress that these are not my words; they come from a report which has been backed by the Prime Minister and I congratulate him for it. But those quotations and the rest of the report are simply saying that if Labor's uranium policy was ever implemented Australia would be contributing to a greater risk of nuclear war, its international name would be mud, and all its major mineral exports would suffer as a consequence. Today what do we see? We see a great demonstration in front of Parliament House and pressure being put on Labor members. We know that these are professional protesters in front of Parliament House. They appear on every environmental issue around Australia. We know that ultimately the Labor Party will always bow to the pressures of these people. It is a tragedy that the Labor Party takes such notice of this sort of element when such big issues are at stake, such as jobs, development and Australia's reputation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(3.08) —I came into the House today thinking I would have to answer a real and solid contribution in this matter of public importance. Oppositions members interjecting- Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is always a strange thing that when we start to have a debate in this Parliament we can never get anywhere because of the cacophony of interjections that seem to drown out what we are trying to say. The matter of public importance refers to the development of Australia's resources and the threat to those resources. I accept the view that the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) has a new speech writer because the preamble to his speech was a little different but the content was as light as ever. We had a debate on this matter a few weeks ago. Significantly, I think it took place at the time when one of our Caucus committees was discussing the matter. If we can arrange another discussion in a fortnight's time perhaps another matter of public importance will be put forward on how the Labor Party is going on the question of uranium development. I think the right honourable member, who is trying to interject, ought to be thankful that he is off the air. We might discuss what he could have done and what he failed to do in the years he was in government and why it is that we are now left with a legacy of mismanagement of resources. That is the real issue. It is no good the right honourable member telling everybody in the House what he thinks happened in Caucus yesterday. That is of no consequence to the nation. Mr Peacock —You are not fair dinkum, Lionel. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I happen to be fair dinkum on this issue. I do not know where the Opposition got those reports that I would suggest something different to the Caucus and that Cabinet would not be able to do what it wanted to do. I was asked a perfectly intelligent question as to whether there would be a debate in the Caucus. I said: 'Yes, of course there will be a debate in the Caucus.' I wonder whether the joint coalition parties ever have a debate on anything. They are two separate parties. Mr Peacock —We have joint meetings every week. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not know what they discuss at them. We never read about them. The National Party has always been allowed to control resource development . I say that to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). That has probably been the Liberal Government's greatest mistake. Mr Peacock —Rubbish. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable gentleman says rubbish. Let me try to get some of the rubbish out to him. Mr Howard —Who is the spokesman on trade and resources? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is no problem. If the honourable gentleman just lets me get in my few minutes he can have his later. Mr Peacock —Doug Anthony has been the best Trade Minister this country has had. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think we have a better one now but that is a matter of ego. I admit that there were bona fides in the intention but it is the results that matter. When we look at what has happened in the area of resource development we find an enormous amount of too much foreign ownership, control and domination. One does not mind intelligent investment but when one comes to this issue of proliferation of resources with no markets one must seriously question what happened to the former Government's philosophy. In the number of years that the former Government was in charge mines of all descriptions were opened up for bauxite, coal, iron ore and certainly uranium. The markets are not there, nor were they ever there. Mr Anthony —So you would like to close some of them down? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, I cannot. But I will tell the right honourable gentleman what will happen. The Japanese will close down a few of them for us. Mr Anthony —But you would like to? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No. They will close them down because the Liberal-National Party Government was silly enough to allow them to open. Prices are now so low that the Japanese will say: 'We will not be able to offer you what it costs'. The former Minister has a counterpart in Queensland-- Mr Anthony —Are you going to control the situation? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am glad that the right honourable gentleman is interjecting. I ask him to keep it up. He has a counterpart in Queensland-Mr Bjelke-Petersen. Has the right honourable gentleman ever had a look at what the Premier did to resource development from the point of view of freight rates and port charges? I happen to have before me the matter of Oaky Creek. The right honourable member for Richmond would be interested in Oaky Creek as he was anxious to get it open. That mine is having a lot of trouble being competitive. I am advised that 50 per cent of its operating costs relate to rail and port charges. The former Government did not hesitate to sock the mines at a State level, yet members of the Opposition are talking about resource development. Mr Anthony —You are going to put a resources tax on now, are you? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No. We are not putting any special taxes on these mines. In fact the way these special charges are going the mines would not have any income left to pay them. Mr Peacock —No resources tax on now? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No. I said that we would not put any special charges on them. The Leader of the Opposition's hearing is not acute either; that is the other difficulty. Let me come to the point of resource development, particularly uranium. I do not quite know whether the right honourable member for Richmond really wants to talk about resources, the Caucus or the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke ). Let us talk about uranium because he did give it one little mention. The two mines that are now in operation-we went through this matter a few weeks ago but the right honourable gentleman could not quite understand-have reserves of 100, 000 tonnes of uranium not yet sold. The right honourable member for Richmond talked about Roxby Downs. Mr Anthony —Not yet mined? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Some of them are mined. They are all able to be mined. The right honourable gentleman did not even want to accept that last time. He did not know about it but it was within his knowledge and competence. So 100,000 tonnes of uranium is not yet sold. That uranium will take some years to sell. That is the position. The existing contracts will go until 1996. There are no worries about those contracts. But the question, of course is: Why is it that people such as those outside this Parliament and elsewhere, including the Australian Democrats which are led by a former distinguished colleague of honourable members opposite-a former Minister of liberal philosophy-are so concerned about what can happen if there is proliferation and diversion to weapons? That is the legitimate issue and argument in this democracy. It is legitimate because there are 50,000 nuclear weapons now. The right honourable member, because of his former Government's past policy, would not know whether any part of Australia's uranium was diverted to weapons. Apart from the question of general development or what might be termed the abdication of the Fox suggestion of sequential development, which the former Government would not even tolerate, the question now relates to the control of reprocessing and high level waste disposal. The right honourable member, in all his speeches in this House, has never been able to talk about his ability to control reprocessing and high level waste disposal. He abdicated the whole field . The demonstrations we witness outside this Parliament and across Europe are not related to electricity generation. They are related to what can happen if things go wrong from the point of view of nuclear weapons by diversion in the reprocessing cycle, or pollution with high level waste disposal. One of the things we have to do is talk about safeguards. We are going to try to strengthen them. We will have to go back to the people with whom the former Minister negotiated contracts and gave away his control over the fuel cycle. He gave away the right to consent of reprocessing in advance. Does the right honourable member for Richmond approve of the French exploding nuclear weapons in the Pacific? I ask him to answer that question. Mr Anthony —No, I don't. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The right honourable gentleman says that he does not. Of course this is the concern of a legitimate Australian government. If the French are so anxious to use uranium for nuclear weapons and that is their sole purpose, why should they take our uranium? Does the right honourable gentleman think Australians approve of that? Does he think Australians approve of the fact that the Japanese are likely to dump quantities of Australian uranium and high level waste into the Pacific? Would he approve of that? Mr Anthony —No. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, he would not. What is he doing about it? We are getting to a stage where, if I only had another 20 minutes, the right honourable gentleman would come over to this side of the chamber and join us. I cannot understand his extraordinary lack of policy. For these very reasons we have to go into a legitimate argument and discussion as to how we will be able to make a safe contribution to the world as a result of the uranium that the former Government has already committed to contracts. That is the position. Not one job has been lost under our policy. But one wonders how many risks the former Minister's policies created for the world. The Leader of the National Party comes into this chamber and berates the Soviet Union but he had no compunction in letting it enrich the uranium that was sold to Finland. He has had no compunction either at the fact that the Soviets will be reprocessing that uranium. If he is so worried about the concept of nuclear weapons would he not at least have considered controlling that cycle? The real issue as I have told the Leader of the National Party time and time again is that he has no policies. If I said to him 'Will you take back the high level waste disposal enrichment?', he would run. He would not be prepared even to argue the issue. If I suggested to the right honourable gentleman that he talks about what he wants to do with an intelligent uranium policy he would want to dig it out of the ground in its raw state, flog it at the minimum price and let foreign ownership and control get the benefit. One mine is 100 per cent owned by the Canadians; we do not even own one cent of it. I have all the troubles in the world trying to tell Pancontinental Mining Ltd that it did not get any approval when apparently it is relying on telephone conversations and telexes in which the former Minister indicated that he might give approval. It is no good for the Leader of the National Party to come into this chamber and say that he is very concerned about the failure of the Labor Caucus to come to a decision. It will come to a decision on the matter. The decision will be in accordance with legitimate democratic discussions. I must say to members of the Liberal Party opposite that they ought to take a good serious look at what they will do with the resources in this country if they continue to leave them to be developed and exploited by what is called the National Party. It is not a national party. It is in only a few States. The National Party never even contests enough seats to be a government of this nation. All that it is given is second position. It is about time we looked at that second position. We must not give away ownership, control and management of resources. They should take those things under their own wing and do something for Australia. That will be important. But they have this cowboy approach of 'We will shoot from the hip. It will be okay if we hit something but it does not matter as we still have the cattle and the sheep and we will try to sell a bit of sugar'. That is fine. But what about resource development, employment and all the other matters that relate to it? I make the point that we have not lost one job under our uranium policy. The issue for us is to try to amend the gaps that the former Government left in the so-called policy that it created. The former Government not only left the Ranger and Nabarlek mines with 100,000 tonnes of uranium unsold, but also within a short time it gave approval for another four mines to come on stream. I do not know how those mines were going to sell their uranium. They do not know either. But the former Government gave them approval. The right honourable member for Richmond never gave approval for Roxby Downs, the mine he mentioned, but it has 1.2 million tonnes in reserve. Let us look at this situation calmly. Let us look at what are deemed to be the peaceful uses of energy resources needs. Australian uranium will have a market about the end of the 1980s and certainly into the 1990s but not now. It is important that if we enter this fuel cycle-that is a matter for the Australian people to determine-we do it on the basis that we control the reprocessing and the disposal of high level waste. It is only on that score that we can give a guarantee that there will be no diversion to nuclear weapons. The previous Government could have done that at all stages. If it was really interested in the development of uranium mining the Opposition would not be wondering about who is to enrich uranium and who is to reprocess it. It does not give a damn about what happens in regard to the disposal of high level waste. That is the Opposition's policy. If it had been concerned it would not have abdicated its reponsibility by giving away in advance the consent for reprocessing or the transfer from one country to another. Its interest has been development at the minimum level-that is, digging it up out of the ground and exporting it. The world is very conscious of the situation. The International Energy Agency meets quite frequently and discusses the problems of the world. It recognises that the previous safeguards have not been good enough. It recognises that a number of countries have got under the gateway of protection and have created weapons. Any guerrilla group can get the technology for nuclear weapons. Mr Peacock —It is the IAEA, not the IEA. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The IAEA; I am sorry if I said anything different. I meant the International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA is very concerned. One of the matters about which it is concerned is what is called the plutonium cycle. It does not know how to control that cycle, which comes about because of the reprocessing position. Mr Anthony —You are forcing them into the position. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —They have to go to the plutonium cycle, if we take notice of world experts. The important point is this: Next time the right honourable member comes in with a matter of public importance he should address his mind to where his Government failed, why there has been no uranium policy, why he did nothing about protecting Australia's interests, why he gave away in advance the question of reprocessing and other safeguards control, and why he did nothing about the proliferation into nuclear weapons. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(3.22) —I rise to support my colleague the right honourable member for Richmond and Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) on this matter of public importance. As a new member and as one with some regard for the Leader of the House, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen), I was disappointed to find that he had so little to say in refuting and rebutting what the right honourable member for Richmond argued. The dilemma that we on this side of the House face is that we do not claim to have a monopoly on wisdom in respect of the debate on uranium. We have a respect for all points of view. The frustration I face is that those who oppose this point of view seem to regard themselves as having a monopoly on morality. Whether it is the circus on the front lawn of Parliament House-the protest-by-tent that is occurring there-or the debate in this House, those who oppose what is happening in relation to uranium mining regard themselves as having a monopoly on morality. They have fostered misconceptions about the uranium mining industry in the belief that what they say is absolutely right. They have dared to suggest that we on this side of the House favour the development of the industry simply to curry the favour of mining magnates. From a moral point of view, I support the development of the uranium industry because I am concerned for my children's future. The honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman) was anxious to tell us that we are motivated only by greed. Let me say that our motivation has nothing to do with the acquisition of more dollars. It has to do only with the very moral stance that results from being aware of the fact that if the world continues to use energy at its present rate it will simply run out. It is not a matter of asking: 'How can we improve the standard of living of Australians?' It is a matter of asking: 'What are we going to do for the standard of living of the rest of the world?' If we are to give the standard of living we have to the depleted Third World we will need a good deal more energy resources than we currently have available. Mr Chynoweth —How can they pay for power stations? Mr ANDREW —The honourable member interjects about price. Let us see which sort of energy generation is cheapest. In the 1970s the world's populaton passed the 4,000 million mark. By the year 2000 it will reach 6,000 million. That extra 2, 000 million people will be principally in underdeveloped, Third World countries. In Great Britain coal consumption amounts to 150 tonnes per person in a lifetime . If, instead they consumed that energy equivalent in nuclear form they would require only 90 grams, or three ounces, of uranium. The simple, inescapable fact is that our energy reserves will not last beyond 40 years for oil and perhaps 300 years for coal. For all that has been said by the Government about pollution , we need to bear in mind that if we commit ourselves to a coal-burning future we will commit ourselves to a form of energy which is potentially more pollution -causing than is uranium. Mr Steedman —We have many more policies. Mr ANDREW —Let us not talk about morality. We have to face the simple fact that we are challenged to be stewards of the energy reserves that we have at our disposal. The only way we can effectively hope to provide energy for future generations is to recognise the enormous potential energy generation of uranium. We are talking about mining a naturally occurring substance in the earth. In fact we are talking about mining what is an integral part of nature. The sun, might I remind honourable members opposite, is a natural nuclear reactor. The universe is fundamentally dependent on nuclear reactions, without which it would be devoid of life, warmth and light. Yet those opposite have had the audacity to create the impression that the words 'radioactive', 'nuclear fission' and ' plutonium' are the work of the devil. Let me remind honourable members opposite that, from the day man first decided to till anything, to create a meal or build a house for himself, he had in some way to change his environment. The enthusiasm and the self-righteousness of the evangelical do-gooders opposite have done nothing effective in my State of South Australia but have closed down the Honeymoon plant and Beverley mines. I challenge the Leader of the House to tell me how he can claim that not one job has been lost when 30 or 40 jobs in South Australia have been lost as a result of the uncertainty that closed the Honeymoon development. In the Honeymoon development in South Australia, situated in the seat of Grey, a $10m pilot plant which has just been completed has been put on ice. The Honeymoon plant had been the subject of an environmental impact study. A committee had looked at the impact of the Honeymoon plant and the project on the underground water aquifers, and it had been pronounced safe and okay to go ahead. The Leader of the House has the audacity to say that not one job has been lost when in reality, as a result of the Honeymoon development being put on ice, 30 or 40 jobs in South Australia have been lost. The plant that was being brought into action is now in a care and maintenance state. The replaceable plant that the company brought in has been sold off because it does not know where it can go with this uranium development. Honourable members should ask: What does the Mayor of Port Pirie-the Australian Labor Party Mayor of Port Pirie-say about the potential of uranium enrichment in South Australia? He is in favour, but the development he hoped would happen in his town is now uncertain because of the vacillation of the Government. What about the billion dollar URENCO uranium enrichment plant proposed for either South Australia or Queensland, using Syntec technology? As a result of the Federal Government's uncertainty the development of that plant is now in limbo. In my own State all mineral exploration has been scaled down because those committed to exploration do not know what the result of the exploration will be or whether they will get approval for whatever projects they believe ought to go ahead. How do we measure the effect on unemployment of the scaling down of those potential projects? Job creation in South Australia has gone thanks to the vacillation of the Federal Labor Government. The development door in South Australia-particularly in mining-which had been flung wide open by the Tonkin Government has been banged shut by the uncertainty of the Hawke Government. No one on this side of the House would deny that there are risks in mining uranium. No one would deny that there are risks in any form of development. The simple fact, statistically proven, is that there are fewer risks in mining uranium than there are in mining any of the alternative energy forms. The alternative to taking the Government's course, the alternative to scaling down our mining industry is to hand it over lock, stock and barrel to the Canadians, the South Africans or the Namibians. Are honourable members opposite going to suggest to me that the Namibians are more likely to be positive or firm in the way in which they ensure that the uranium mined in their country is monitored than we are likely to be? We have heard all the hue and cry about the possibility of the Japanese dumping uranium waste. Of course we do not approve of it. But the reality is that if we do not mine our uranium they will still dump uranium waste wherever they choose. Our best chance for monitoring what happens to uranium is to be the world's major supplier. We have the potential. That potential is being lost by the vacillation of the Government. Until the blancmange opposite freezes we will not know where we are going. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(3.33) — The history of the Liberal and National parties on this issue of uranium and the nuclear industry is quite appalling. It is marked by confusion, ignorance, indecision and lack of direction. We need only to look at the history of the National Party and some of the statements made by the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) on employment to see how confused and ignorant that Party is on the position with relation to employment. Some five years ago, in 1978, this man who claims to know so much about the nuclear industry predicted that 500,000 jobs would be created in Australia in the nuclear industry. At present 450 jobs are involved in the nuclear industry in the Northern Territory. Of course the Northern Territory has the only operating mine in Australia. It is a far step from 500,000 jobs. That is the level of the right honourable member's knowledge of the employment prospects of the nuclear industry. On 6 July last year when he was the then Minister for Trade and Resources he spoke about the Pancontinental Mining Ltd development at Jabiluka. He said on 6 July 1982 that that project would create directly 700 jobs. Just three weeks later, at the opening of the Jabiru township-when he was talking about the same Jabiluka mine, the same project, the figure had dropped to 540 jobs. He lost 160 jobs in three weeks. That is the level of his knowledge about the prospects of employment in the nuclear industry. There is just ignorance and confusion. Let us look at trade. I have a letter from the Managing Director of Pancontinental. He talks about the record of the previous Government and the Korean contract and says: The Korean saga is a good example of the negative attitude of Government. He is talking about the Liberal-National Party Government, the Government that had the gung ho approach to the nuclear industry. He says: Some time ago, Queensland Mines entered into a negotiation with Korea Electric Power Corporation. Commercial terms were agreed between the parties and as such were satisfactory to both buyer and seller. However, the Australian Government refused to accept the pricing conditions contained in this agreement and the Korea Electric Power Corporation purchased the uranium from elsewhere. That is the level of the certainty of the Liberal and National parties' policy on trade in uranium. In a letter to me on 26 September this year concerning Pancontinental's attempts to negotiate contracts, Mr Grey said: The source of the misapprehension may be that we were active in the market place in the sense of contacting utilities, but we were not negotiating. He is talking about July last year. He continues: While sometime earlier-- That is, before July- we were given permission to negotiate sales contracts subject to final government approval, sufficient uncertainty remained as to preclude negotiations actually taking place. He is talking about the National-Liberal Party Government, the parties that now claim to have this certainty of policy about uranium and the nuclear industry, this gung ho policy. Confusion exists in the National-Liberal Parties about policy in this area. I have scoured the policy of the Liberal Party to see if I could find one mention of the nuclear industry or of the word 'uranium' and it is not there. It does not even mention uranium or the nuclear industry. Honourable members opposite come in here and talk about it being such a great bonanza for the Australian economy. They should go through their own policy document to see if they can find one mention of the words 'uranium' or 'nuclear industry'. There is not one mention of them. The National Party, to its credit, has at least mentioned the nuclear industry. It says: Development of Australia's uranium reserves to meet world demand, subject to high standards of safety and peaceful use in accordance with international obligations. I repeat that it states: 'Development of Australia's uranium reserves to meet world demand'. As the Leader of the National Party well knows, world demand for uranium has collapsed. Even on the most optimistic predictions it will not improve until about the end of this decade. Mr Anthony —Why is the price going up? Mr REEVES —The right honourable member says that the price is going up. That shows his ignorance on the issue. The price dropped to $17 a pound. It has gone up to $21 a pound or $23 a pound. It is still about $2 a pound below what it was three years ago. Mr Anthony —It is going up. Mr REEVES —Sure it is going up by $1 or $2 a pound but it has to get up to $35 a pound before it meets any floor price policy. The price is not going up; that is the situation. Dr Tony Owen, who is lecturer at the Centre of Applied Economic Research at the University of New South Wales, produced a paper on the future of the uranium export market. This is what he had to say in his paper: The supply of uranium is already exceeding demand and will continue to do so for at least another decade. . . . . . . . annual world production of uranium exceeds consumption by more than 50 p. c. and much of the excess has gone into stockpiles. The prospects for the uranium supply industry appear to be poor until the turn of the century, unless the rate of growth of electricity demand in the OECD countries returns to its pre-oil crisis levels. Even if this occurred, technological advances could reduce the demand for uranium. The uranium market in the '80s and early '90s is likely to be characterised by oversupply and price stagnation. Those are the views of one very eminent commentator who has done a lengthy study on the issue of the future of the uranium market until the year 2000. He says that it will be characterised by over- supply and price stagnation. Let us look at what Pancontinental, the company which is supposed to create this big bonanza in Jabiluka in the Northern Territory, is reported as saying in July 1982: But the company itself acknowledges that prices are too low to ensure that new mines meet demand on the mid-1980s. Over-production in the past has created stockpiles which will take years to deplete. Even the company acknowledges that it will not be able to get the contracts necessary to start the so-called bonanza, the Jabiluka mine, in the foreseeable future. In August this year the Eighth Annual Uranium Symposium was held in London. That Symposium was addressed by Mr Mike Townsend, who is the head of the British Civil Uranium Procurement Organization, an arm of the Central Electricity Generating Board in England. This is a symposium of the nuclear industry, not an anti-nuclear group. He is reported in the Mining Journal of 2 September 1983 as follows: He readily acknowledged that since 1970, supply-demand forecasts for the industry have, on face value, been extremely inaccurate. Indeed, during this 13 year period, production has been far in excess of consumption, for most of the time by at least 50%. With the benefit of hindsight, it was evident that this situation was brought about by a combination of misconception and design. The report continued: The world recession and the severe financial restraints on the vulnerable nuclear construction programme were not properly appreciated until quite recently. Thus, forecasts of installed nuclear capacity made since 1979 have shown a dramatic decline to the extent that the capacity for 1990 (as forecast in 1979) is now unlikely to be achieved until around the turn of the century. Cancellations and delays in new generating capacity (particularly in the US) have markedly reduced anticipated consumption. The article went on: If inventories are not used to fulfil any requirements and if there is no over- production from existing mines, then new mine production facilities might be required in 10 years time. I repeat-in 10 years time. The article stated further: However, in the event of a more widespread redistribution of inventories, increased production from existing facilities and . . . capacity, then additional new production capacity might not be needed until 1995. Here we have the Liberal and National parties telling us that we should open up all these mines. A member of the nuclear industry in the United Kingdom says that new mines will not be needed until 1990 at the very earliest and it is most likely that they will not be needed until 1995, and that the current oversupply situation will not reverse itself until the end of the century, which is some 17 years away. Of course, the Leader of the National Party would not be able to count that far because, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) observed yesterday, the numeracy of the Leader of the National Party does not go beyond 10; he wears shoes. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I present the 204th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr CADMAN —The 204th Report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts is an examination of the expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance under the Appropriation Acts for 1981-82. The Advance to the Minister for Finance is a provision authorised by the annual Appropriation Acts and made available to the Minister. In 1981-82 amounts of $125m and $100m were provided for this purpose in Appropriation Acts Nos 1 and 2 respectively. The only amounts which should remain a charge to the appropriations for the Advance to the Minister for Finance at the end of the financial year are urgent and unforeseen expenditures which arise between the time of preparation of the additional Appropriation Bills Nos 3 and 4 and the close of the financial year. In its examination the Committee seeks to ascertain whether or not expenditure from the Advance has been confined to urgent and unforeseeable requirements for which provision could not have been made in the original or additional Estimates . The Committee has required departments to submit explanations for all items of expenditure. As from 1982-83 copies of all departmental applications for funds from the Advance which will remain a final charge to the Advance at 30 June are forwarded by the Department of Finance to the Committee as soon as possible after approval is granted. We expect to complete our examination of the use of the Advance in 1982-83 before the House rises. For 1981-82 the Committee received 118 explanations for items included in the then Minister's statement in August 1982. Supplementary written information was obtained in respect of 11 items and one item only, 'Government Printer-Loss on Operations', was selected for public inquiry. The operations of the Government Printing Office are funded from the Government Printer Trust Account. The Committee found that: The financial statements on the Government Printer's operations are not required to be published and are not subject to Commonwealth audit; and a loss on operations of $312,989 was sustained because of a reduction in parliamentary work, industrial disputes, quotes for certain jobs at lower than established rates, three national wage decisions being given instead of two as expected and insufficient work being directed to the Government Printer. The Committee also found that: The Government Printer experiences considerable difficulty in matching capacity with work loads; the Printing Office is unable to operate in the way a commercial printer would; and some accounts rendered by the Government Printer on client departments have remained unpaid for over 12 months. The Committee noted with concern that there were no formal written objectives for the Government Printing Office and that the charter of responsibilities being formulated over the last three years had not been completed. The Committee also found difficulties with financial management and accountability of the Government Printer's operations and aspects of its relations with client departments. The Committee responded by recommending that: First, the financial statements on the Government Printer's operations be made subject to Commonwealth audit as a matter of urgency-I note that the Auditor- General tabled a report on the Government Printing Office on 6 September this year; Secondly, a review of the financial management information systems be conducted urgently; thirdly, an urgent review be undertaken of the Government Printer's billing and accounts receivable systems; and, fourthly, the requirements departments must follow in procuring printing are to be stated in unequivocal terms. Inspection mechanisms should also be in place to ensure that the requirements are observed. In connection with the relationship between the Government Printer and its clients, the Committee is extremely critical of delays in the payment of accounts by client departments, which contribute to the inefficiency of the Government Printer's operations. The Committee again reminds all departments of their obligations, as set out in finance regulations and directions, to pay accounts promptly. The Committee considers that in view of the important role played by the Government Printer in meeting the Parliament's printing requirements, it is imperative that the Government Printer's viability be assured. A permanent head is responsible for the efficient management of his department's resources and is therefore required to obtain the best value for money in meeting his printing requirements. The Committee supports the examination of the funding options which aim to enhance the competitiveness of the Government Printer and thereby attract the necessary fill-in, non- parliamentary work. Following an examination of supplementary information the Committee is satisfied that in most cases the expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance in 1981-82 was confined to urgent and unforeseeable requirements for which provision could not have been made in the Appropriation Acts. The Committee has also taken note of comments by the Auditor-General at paragraph 20 .2 of his May 1983 report. The Auditor-General points to the possibility that departments avoid recourse to the Advance by deferring payment of due amounts. The Committee would regard this action as totally unacceptable in that it could not only result in avoidance of proper parliamentary scrutiny but also is contrary to finance directions. It is imperative that the Commonwealth is seen to be a prompt payer of its bills. I commend the report to honourable members. [COGNATE BILL: MIGRATION AMENDMENT (EMIGRATION OF CERTAIN CHILDREN) BILL 1983] Debate resumed. Mr ADERMANN(Fisher)(3.49) —I continue the remarks I was making earlier on the Family Law Amendment Bill. I will recap some of the points I made that I felt were important. A number of the amendments in this Bill deal with functions of registrars, deputy registrars and the pool of judges. Indeed, some of the amendments proposed by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) touch on this area also. I am not academically qualified to comment seriously on those sorts of functions and procedures and I do not intend to take the House's time when others more skilled in and conversant with legal procedures can present their observations and opinions and give us guidance on such internal court matters. But with regard to the expansion of jurisdiction concerning children I do make some observations. This matter should be considered most carefully by all of us because it is the children of the marriage who are the real sufferers, the real casualties of broken and bitter homes. Divorce so often not only scars their childhood and childhood security and happiness but also diminishes their prospects of marital happiness and security in the future. They are pulled this way and that. Loyalties are confused and divided and their legacy is so often unhappiness, nervous breakdown and health disorders. The Family Law Act is allegedly designed to apply the best solution, unfortunately, to the problem of people who enter marriage lightly and wantonly, produce children with irresponsible abandon, and with little compassion cast them adrift to struggle with the consequences and the bitterness of a shattered home and a shattered environment. It must be our earnest endeavour to solve that situation. Whatever the merits of the amendments in this sphere we are still doomed to disappointment and failure unless we go back to taws and unless in our wisdom and compassion we can reinforce the whole structure of marriage. We must get right down to the fact that in the contemplation of and entrance into marriage there must be responsibility, sincerity and a real determination to make the marriage permanent, harmonious and rich. I agree that we are never going to achieve that by legislation. It is not practical or possible to legislate in all of these matters. But it does not hurt to propound that concept and principle all the time. I say again-I say this without any self-righteous intent-that those ideals are best enshrined in and attained by adherence to the Christian teachings and to the principles and values of marriage that are there contained. As we depart from those principles and precepts, focus our attention and consideration on the making of divorce easier and less complicated, protect more and more the anonimity of the process and abrogate completely any consideration of behaviour or fault, we sadly, even if not deliberately, erode marriage and the family. No matter what our intent, no matter how concerned we are to avoid the ugliness and rancour of the proceedings in court, every step we take along that road is another assault on the bastion of marriage. Because we have attempted to facilitate divorce and settlement procedures as marriage and family have been weakened in our society, we face the necessity, as these amendments recognise, to consider the children of the marriage. I sincerely believe that if counselling and conciliation become important and more effective we have some chance of reducing the child casualties. That is why I stressed that point earlier. In these matters of custody, however, we cannot ignore the fact that so much relies on other than pure matters of law. The judge has the unenviable task of making judgments and giving opinions on what is best for the children. That we sometimes receive criticism of decisions in individual cases is, I suppose, indicative of the formidable task and the tangle confronting the judge. If these amendments are aimed-with my legal expertise they seem to be-at enabling the judge and the Family Court of Australia greater capacity to consider the happiness and future of children, without being bound hand and foot by legal statute, I would not oppose them. It would be wrong to consider that invariably the mother or, for that matter, the father should have some superior right to custody. The amendments encompass step-children and foster children and extend the capacity of third parties, such as uncle or grandparent, to bring proceedings under the Act. If that proposal increases the capacity of the Court to have better jurisdiction to decide on the real best interests of the children , regardless of whether it goes far enough, it would not engender my opposition. In another place Senator Harradine put forward a number of amendments which seem to reflect a philosophy similar to that which I have expressed. Those amendments were not passed. It may appear to be only politicking for me to re- debate them in this House so I will not be doing that. But I appeal to the Government to not discard the points made by the Senator just because they were not Government proposals. The figures for divorce, children affected and the social cost which were spelt out should make us take pause and very seriously consider the situation. Whether it is while this Bill is before the House or subsequently, I ask the Government to ponder well the thrust of Senator Harradine's remarks. It may be that the precise wording of the Senator's amendments was not acceptable to the Government but I would be dismayed if the principles espoused in them and the values they represent were just summarily dismissed as being of no account. As it can be predicted that 40 per cent of new marriages will be dissolved and as the children from divorced partners have numbered hundreds of thousands since this Act became law, we are in a sorry situation which augurs a very sad and dismal future for our nation and our way of life. It is a situation which legislation, no matter how often we amend it, designed to facilitate quick, clean, no fault divorce and to set down rules for disposition of property and children, will never solve and will only marginally arrest. In this sort of legislation sadly we are just picking up the casualties after the tragedy. Unfortunately, we have to do those things. I cannot support fully all of the amendments contained in this Bill. I can support some of the intentions. Some of the thrusts of the legislation do not go far enough. I cannot comprehend or support some of the proposals for divorce in absentia. But I commend the Government and the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act, chaired by my colleague the honourable member for Dundas, for addressing one of the greatest problems civilisation and this nation face today. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(3.57) —Today the House is debating an important Bill, the Family Law Amendment Bill. I was somewhat concerned by the comments of the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann). Particularly, I reject his wide-sweeping remarks in relation to the children of a broken marriage. He talked of health disorders and nervous breakdowns. I am sure that these situation can arise in any family. We all know that they do arise in ordinary and happy families. We know people who have children who have had a series of mental illnesses. We know that this can happen anywhere. I think it is unfair, not productive and not positive to say that this arises out of divorce. I remind the honourable member that it was his Government that put one million people out of work in this country and made housing rates so dear that ordinary working men or women could not obtain a home of their own. Surely economic considerations cause strain and stress in marriage, just like a lot of other matters. What really concerned me about the honourable member for Fisher's remarks was perhaps his exaggeration when he said that many people come in to his office and say that they have been divorced, their property distributed and the custody of their children determined without their knowledge. That is either a fraud, which is a very serious crime, or a conspiracy. No one has ever come into my office and said that this has happened. Such a situation would mean that there had been false swearing of documents of service but, probably, I think that the honourable member was just a bit carried away with the occasion. What has probably happened is that some man who could not be found, who had left his children, wife and home and gone to another State, has discovered that he has been divorced. The whereabouts of this so-called caring spouse were not known and some order for service by advertisement in the Press or something like that would have been obtained. If that is not correct, I think the honourable member has a serious duty to go to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and place before him this so-called evidence he has of all these people who have found themselves divorced, their property gone and the custody of their children determined without their knowing. I reject his notion that people have to be dragged before the Family Court of Australia. I practised as a solicitor in Sydney for some years, but because of my religious beliefs-I believe in the indissolubility of marriage-I did not handle divorce cases. But in emergencies one gets involved in divorce matters as a solicitor acting as an agent for a country practitioner. Anyone who practised in Sydney from 1959 onwards, or who served in Parliament for that matter, would have a knowledge of the working of the Family Law Act, or what we used to call in the old days the Matrimonial Causes Act. Under the legislation before 1959 there were requirements in relation to counselling that were honoured more in the breach than in the observance. I will speak more about that later. All members of parliament who interview constituents-or perhaps even parents of constituents-who have difficulties with marriage breakdown, custody matters and property settlements, know that such matters are very distressing. They are matters in which we need a certain amount of sensitivity and calm. People become very agitated. It is always a very sad situation. Of course, a lot of water has passed under the bridge since 1959 when Sir Garfield Barwick introduced the concept of two years' separation before divorce and subsequently in 1975 the Attorney-General, Lionel Murphy, brought in the concept of no-fault divorce and one year's separation before a divorce. In this House divorce has always been a matter for the conscience of individual members of parliament, as it is today. This legislation, of course, does not actually touch on the grounds of divorce. I was concerned by one church paper in Sydney in which members of the Australian Labor Party were attacked because it was assumed that they would take the attitude described in the last line of the editorial which was: My party right or wrong. That is absolute rubbish. The Labor members of this House-as I am sure do the members of the Opposition-have a conscience vote on any matter that touches on the dissolution of marriage. But of course this legislation does not actually touch on that area. It deals with a number of matters arising from the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act several years ago which was chaired by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). Honourable members know that in canon law there are annulments, not just for a non-consummation of marriage but for marriage under duress, with a lack of free will. In the church, annulments are even granted on the basis that there is psychological inability to form a lasting, permanent relationship. But the Bill before the House has received publicity essentially because of the notion that is put of divorce by post. Several of the churches have communicated with me. They were concerned about this proposal. Having been in public life for some years, I was not familiar with the existing legislation dealing with divorce. I visited the Sydney Registry of the Family Law Court and was received with great courtesy. I had a long interview with the Registrar, a Mr Lee, who explained to me that there is divorce by post at present in a sense, and that any person who lives in the country or out of Sydney can lodge documents for a divorce by sending the documents to the nearest registry together with an amount of $125. So one can file one's divorce proceedings by post. Of course, about 99 per cent of the proceedings lodged in the Sydney Registry are undefended proceedings. The applicant's dissolution of marriage application is filed. After 42 days a return date is given and the matter is listed. If the service is accurate, if a proper affidavit of service is lodged and document has been served and acknowledged, the judge who is the list judge for the day proceeds to grant a divorce. The only issue that is before the judge under the existing legislation and the only issue that concerns the Court is whether there are children and, if there are, what arrangements have been made for the children. Under section 63 of the existing Family Law Act the judge has to make a declaration that he is satisfied with the arrangements for the children. If that is the case, the judge will pronouce a decree nisi and in one month that decree will become absolute. If the judge is unhappy about the arrangements for the children he pronounces the decree nisi but it does not become absolute until there is evidence before him that the arrangements are satisfactory. The Registrar explained to me that usually an applicant's solicitor appears in cases and that if no one appears the matter is struck out and cannot be relisted unless an affidavit is lodged explaining why no one turned up. The Registrar went on to say that in about 60 per cent of cases both parties turn up. So people who are unfortunately involved in a divorce are interested in the outcome of the proceedings and they attend the court, even though the proceedings are over in a few minutes. The Government is inserting an amendment into the Family Law Amendment Bill before the House today which will change the situation only where there are no children under the age of 18 years to a marriage. If there are no children to a marriage, neither party will have to have a day off work. No one will have to attend. But if one party objects, and says 'I want to attend', that is quite all right. It is allowed for in the Bill. He or she may still appear. However, the provision saves difficulties for people who live in the country. With the present job situation no one will suffer a loss of time or put their position at risk by having to come to Sydney for a hearing. Under the existing law people did not have to attend anyway. Only one of their solicitors had to be there, either the solicitor for the applicant or the solicitor for the defendant. There is a continuing need-it is of extreme importance-for the court to be satisfied that proper facilities exist and proper arrangements are being made for the custody of the children. It is important that positive steps be taken by Parliament if it is at all possible to save marriages. Perhaps there should be a select committee on the Marriage Act to reconsider the whole aspect of it. A select committee worked for some years on the divorce Bill, as it were. It may be in the interests of Parliament at this time, with the concern in the community about the incidence of divorce and the breakup of marriages, to have a select committee on marriage- a positive committee, a committee to prevent breakup. As I said earlier, it is not just incompatibility at all times. I believe that economic factors come into the crisis, such as the inability of people to obtain a home of their own, the stresses and strains of unemployment and all the other difficulties that arise for young couples. Provisions in the Bill are being highlighted to enforce counselling for anyone who is seeking a divorce and has not been married for two years. If a period of less than two years has expired from the date of the marriage it is essential before proceedings start that an applicant file documents concerning attemped reconciliation with reference to marriage counsellors and organisations which work in the area of family counselling. There is also provision in the legislation for a further strengthening of counselling or, as it is called, ' conciliation counselling', by the inclusion in the Bill of proposed new section 16A which stresses the obligation on legal practitioners to direct parties to proceedings to the existence of family counselling and all of the organisations that exist to help marriages remain viable. I noted that in another place Senator Harradine proposed various amendments related to counselling. I have read the amendments of my good friend, Senator Harradine, with interest. I noted also the rejection by the Attorney-General of these proposals because, in his opinion, although they related to compulsory counselling, they were not counselling at an appropriate time. It appears to me that Senator Harradine is harking back to the pre-1959 situation when it was essential merely to file documents to show that counselling had been attempted. In my experience this was a farce. Senator Harradine's proposal unfortunately appears to be a double farce. The parties to young marriages, as they are called , already have, and by this Bill will continue to have, an obligation to file documents concerning counselling, but if parties who have been married for at least two years are determined on a divorce they would have to undergo a very bitter meeting to qualify to receive the certificate. Senator Harradine's proposal is that there be an actual bringing together of the parties for attempted final reconciliation. Everyone is in favour of reconciliation, but if people have been separated for a year and are determined on a divorce, little is to be gained by the course of action proposed by the honourable senator. On Saturday a constituent of mine who is also a friend came to see me. He and his wife have parted and he is extremely distressed about that . He told me that there is no way he can get his wife to undergo counselling. They have not resolved to divorce, and they have not resolved to separate permanently but they are living apart. It appears to me that, were Senator Harradine's amendment carried and these people obliged to file a notice of separation, that would work against what the honourable senator proposes; it would in effect be the first step towards divorce. Many married couples separate and ultimately come back together. They separate on an informal basis after some incident or some problem, but they get back together. Under Senator Harradine's proposal, those who separate apparently are supposed to file a notice of separation. In the present climate, with the availability of legal aid and other things in our modern society, once someone files a notice of separation the whole situation will proceed with only more expedition towards divorce. I believe that what the honourable senator hopes for in his proposal will never come to pass. I do not see how I can support this proposal. I know of only one instance in which his proposal would ever have been used. That was the Crabtree v. Crabtree situation where a man lived apart from his wife in their home for a year. He looked after himself, washed his clothes and cooked for himself. His wife did not really know that they were living apart and that, therefore, he had qualified to divorce her. After a year she realised that he obviously had some mental problem and she herself tried to get some sort of family counselling. Under Senator Harradine's proposal, that man who was living apart from his wife for a year should have filed a notice that they were living apart. That was an unusual and devious situation. Certainly that person would never have undertaken reconciliation counselling and, had he done so, it would have been a total waste of time. Senator Harradine has proposed a number of worthy things, including reconciliation programs and two compulsory conferences but, having read the debates and studied his amendments, I do not see how I can support them. Those are the matters I wished to put before the House today. The Bill does not deal with the grounds of divorce. The amendments contained in the legislation before the House essentially provide for the saving of costs for applicants, mainly people from the country, in undefended proceedings where no children are involved. I recommend the legislation to the House. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(4.15) —This is a very important debate on amendments to the Family Law Act. Firstly, I thank those honourable members who have mentioned favourably the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act, which was tabled in this House in 1980. It has been mentioned by a number of honourable members and, as Chairman of the Committee reponsible for that report, I appreciate the remarks that have been made. Notwithstanding the applause that the report has received, I cannot disguise some of my disappointment at the way in which this legislation has been treated. The report was tabled in August 1980 . That we are now in 1983 says something about the pace with which important reforms in this area proceed. Secondly, I am disappointed that, although this legislation was originally introduced on the basis that honourable members would be free to vote on what they saw as conscience matters, on this occasion when those same questions are being addressed the Australian Labor Party has denied its members a conscience vote on aspects of this legislation. I would not be disappointed if I thought that approach might lead in some way to the expeditious passing of amendments which I see as necessary, but I think I have seen the destruction of interest in this important legislation in this Parliament because it is to be treated on a party political basis. I was Chairman of the Joint Select Committee which reviewed the principal legislation. In that Committee members of all political parties were able to come to views based on their consciences. Many members of the Government supported recommendations which are the subject of amendments that I will move today. I am disappointed that the way in which this matter is to be treated will mean that those honourable members who supported that report will be unable to show that support by voting in favour of amendments to give effect to its recommendations. I am disappointed that, besides myself, the only member of the Committee who will speak on this legislation in this House will be the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen). Other members of the Committee included the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), a distinguished Minister, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). None of them has been listed to speak during this debate, notwithstanding the wealth of experience they gained while participating in the Committee. Three senators who are still members of the Parliament and who contributed to the report of the Committee-Senator Coleman, Senator Missen and Senator Walters-contributed to the debate in the Senate. There was a considerable wealth of experience amongst members of the Committee but many of them are no longer members of the Parliament. The delay that has been occasioned means that many of those who will contribute to this debate did not participate in earlier debates or in the development of this report and will not have heard the views expressed in previous debates. Therefore, I want to canvass briefly today some of the philosophical approaches the Joint Select Committee took when it deliberated on the Family Law Act and reported in 1980. Many people believe that the amendments which are proposed by this Bill and some of those which it does not introduce but which were the subject of the Committee's recommendations are in some way less than supportive of the concept of the ideal Australian family. I make it clear that in the Committee's view there was a role for family law in supporting an ideal and stable approach to marriage. Honourable members should know that the Committee saw, and the approach that it favoured was, that more emphasis should be placed upon marriage and the obligations it entails, rather than the deterrent effects of the provisions of divorce law as a factor influencing the stability of marriage. Those people considering matrimony should be apprised of responsibilities involved and the consequences that will result from marriage breakdown. As a means of highlighting this approach, the Committee recommended that the Marriage Act and the Family Law Act be consolidated into one Act of Parliament. The Committee took the view that it could then be seen more clearly as a complete Act dealing with family law and would indicate more clearly the intention of relying upon the marriage power to support the provisions of the Family Law Act, particularly those dealing with property. On the occasion that I tabled the report I said: We, the committee, take the view that ill-advised marriages and impetuous divorces would be more effectively deterred if the consequences of property settlement and other rights upon divorce are known in advance of marriage. Those experienceing marital stress and seeking assistance with their problems should have available to them services that can help them at the relevant time. I set out the recommendations that were designed to support that view. I went on to say: The Committee does not doubt that the family remains the natural and fundamental group unit of society. What is needed is more objective data to assist those responsible for the formulation of policy in regard to the family so that it can be supported adequately to fulfil the role which society expects of it. I mentioned that the Committee particularly welcomed the establishment of the Institute of Family Studies to undertake research in that area. Of course, that body was established and commenced its work shortly after I tabled the report in August 1980. I went on to say: The Committee concluded that the provisions of the divorce law are not a significant factor in influencing family stability and breakdown. Accordingly, the Committee recommends no change to the grounds of divorce . . . But we did develop a number of themes in our report, themes which have in part been broken up by the way in which those who have deliberated on the Committee's recommendations have considered the document. I have some complaint about the way in which this report was developed and later reviewed. I do not know whether honourable members involved in parliamentary committees would welcome the way in which this particular matter arose. The Family Law Council, which the Parliament has appointed to advise on matters relating to the Family Law Act, brought down on an annual basis reports on the Family Law Act as it was operating. I think the Government had some doubts as to whether some of the recommendations that the Family Law Council was bringing forward would be acceptable to it. So a committee comprising 15 members of this place and the Senate was appointed to deliberate on the Family Law Act and after a lengthy inquiry the Committee reported. What happened after that? We were asked, as members of parliament, to review views formed by the Family Law Council. But the Government saw fit-and the new Government has not seen fit to act in any different way-to then go to the reviewed group, the Family Law Council, to ask it for its report on what the reviewers had to say. Ultimately, the lowest common denominator is the form taken by the Bill which has been introduced. Whereas I indicated in my tabling speech that there were a number of themes, a philosophical approach, that was worthy of support, we find that the philosophical approach has been largely put to one side, because there are gaping holes in the scheme which we outlined. I mention that of course we picked up the theme of the Family Court being a helping court; to engage in and, to the fullest extent possible, to conciliate in helping parties to resolve disputes. I think the legislation helps in that regard. We picked up the theme of creating certainty in the law so that married people when they were being divorced would be able to negotiate in a situation of certainty all aspects of their affairs. So there are two aspects of this legislation that are part of that theme that I welcome; that is, the guideposts that have been put down to assist the courts in understanding what the Parliament sees as being important in custody matters. Also, of course, the procedures for the handling of appeals will now ensure that a court will be more likely to have amongst its membership a consistent body of people, rather than all members of the Family Court, as has been the case until now, handing down judgements which were likely to be in conflict with each other. People would not know with certainty what was the law when they sat down to try to work out their family situation. The Committee had in mind another aspect of this theme because it believed in the area of property, for instance, there was also a need for certainty- guideposts, as I have put it. This has been acknowledged by the Government in relation to the question of custody. We suggested, because we could not develop it ourselves, that there was a need for a matrimonial property regime in Australia; that a set of rules should be developed to outline to people the way in which their affairs might be dealt with in the event that a divorce is sought . We took the view that the Law Reform Commission ought to be asked to examine those matrimonial property regimes that operate overseas and to come back with some recommendations as to how such a scheme might be able to operate in Australia. But we also took the view that an important first step could be taken immediately in that direction, and that was to develop a presumption of joint ownership of a matrimonial home. The Committee saw no reason why provisions could not be developed to create that presumption in the legislation that was proposed. We went so far as to annex to the Bill the precise form in which amendments might be presented in relation to this legislation. Of course, the Bill was drafted by a gentleman who is now a judge of the Family Court-Mr Gee, QC. He was our adviser. Mr Justice Gee, as he now is, went to a great deal of difficulty to sort out the way in which we could approach this particular problem and the way in which the legislation might be drafted. This Bill does not deal with that problem. There are other gaps in the legislation. In the time available to me-I propose to move some amendments-I should indicate some matters that were perhaps not part of the theme, but which I regarded as important. But I should also mention those other matters that were part of the theme. I propose to move amendments to implement recommendation 27 of the Joint Select Committee which deals with the question of conduct in relation to certain property and maintenance matters. The Committee was of a view that in a very limited number of cases it may be appropriate that certain conduct be looked at. We came to that view because of a particular case dealing with a lady who ran away with a Swedish sailor and then came back after having left him to claim maintenance from a former husband whom she had left. We were of the view that that sort of conduct was conduct that the court ought to be able to take into account. It concerned us, in regard to that matter, that there was a possibility that the court may not be able to remedy like problems. Recommendation 28 concerns the automatic adjustment of maintenance paid to children. The Committee was concerned that where inflation has been rampant children ought not to be left in a situation in which the amounts paid for their sustenance were not reviewed on a regular basis. The Committee was strongly of the view that that amendment should be made to the Act . The Committee was of the view that there ought to be-this was part of the theme I am talking about-in the area of property settlements where parties had come to an agreement, provision for review where agreements had been approved by the courts but it ought not to be undertaken lightly. The Committee formed the view that leave ought to be sought if people were to apply under section 79A of the Act for the setting aside of an order made in relation to property interests, but we were of the view that it should be done only very sparingly because of the need for certainty on the part of parties when their affairs have been dealt with. The Committee saw this certainty as being very important. In recommendation 41 the Committee was of the view that judges of the Western Australian Family Court ought to be able to be involved in the family law processes throughout Australia, that they ought to be able to sit in appeals situations from decisions of their own Court and that they ought to play a role in the development of law and have the experience that can come from sitting in other courts. For that reason we were of the view that they ought to be given Federal commissions. That amendment was not acceptable to the former Government, nor is it acceptable to this Government. I very much regret that that is the case. That was clearly one of the signpost areas where we saw greater certainty of result as being of the utmost importance. Finally, we saw the view of members of parliament in relation to family law as being important and the view of magistrates, who implement a lot of the family law in Australia, as also being important. Previously, a select committee of the Senate recommended that the Family Law Council be a body with parliamentary or magistracy representation amongst its membership. I intend to move an amendment to give effect to that view. I have already mentioned the importance that I attach to a number of other amendments that have not been adopted and for which I have not been able to have drafted amendments because of their complexity. The first is the consolidation of the Marriage Act with the Family Law Act. I think that is very important. The Committee viewed it as being very important. Whilst it is a matter which, I appreciate, might take time I am concerned that, with the way in which family law matters are dealt with, it will be a very long time before we are likely to see any consolidating Bill. I suspect that many members in this chamber now will not see it in their parliamentary lifetimes. I offer that as a prediction. The Committee proposed a very important amendment in the area of the joint ownership of the matrimonial home, joint ownership being a presumption that can be rebutted in certain circumstances. I believe there is a need for urgent action before the report of the Law Reform Commission. In recommendation 23 we suggested on the basis of United Kingdom experience and the Finer Committee report in the United Kingdom certain measures to limit the social security costs of the Government. The Government is bleeding because of the way in which people are able to organise their affairs in such a way as to ensure that the supporting parent benefit is paid in many cases where a spouse would be in a position, after a divorce, to make a contribution. The Committee was of the view that there ought to be in the Department of Social Security the capacity to obtain from a spouse who has the capacity to pay the money being paid out in the form of a pension. We did not want to deny a pension because many people have been able to resist paying maintenance and have casused hardship, but we want the Government to be able to recoup those moneys. We suggested a mechanism whereby that could be done. I emphasise the urgency of this matter. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister appreciates its urgency as a member of the Committee, but I want his Government to ensure that this matter is pursued as expeditiously as possible. We offer to the Government a possible solution. I also want the Government to look very carefully at the Watson Committee recommendations in terms of resolving the conflicts that arise in relation to the naming of children. I also foreshadow that I will pick up one other matter which was the subject of an amendment moved by Senator Missen in the Senate relating to the payment of Family Court judges. I am of the view personally that we need the best qualified people, not only in terms of handling the social problems involved in the family law area but also in terms of handling the very complex and difficult legal questions that have to be dealt with in relation to trusts and companies when property disputes are involved. We must ensure that such people are appointed as judges of our courts and we can do that only by paying them properly. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired . Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(4.35) —At the outset, I congratulate the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) on his chairmanship of the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. It was certainly before my time in this place but his reputation precedes him in that role. I comment on the assertion by the honourable member for Dundas against three Ministers of this Government who served on the Joint Select Committee. He was disturbed that they were not making a contribution during this debate. I simply say that to my knowledge the three Ministers to whom he adverted have made a significant contribution not only, of course, while on the Committee but certainly in our own party room. It seems to me that it is a little unfair to imply that particular Ministers, by their absence, do not perceive these matters to be of the utmost import. Certainly in my view that is not the case. The honourable member for Dundas also adverted to the setting up of the Institute of Family Studies. That development is one which I personally warmly endorse. Honourable members may recall some weeks ago receiving a recent publication from the Institute called, I think, from memory, 'Equity and the Australian Tax Transfer System'. I commend a detailed reading of that document to members of the Opposition because its central theme seemed to me to be in total contradiction of the policy prescriptions being embraced by the Opposition ; that is, the central theme of the document was that there ought not be a greater reliance on regressive indirect forms of taxation as opposed to the more traditional progressive taxation normally embraced by Australian governments. That is one welcome document to come out of that body and I commend a detailed reading of it to members of the Opposition. I also pay tribute to the then senator and now, of course, Mr Justice Murphy for his pioneering role in family law in Australia. It is my view that the current Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) will continue with that reforming approach to this most contentious area of law. There certainly have been delays in terms of the implementation of this type of legislation and they are essentially predicated upon what is obviously a widespread community concern about matters that go to the very heart of personal relationships in a society such as ours. The old fault system, I hope, will never return. Having regard to the unanimity embraced on that point by the people on the Joint Select Committee and generally within the House it appears that it will not return, but certainly the system that called for almost a compulsory degradation of the parties seeking divorce should be relegated, as it seems to be now, to the history books . The single ground of no fault divorce must never be threatened. A number of previous speakers have taken particular note of the impact on children of the breakdown of marriage. It is worth making the point that from the experience I have had in family law matters it is, whilst not in a majority of cases certainly in a sufficient number to take note of the problem, the case that the children in some marriage breakdowns are actually far better off once the marriage has been dissolved and the parties have set up their own lives. If one is to take the criterion of the welfare of the child as the most important aspect of these matters-certainly that is my inclination-one ought not to assume that marriage breakdown will necessarily adversely affect the children involved. I wish to comment briefly on that part of the Act relating to what has been commonly called divorce by post. It has been suggested that the proposed amendment will introduce a divorce by post procedure. The description 'divorce by post' is somewhat inappropriate in my view. The proposed new section will enable regulations to be made giving the Family Court a discretion, in certain circumstances, to determine undefended divorce proceedings, whether commenced by one party or jointly by both parties, without the necessity for the parties or their legal representatives to attend a court hearing. The circumstances in which the Family Court is to be able to exercise the discretion will be as follows: Firstly, where the proceedings are undefended, that is, not contested; secondly, where one party has requested the Court to determine the proceedings in the absence of the parties; and, thirdly, where the other party has not requested the Court not to so determine the proceedings. The proposed amendment will provide benefits to parties to Family Court proceedings in two ways. Firstly, there will be significant cost savings for those parties who do not wish to be present or to be represented at undefended divorce hearings. Secondly, there should be a considerable saving of court time which will enable the more difficult, contested proceedings to be heard and determined expeditiously. In my experience of the family law jurisdiction I have often been amazed at the relative ease with which some of my professional colleagues earned their dollar for the day. It seems to me that, at a time of immense personal hardship for most of those involved in divorce proceedings, regardless of their particular assets, the very nature of the dissolution of marriage and the impact that that has on any assets holding almost presupposes that both parties will experience financial difficulties. To sit around the Family Court and see how easily or how quickly the meter is ticking over for some disputants is a little disconcerting. One aspect that ought to be commended is the resolution of that sort of enforced increase in costs. There has been some criticism of the proposed amendment since it was first recommended by the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee in 1980. It has been said that, given the seriousness attaching to the termination of marriage, both parties should be present in court when the decree is pronounced. At present, however, parties are not required to be present in court but need only be represented by a solicitor. In fact, in undefended divorce proceedings this is required of only one party-that is, the applicant in the proceedings. Moreover, in my view, the requirement of 12 months' separation to establish irretrievable breakdown of marriage is of far greater import than a brief court appearance in bringing home the consequences of divorce to intending divorcees. It has also been said that divorces will be easier to obtain under the proposed procedure. Whatever the precise procedure, under the proposed amendment the Family Court will still have to be satisfied, on the basis of evidence before it, that the ground for granting a divorce has been established and that there is no reasonable likelihood that cohabitation will be resumed. At present, the evidence upon which the Family Court grants the great majority of undefended divorce applications is mainly in documentary form, consisting of application forms and supporting affidavits. It will, of course, remain open to the Family Court to decline to grant a decree if the evidence before it warrants that decision. Of course the procedure will not apply now in most cases as the Government has gone some way towards compromising on this issue. Where there are children of a marriage under the age of 18 these provisions will not apply. I think it is worth noting that children were involved in 61 per cent of the dissolutions that were granted during 1982. On the assumption that that sort of ratio will not radically change in the foreseeable future, in 61 per cent of the dissolutions after the application of this amendment the divorce by post process will not be utilised. But there seems to me to be some far more fundamental aspects of the family law legislation that we ought to be addressing. One of the problems I found in that jurisdiction was that it seemed that the adversary system has the almost inevitable result of pushing the disputants apart. In most marriages a brief period or a number of periods of hostility, engendered for whatever reason, is a normal occurrence. When people went to a legal practitioner and sought legal advice with respect to the dissolution of that marriage it was often the case that legal proceedings were initiated. Those very legal proceedings acted to force the parties apart. Certainly, counselling facilities were available in the Family Court jurisdiction but often they were of little avail because hostility had built up more as a function of the legal proceedings than as a result of the problem that the parties faced. In my view, the adversary system itself, even though it is not the full adversary system that we know in other jurisdictions, is one of the most important determinants of the breakdown-the complete breakdown as opposed to temporary breakdown-of marriages. In 1982 only 3.7 per cent of dissolutions involved contested hearings. I suppose that these are the types of cases that many people argue make bad law. That certainly is a view that I endorse. The general area of family law seems to me to be based more on a form of industry assistance to the legal profession than it is to looking after the interests of the various parties. But one of the functions of that sort of interpretation has been a related initiative of this Government to ensure that the Australian Legal Aid Office scale with respect to family law matters is adhered to throughout Australia. That will have the effect of forcing some of the States that work on different scales and charge much higher fees to come back to the field. An end result of that will be a far greater availability of limited resources to people in the unfortunate position of finding themselves before the Family Court. Other fundamental issues need to be addressed in terms of family law. I have already adverted to improving the counselling facilities. The inherent delays in any legal jurisdiction can often act in this jurisdiction to calm down the parties, I suppose, and give greater hope for reconciliation. But the delays stretch a little too far. The general view would be that they just prolong the suffering for the parties involved. The other important factors that are not addressed by this Bill are the more broadly based factors that have an impact on marriage, such as unemployment, the stress of living in a modern society and the stress that is put on marriages in the pursuit of material goods. I think these sorts of things are the ones that we ought to be addressing in the longer term in a far more substantial way than has been the case to date. Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall not go on as I know time is limited. I thank you for your indulgence. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(4.49) —I commend the honourable member for Maribyrnong ( Mr Griffiths) for his contribution to this debate. While I do not feel qualified to make strong statements I am in sympathy with his concluding remarks. I think some of the difficulties we are now encountering come from the adversary nature of things, such as the continuation of representatives of the legal profession in the handling of matters, some of the rather more deep seated attitudes which they have, the mystique which is created by their presence and the way in which they often relate to one another to the confusion of their respective clients. That is a common complaint which one hears. I suspect that there is a fair grain of truth in it. It is one thing to find fault and another thing to find a way of representing parties in an area that is still complex and requires some independent and experienced adviser. No doubt that is a matter that the Ruddock committee, the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act, will look at next time. I congratulate the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) for the work which he did as Chairman of the Joint Select Committee and also those, including the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), who served so ably on it. I congratulate Senator Missen and others in the Senate who worked on the original Bill and, I believe, made a much better Bill out of it. I also congratulate the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). I am told by honourable senators on both sides that he handled the matter exceptionally well in the Senate. I think it is a matter for some regret that the Australian Labor Party has not given its members a free vote on the matter, but at the same time I think the real hurdle was passed eight or nine years ago when we put the original Bill- that is, the principal Act we are now amending-through this chamber. From now on there ought to be a number of areas in which it is taken for granted that there is no need for a free vote. I think the honourable member for Dundas made a very important observation when he said that the quality of debate and the continuing interest of members of parliament might best be served by giving them at least a free vote, even if in fact they do not need now to exercise it as much as they did when the principal Act was passed. I had the privilege on that occasion of supporting each of the controversial clauses. I recall one of them passing by one vote. The matter is now beyond reversing. It was a very emotional debate at times, but it was a constructive and informative one. It made members of parliament accept their obligations in respect of their constituents in the family law area rather better than the somewhat lacklustre contribution, at least in this chamber today. One suspects that if contributions are made in a reasonably low key way from now on fewer members will show the interest that is perhaps needed. It is a two-edged sword: If they all get emotional and all want to speak, the business of the Parliament cannot be dealt with and clarity is not necessarily improved. But I think it is a shame that more honourable members have not contributed to this debate. Having said that, I suppose many honourable members are in the position I am in . One finds oneself in agreement with the second reading speech of the Deputy Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister representing the Attorney-General and one is tempted, because of one's agreement, not to contribute to the debate. I believe one has an obligation to do so. The first major statement by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) in his second reading speech on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister was this: I believe it is overwhelmingly accepted that the Family Law Act was a landmark in social legislation. I agree entirely with that statement. The areas in which the Act was a landmark will not be reversed. They have indeed shown that the belief of its supporters was well founded and that the fears of its opponents were not. Nevertheless, problems have arisen with regard to administration. Some of those problems may be involved in the practice of still maintaining adversary representation, and some are certainly in the attitudes of judges and counsellors. Some problems are dealt with by the Family Law Amendment Bill but others-the attitudinal ones-are much harder to deal with by this Bill. I now turn to the principal reforms outlined by the Minister. I express my support for the following points and certainly for those points which relate to the expansion of jurisdiction concerning children. It has been a major fault of the Act so far that we were able to deal only with the natural or adopted children of both parties to a marriage. The amendment contained in clause 4 adopts the Joint Select Committee recommendation that the category be extended to cover step-children and even foster-children. I share entirely the hope of the Minister that we will be able to overcome the constitutional difficulties which currently oblige some children's custody applications to be dealt with by State tribunals. I hope that there will be an adequate referral of power by the States or, failing that, a constitutional amendment which will enable the Family Court of Australia to deal with all matters concerning the custody and maintenance of children in Australia. In addition I agree with the amendments regarding subclause 3 (1) to enable a third party such as an uncle or a grandparent to bring proceedings against one or both parties to a marriage in relation to a child of the marriage. As the Minister observed, that is currently a matter that can be dealt with only under the State law. It is important that this amendment goes through so that the Act will enable matters of this kind to be dealt with by the family court system and minimise the present resort to two different legal systems. It is also important that the Bill concentrates on the welfare of the child to the extent necessary in the family law without affecting the States' obligations under child welfare laws. The property amendments are also to be welcomed. I think it is particularly important that the amendment to clause 3 (1) be accepted by the House to enable proceedings to be brought by the parties to a marriage in relation to the property of the parties at any time where the proceedings arise out of the marital relationship. In other words, it will pick up the Joint Select Committee 's recommendation so that persons faced with a marital breakdown who wish to secure a settlement of property rights before the 12-month period of separation required for divorce proceedings has expired may proceed to do so. It has been an injustice that a spouse who contributed to the acquisition of marital property in either an indirect or non-financial way, but nevertheless in a significant way, was unable to claim a share of the property without actually having to institute and wait for what could be protracted divorce proceedings. That matter is important, and the changes to the procedures of the Court are also important. I was one who originally supported the idea of the closed court. I accept the findings of the Committee and the Senate to the effect that experience dictates that the practical modifications proposed here and also the anonymity which will be preserved for the parties probably amount to a step forward in the public interest and in the interest of the parties. Certainly that seems to be the view of the judges. It will avoid the spectacle of the tabloid sensationalism that we used to be subjected to before the Act was passed in 1975. It should also protect the public interest with a degree of openness. Certainly, clause 72 imposes severe penalties for the publication of any account of proceedings which identifies a party to the proceedings, persons related to them or even witnesses at the proceedings. I also commend to the House the Bill for its efforts to preserve marriages, especially with regard to the counselling requirements and the directions regarding conciliation so that the parties are obliged to consider and take part in counselling and conciliation prior to adversary proceedings beginning. But I have to point out to the House that one of the most frequent complaints that I receive in my electorate office concerns the quality of counselling. I am not aware of any effective way of training counsellors, but one hears complaints all too often about their lack of sensitivity and experience. I suppose they become case hardened and many people feel even more disenchanted with the counselling conciliation procedures than they do with the adversary proceedings that subsequently ensue. Again I do not know whether the Parliament can do much about that matter but perhaps it is something to which the Institute of Family Studies as well as the advisory council to be set up under the Act will direct more attention. I also indicate my support for the amendments to clause 53, which were carried by the Senate. In fact they were proposed ultimately by the Attorney-General after lengthy debate, and they enable undefended divorce applications to be dealt with without the necessity of either party or their legal representatives attending before the Court where there are no children of the marriage under the age of 18 years. I think that is an important step forward in terms of removing some of the backlog of cases and, at the same time, minimising to the parties the sad reminders of the breakdown of the marriage without harm to any children. There are also a number of amendments of a procedural and structural nature which I will not dwell on now but which were recommended by the Joint Select Committee. Senator Missen, who has been for most of his adult life a practitioner in the area of family law, said in the Senate: This Bill is loaded with provisions designed to improve the operation of the Family Court and to operate the family law system more successfully. That statement was made in debate on the second reading. I can only hope that that is so although, looking at the proposed measures, I am not as confident as the honourable senator that they will rectify the complaints which one hears most often. The substance certainly has not let the public down; the procedures appear to have done so. I am afraid that some of the dominant attitudes of counsellors, judges, and counsel barristers for the parties, will probably mean that no matter how many principles, procedures and criteria are laid down by the Parliament we will continue to have some difficulties in the implementation of the law. It is important that we do our best in this Parliament to give the signposts that the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) referred to so that we remove the barriers to harmonious post-divorce relationships. The most important post-divorce relationship is that of custody of children and access to them. I indicate my support for some remarks made earlier today by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman), who referred to the need to have more joint custody awards. This procedure is open to the Court. It has been reluctant to use it. I agree with the criticisms of the honourable member in regard to sole custody where one parent, usually the mother-although increasingly, I am pleased to observe, the father-is given custody and the other parent is given access and very often expected to pay maintenance. I think the honourable member for Wentworth was correct in saying, and I will quote from his earlier remarks today : . . . there has been a growing and widespread realisation of how badly a sole custody regime, with access by the non-custodial parent, works. Too often parents slander each other or the non-custodial parent attempts to undermine the custodial parent by lavishing gifts and meals on the child. Many non-custodial parents stop seeing their children because it becomes too painful. The custodial parent places difficulties in the way of access. The non-custodial parent has inferior status and eventually gives up. Many non-custodial parents who do not see their children still love them. I endorse those remarks from complaints made to me by constituents about the operations of the Family Law Act. I hope that the Family Court will direct more of its attention to the prospect of joint custody as a means of maintaining mature relationships between the divorced parents in the better interests of the child rather than haggling over custody every few years and certainly haggling over access. Often some of that haggling has been over access on the days when the parent with custody was at work and had left the child to a child care centre or grandparents. Really access should have been quite readily granted to the other parent who was prepared to adjust his working hours to fit in with those arrangements. Again, as a member of parliament one does not know the other side of the story, but one does get the feeling that certain rigidities, certain traditional assumptions of the roles of men and women regarding parental responsibilities, have prevailed rather too long to make this legislation less flexible and less just than it was meant to be in practice. I particularly commend to the House the changes to clause 29, which are the criteria, the signposts, the check list if you like, which the Court must take into account in determining guardianship and custody matters. I believe they should provide a greater certainty and predictability in the exercise of the Family Court's jurisdiction. I believe as a result of that that we will find less dissatisfaction with the decisions than before. We hear only of the dissatisfaction and one therefore ought not to distort the impression that otherwise would be gained from the operations of the Court. If one looks quickly at clause 29, I believe it is most commendable because it especially considers the expressed wishes of the child and obviously gives weight according to age and maturity of the child. It certainly will make an order which will minimise the number of future applications for custody or access and will take into account the relationship which the child has with other persons such as grandparents and other relatives in determining where custody should lie. I hope that each of these guidelines, when the Court addresses itself to them, will be taken into account as the Parliament wishes and that it will produce a better, more harmonious and just result. I also commend to the House the changes in clause 44 of the Bill. It will widen the circumstances in which the approval of a maintenance agreement may be revoked by the Court. It does invest in the Family Court the common law and equity powers of the High Court of Australia in proceedings in relation to such agreements. There is, therefore, an exclusive jurisdiction, as there ought to be . The changes to clauses 55 and 61 regarding the recognition of divorces and legal separations in other countries under the Hague Convention are also of great significance. Many people in Australia, not only migrants, but also a number of Australians who were resident overseas when their marriages were dissolved and who have returned to Australia, now seek to enforce certain rights they were given under the decree and find, in many cases that there are not reciprocal arrangements for them to do so in Australian courts. I believe that this Bill is a very important step forward. I share the view that it is later than it ought to have been, but I do think it is a very important measure and I hope it has the full support of the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Does the honourable member for Dundas seek to make a personal explanation? Mr RUDDOCK —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr RUDDOCK —Yes. The honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) suggested that I had reflected on Ministers who were former members of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. I want to make it clear that I in no way wanted to reflect upon the Ministers. They are very busy people, and I appreciate very much the reasons that they are not participating in this debate. The point I wanted to make, and I will make it again for the honourable member, is that when a matter is one in which there is not a free vote, when members are not free to participate fully in the debate in reaching decisions because of the way in which party discipline is imposed, there is not the same desire, I suspect in some cases, or willingness or ability to participate in the debate. I wanted to make that point clear. It was not intended to reflect upon the Ministers themselves. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(5.10) —I thank honourable members for their participation in this debate and particularly for their attitude to and their support, as demonstrated, for the Family Law Amendment Bill. It is very difficult to debate this issue and come to unanimous conclusions as to how we can provide a set of guidelines or laws for people who were married and have decided that they can no longer live together. It is not an easy concept and societies would hold all sorts of views as to how best it should happen. This legislation has always been a genuine attempt to take away from the inevitable bitterness the added burden of adversary combat in a court of law. I think it has achieved something towards that goal. I say to those honourable members who have participated in the debate that the difficulty in getting the original Bill through was enormous. Some of the honourable members were not in the Parliament then but they would know that the Bill was before the Senate for an enormous amount of time. I am always astounded at the luxury of time enjoyed by our colleagues in the Senate. When the Bill got to the House of Representatives it took an inordinate amount of time for everybody to put their point of view. Eventually we reached what was deemed to be the best result we could obtain at that time. It was acknowledged that as the legislation was new, there ought to be a review of it. That is what we are now looking at-a review of the original legislation. I pay credit to the former honourable member for Lilley, Mr Kevin Cairns, who was instrumental in raising the question of review. I think the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) was also interested in the matter. We do not have the difficulties of the earlier debate because we are now debating a Bill to amend an Act. I think that helps the debate. I reassure members of the Opposition that the Government has no problems about a conscience vote. There seems to be some misunderstanding. We are all free to vote as we like on this measure. As we often find, people are concerned that we might have some sort of unorganised debate. It is suggested that we agree on certain machinery issues. Matters that are subject to the Opposition's amendments may be debated and discussed in any way honourable members like; I assure honourable members of that. That has always been the case. It will never be any different. But as honourable members can imagine, if 125 different views were put on each clause we might not make a lot of progress. We have eventually to get to some consensus as to the approach to this Bill. I want to disabuse any suggestion that honourable members will be unable to express their views. I note that not everybody is able to spare the time to discuss all the relevant matters today but, as Leader of the House, I will not object to the possibility of our passing this Bill today. Again, it is a tribute to this House that we can deal with legislation efficiently. I pass no criticism on our colleagues in the Senate, but I again draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Bill has been before the Senate since June last. As I said, honourable senators have the luxury of discussing these matters at length. I pay particular tribute to the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), who was Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Family Law Act. He is a most diligent member and there is no doubt that the work was done in the most competent way. As a member of the Committee I enjoyed attending the hearings. I was not always able to be there for the reason that, as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I always seemed to be trying to bring down the then Government. That does take a little time now and again. On analysis of the evidence submitted, it was very significant to find a few interesting things, which I will advert to later. The Government notes the remarks of honourable members which I will deal with, if not adequately, to the best of my ability. I shall deal firstly with the remarks of my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) who, in welcoming the Bill, raised two concerns-the new provision concerning the wishes of children and the increasing impact of broken marriages on social security expenditure, with which I agree. At present the Family Law Act does not as a general rule permit an order to be made which conflicts with a child's wishes where the child has reached 14 years of age. I remember that members of the Committee asked: 'Why 14? There could be children who have the ability to express a view even at the age of eight'. Eventually it was suggested that the reference to age be removed, and that is provided for in the Bill. It was thought, as the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) has pointed out, that the Family Court would give weight to any child's views, using its capacity and ability to assess whether there was any undue influence. As the honourable member for North Sydney has pointed out, we will be able to look at the new provision to see whether it is workable. I think it will be. I can say that we will closely monitor that situation. I refer to the question of the maintenance payments as it affects social security. Let us face it; many members of society who pay tax are married and have dependent children. They make a contribution not only to the support of their families but also to the general well being of the nation. It goes to the point that the Committee was concerned about, and I welcome the fact that the honourable member for North Sydney raised this matter. Some 75 per cent of widow pensioners would be divorcees or deserted wives. In terms of social security payments to that group in 1982 the taxpayer had to find about three-quarters of $717m, which is a very substantial sum. When we add to that the supporting parent's benefit payments we see that a large proportion of social security payments would be related to matrimonial associations or the like. An enormous increase in expenditure has meant that the outlay in that category has escalated to $605m. It is not necessary to talk about the need for people to get social security; that they must have, but at times an unfair burden appears to be placed on those who are trying to make their contributions while others are perhaps not making theirs. The Committee spent some time trying to work out a method of enforcing some automatic family law order of maintenance and support rather than having the difficulty of garnishees and other methods which seem to be too cumbersome. As people say, the wife starver is able to escape. The Committee had views about this matter. I think it is a question of balancing the support for people in dire need against those who are not fulfilling the duties of court orders. There is no doubt that we all agree that those who need support have to be assisted by Parliament. Unfortunately, at present there is no effective maintenance system in Australia, although there are some good concepts in Western Australian and South Australia. It is for that reason that one of the high priorities of the present Government has been the establishment of a national maintenance collection system. That has to be worked out. I am advised that a departmental inquiry has been established by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). The inquiry is to report to the Attorney-General early in December. Until maintenance enforcement operates effectively throughout Australia, we will just have to put up with the present situation. The people receiving social security benefits are the most vulnerable of all. The Government is endeavouring to address that problem. The honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) has suggested that at some future time we should consider amending the Act to provide for a presumption of joint custody. I understand that such a provision would require the courts, wherever possible, to maintain the right of both parents to continue to share custody following the breakdown of a marriage. For the benefit of honourable members I explain that the Family Law Act at present provides that until the Court otherwise orders each party is a guardian of any child of the marriage and both parties have joint custody. Whilst the Act goes on to provide that the Court may award sole custody to one parent, it also evisages that the joint custody rights of both parents can be maintained. I understand that in certain cases the courts maintain joint custody following a marriage breakdown. The Bill before the House does not alter the situation, although the provisions dealing with the severance or preservation of the right to joint custody have been redrafted. The honourable member for Wentworth is suggesting that in every case the Court should maintain the joint custody right of both parents unless this is impossible. He suggested that this proposal be examined. I will refer that to the Attorney-General and the matter will be examined by a body such as the Law Reform Commission or perhaps the Family Law Council. Speaking personally -we have all had experience of this either in the law or as a member of a family -it is not always easy to say that joint custody is the best result. I think the child often feels that the problem is that the parents are separated. That is a problem. Children going from one home to another is not necessarily going to work out for the child. Often parents who fight very hard over children-one may have some personal knowledge of this-have a great deal of interest in the child even though they have a great deal of conflict with each other. Unfortunately, in society a number of children are abandoned altogether. Some parents continue to live together but leave their child in a state institution. That is a real tragedy. No law can really cope with that. The honourable member for Wentworth and the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann) were concerned that the present system does not encourage conciliation as an approach to solving issues. I draw attention to the amendments proposed by clauses 9, 29 and 36. Clause 9 proposes the insertion in the Family Law Act of proposed new section 16A, requiring the courts and the legal practitioners to have regard to the need to direct the attention of parties to the proceedings to the counselling and other conciliatory facilities available. Clause 29, amongst other things, proposes the insertion of proposed new sub-section 64 (1B), having the effect that the Court will not be able to make a final custody order except in special circumstances unless the parties to the proceedings have attended counselling. One amendment proposed by clause 36 is to create proposed new sub- section 79 (9). This provision will prevent the Court from making a final order in contested property proceedings unless the parties have attended a conciliation conference. The honourable member for Dundas referred to a number of recommendations of the Joint Select Committee that were the subject of amendments moved unsuccessfully in the other place. These amendments were not acceptable to the Government for the reasons given there by the Attorney. The honourable member indicated that there were two important recommendations of the Joint Select Committee in respect of which he has not been able to secure amendments. These are the consolidation of the Marriage Act and the Family Law Act and a joint presumption of ownership of the matrimonial home. He is concerned, rightly so, that the delay might mean that these proposals will never be implemented. I want to assure him that I will be mentioning this matter and his concern specifically to the Attorney-General. I would anticipate that the Attorney-General wishes to await the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission's inquiry into matrimonial property before acting on the Joint Select Committee's recommendations. I hope that there will not be any undue delay in that. There have been a number of cases in relation to a change of children's names. It is well settled by judicial decision that the change of name is an aspect of custody. As a change in a child's name may cause him or her confusion because the issue usually arises between the parents, the Court will exercise a supervisory role in the matter when called so to do. The guiding principle is the welfare of the child. That is the paramount consideration. It must stand above the proprietary wishes of the parents. The Joint Select Committee did not examine the matter of the change of a child's name. However, a sub-committee of the Family Law Council, the Watson committee, is examining and reporting on wardship, guardianship, custody and access. That committee considered the matter of the change of the surname of the child of the marriage. It recommended that the Family Law Act be amended to ensure that the name of the child of a marriage is not changed unless the consent of both parents or the approval of the Family Law Court has been obtained. This is a similar provision to that which exists in the United Kingdom except that the United Kingdom provision requires the consent of the parents to be in writing. The Family Law Council examined the matter of change of name and decided that, in effect, a register of consents should be maintained. There was also some reference to the wishes of the child. There were difficulties with respect to sanctions in the event of a contravention of any legislation. The Attorney-General concluded that in view of these difficulties the law, as settled, should continue to operate for the time being and that those specific statutory provisions should be made. There are, as mentioned, well settled guidelines enabling the Court to supervise the child's name when approached so to do. The honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) suggested certain matters and particularly complaints concerning the quality of counselling. He expressed the view that it was difficult to find an answer. I think the solution may lie with the Family Law Council. I will refer that matter to the Attorney-General. The honourable member also spoke about the attitude of counsellors, judges and practitioners. He said that they will continue to cause difficulties. One cannot disagree with that but, hopefully, we will be able to improve with time. But there is always the difficulty of human nature. Generally he supported the remarks of the honourable member for Wentworth regarding joint custody and I have already referred to that. I thank my colleagues on the Government side for their support. I will conclude my remarks on this note. There has been a lot of unnecessary suggestion that divorce by post is a breakdown of the situation. Those of us who practised always knew that undefended divorces were not very difficult. I well remember the late Judge Rainbow who dealt with 53 undefended divorces in 56 minutes. Most of the counsel had not appeared. He used to greet them by saying: 'There is no need to worry, your case has been dealt with'. In other words, that was the situation under the old law. I think the point practitioners understand is: If we can get the parties to agree and the matter solved, why do we have to put everybody through the rather traumatic situation of having to appear in court and go through the ordeal or formality of the ritual? I think the real issue-I am appreciative of the remarks made by many honourable members-is that we have to look at how people will look at marriage. In fact, some small select sets who did not approve of divorce appeared before the Committee. That view is fair enough. If one asked for the evidence of those people one would find that they had very few matrimonial breakdowns. The concept they held before they started was that they did not accept the view. This matter relates to looking at the real necessity for support being given to people contemplating marriage. I think the real issue is that advice has to be given before the marriage takes place. That is when the advice and support has to be given. That is when it perhaps should be said that it would not be wise to get married. In other words, advice should be given. In fact, those of us who have practised in the past well know that marriage often had to eventuate because of another set of circumstances which were not necessarily related to continual love and affection. People had to be deemed to have conformed to society's requirements. We found that those marriages always broke down because they never had the right support in the first instance. In the Committee we were always anxious to get that message over too. I know that the honourable member for Dundas has been emphasising these issues. If we can get all the rights and responsibilities clearly spelled out before the marriage takes place there is a much better chance of the marriage working than there is if it is a case of thinking that the marriage will not work from the outset. The parents might think that it will be successful for other reasons, but one knows very well that it will not and, in fact, it never does. I again thank honourable members for their contributions. This legislation will always be under review. We will always need to look at the claims of society. We will always need to look perhaps at the law which it is so difficult to make uniform in Australia because of the Federal-State structure in which the States certainly have responsibilities in respect of children's rights. We do have difficulties in trying to enforce those. I just say that I think the family law is working as well as can be expected. The problems have been in legal aid and other areas. It is quite wrong that 80 per cent of legal aid is going to family law matters in adversary causes which affect only about 10 per cent of the matters before the courts. So one can see that that is a problem we are trying to avoid. I thank the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr Adermann —Mr Deputy Speaker, could it be recorded that I would not call a division but that I could not vote for the second reading of the Bill? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —That has been recorded at least in Hansard . Clause 1. (Short title, &c.). Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(5.31) —I move: (1) Clause 1, page 1, line 5, omit ''Family Law'', substitute ''Marriage Dissolution''. For some time honourable members of this House-and, indeed, during the original debate on this legislation-have expressed concern about the title, the 'Family Law Bill', because they felt that it was not, in fact, descriptive of the processes contained in it. Since the passage of the original Family Law Bill we have had the processes of the Family Law Act at work within our community. Debates in the Senate and in this chamber have indicated that the major concern of honourable members is not about a positive Act of parliament to assist families but about the processes of the dissolution of marriage and the way in which families cope with the dissolution of marriage in the way that is least disruptive and least stressful for them. It is therefore my proposal that the title of the Family Law Act be changed to the 'Dissolution of Marriage Act'. The amendment proposes such a measure. One has only to read the introduction to the Family Law Amendment Bill 1983, which is before the House, to see that the measures contained in the Bill deal with the processes of counselling for those partners and children of a marriage facing dissolution. It deals with State welfare Acts and the welfare of children following the dissolution of marriage. It speaks of conciliation counselling much in the same way as does the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. That Act, in fact, is described by its title. I contend that this Bill and the original Act are not correctly described by their titles. There has been a debate about the problems of marriage dissolution and I refer the Committee to other measures contained in the Bill that is before the House. The Bill deals with the jurisdiction of matrimonial causes. 'Matrimonial Causes' is, in fact, an old title for the divorce Act. Perhaps that is a closer description of what is contained in this Bill. Indeed, if one further examines the major sections of the Bill before the House one finds that they deal with the dissolution of marriage. Starting with clause 4, the interpretation of the processes, the development of legal arguments which will take place in the court , the guardianship and custody of children, the references to courts and to counsellors of courts and welfare officers all relate to the dissolution of marriage. In fact, that is the prime instrument that establishes this legislation. If it were not for the initiating factor of the dissolution of marriage we would not have this legislation. Therefore, to consider it as something that can be described as a family law is a complete misnomer. It is an inaccurate description of the legislation. The legislation refers to the maintenance of the wife and children and the separation of property. The Family Court is required to make decisions as to how the property of a marriage can be separated so that the partners of the marriage justly gain their share. The enforcement of maintenance agreements is also covered in this legislation. It is all about enforcement, counselling and courts . It is not, in fact, about constructive measures to assist families. The Child Care Act is a social security Act. It works for the benefit of children. In fact , all the legislation this House passes has in its title a description of the major processes contained within it. That is not the case with the Bill being considered by the House; nor is it the case in the current Act. Both the legislation now before the Committee and the original Act deal with appeals to the Family Court, appeals to courts of summary jurisdiction and enforcement procedures to make sure that the dissolution of marriage is abided by by those participants involved in the dissolution process. Neither this Bill, which is some 65 pages long, nor the original Act, which is of about the same length, contains a single positive feature seeking to support the family. The processes contained in this Bill are, in fact, contingent on the dissolution of marriage. That is the prime factor. Mr Ruddock —What about the funding of marriage guidance organisations? Mr CADMAN —The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) speaks about the funding of marriage guidance organisations. It is my view that they are mechanisms within our society that have nothing whatsoever to do with this legislation in principle. Those organisations should be within the community, whether or not this legislation exists. The fact that this legislation creates problems and the need for counselling, for assurance, and for the strengthening of families, of course, is obvious. I put to the honourable member the view that , whether or not this legislation were in place and whether or not there are amendments to it, the processes of marriage guidance counselling in fact break into three parts. Firstly, there is the premarital phase of marriage guidance counselling, which is highly recommended by all of those involved in marriage guidance counselling. Secondly, there is the post-marriage phase. A couple establishes their family and their home and in that process the stresses and the interchanges that occur in every family necessitate some counselling. Only the third phase of family life comes within the ambit of this Bill. The third phase is reached when there is a dissolution of marriage or the threat of a dissolution of marriage. That is another time when counselling can and should be applied. So, indeed, there are more aspects of marriage guidance counselling than the simple aspect related to the Bill which is termed the 'Family Law Amendment Bill' or to the Act which is called the 'Family Law Act', but which, indeed, should be described as the 'Dissolution of Marriage Act'. The Attorney-General of the day, Senator Murphy, tried a number of titles for the proposed legislation. He attempted to find a title that would fittingly describe the new measures that he sought to introduce. I will not debate the measures that he sought to introduce at that stage, but honourable members who were members of this place at that time will be well aware of the difficulties faced by every honourable member in making decisions on that legislation. I contend that to encourage a general aura of well-being and support, Senator Murphy, as he then was, chose a title which he felt would encourage honourable members to support his measures. He chose the title of the Family Law Bill. I contend that we have moved past that time and that we are now looking at these measures in a rational and well-informed light. We have had ten years experience of this legislation. We know how it works. We know exactly what it applies to and which aspects of marriage it applies to. It applies to the dissolution of marriage. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(5.42) —I regard the amendment proposed by honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) as one which quite inaccurately describes many of the matters dealt with not only by this amending Bill but also by the Family Law Act 1975. In my view, the Family Law Act is not an inaccurate description, as suggested by the honourable member, but I acknowledge that it is an incomplete description. The reasons I suggest that it is an incomplete description are those outlined in paragraphs 3.25 and 3.26 of the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. Honourable members will recall that when I addressed the second reading of this Bill I mentioned the desire of that Committee to have the Marriage Act and the Family Law Act consolidated. The Committee was of the view that the consolidation of the Family Law Act and the Marriage Act would enable those considering matrimony to be better appraised of the responsibilities involved and the consequences of marriage breakdown. We suggested the highlighting of that by the consolidaton of those two statutes. The honourable member for Mitchell has suggested that another title-the ' Dissolution of Marriage Act'-would be more appropriate for this law. I think it important that honourable members understand that the Family Law Act deals with far more than the dissolution of marriage. It deals with marriage counselling organisations. The honourable member for Mitchell was at pains to say that marriage counselling involves more than just counselling people for divorce, and with that I would agree. Marriage counselling by marriage guidance organisations involves counselling people in preparation for marriage and about situations that might arise during marriage and can mean counselling in pre-divorce situations. So, it would very much mislead people to call this Bill a Bill dealing with only the dissolution of marriage when an important part of its role is the funding and the recognition of marriage counselling organisations. Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Family Law Act, which the honourable member wants to rename, provide for grants to approved marriage counselling organisations, approval of marriage counselling organisations and reports and financial statements of approved marriage counselling organisations. Part III talks about counselling and reconciliation. Part III may well involve counselling to assist people to get through a very difficult divorce situation, but I certainly hope that it can be effective counselling for reconciliation; in other words, to maintain the family. I have always envisaged that as an important role of the court counselling organisations. I know that there is some criticism of that from time to time, but the very fact that it is envisaged in the Bill that there should be counselling not only in relation to divorce but also in relation to reconciliation, and the fact that there is provision for these counselling services, emphasise the positive role that counselling can fulfil in supporting the institution of marriage. Of course, the Act deals with the dissolution and nullity of marriage. It deals with the jurisdiction of the court in matrimonial causes. It establishes the Family Court. I suppose the honourable member wants to rename the court as well. It also deals with the wider questions of the welfare and the custody of children and of maintenance and property. A very important extension of this legislation which I have supported, and which I assume the honourable member for Mitchell is supporting by supporting the second reading of the Bill, is that the Family Court will be able to be involved in the consideration of matters in relation to property before the problem questions of divorce arise. It is envisaged that the court will be able to deal with questions of children not only in a dissolution situation but also in a separation situation. To say that the legislation deals only with the dissolution of marriage would be to misrepresent it. The Family Law Act deals with appeals, procedure and evidence, recognition of decrees, enforcements, declarations and injunctions. Many situations in which declarations and injunctions are involved can arise before divorce or dissolution of marriage are even contemplated. Finally, the Act deals with the establishment of the Institute of Family Studies, an organisation which, it was envisaged, would have a very important role in undertaking studies to assist this Parliament in a whole range of matters not only in relation to divorce but also in relation to matters affecting families. It would be unfortunate if the Family Law Act were renamed as the honourable member suggested. The preface of the Act describes it in this way: An Act relating to Marriage and to Divorce and Matrimonial Causes and, in relation thereto, Parental Rights and the Custody and Guardianship of Infants, and certain other matters. The suggestion that the Family Law Act be renamed is an endeavour, I suspect, to -- Mr Hodgman —To tell the truth. Mr RUDDOCK —No, to bring the Act in a sense into disrepute by giving it a name which would suggest to people that it deals with only one aspect of family matters, that is, divorce. That would be most unfortunate. The court and its structures ought to be oriented-honourable members ought to be encouraging it to be so oriented-to strengthen marriage and families. To rename it would suggest that its function ought to be otherwise. One of the great criticisms that the Committee heard of the counselling services of the court was that they encourage people to sort out their affairs only in the context of a divorce and not with a view to reconciliation. It would be a grave disservice for honourable members to rename the Bill in such a way as to encourage the counselling service to operate in that way. The approach that was taken by the Joint Select Committee was far more appropriate, and that was to bring the Marriage Act into the Family Law Act which is a proper and legitimate extension of the areas with which the Family Law Act ought to deal. The Joint Select Committee strongly supported that recommendation. I have strongly supported that recommendation again today in my remarks. Mr Cadman —Do you support my amendment? Mr RUDDOCK —No. I encourage the Deputy Prime Minister, who represents the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), to take this view to the Attorney and to put it strongly to him. I could not support the amendment that is proposed by my colleague the honourable member for Mitchell because at best he has described the name of the Family Law Act as being an incomplete description. The title ' Family Law Act' is not an inaccurate description of the Act as I see it. Mr ADERMANN(Fisher)(5.52) —I do not propose to speak at any length, except to say that I very much support the amendment. I made the comments I wanted to make during the second reading debate on the Family Law Amendment Bill, which the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) heard and patiently listened to. In all consistency I say those things again in supporting this amendment. Mr NEWMAN(Bass)(5.53) —I cannot support the first amendment moved by my colleague the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). I pick up a point made by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) in this debate. He said that the amendment of the honourable member for Mitchell was aimed at bringing the Family Law Amendment Bill and the amendments into disrepute. It is unfortunate that he said that because I do not think that that is the honourable member's intention. I just make that point, although I am sure he can speak for himself. I know what his intentions are in this regard. Much of what the honourable member for Dundas had to say about his objections to this amendment to change the name was valid. I would go further and suggest to the honourable member for Mitchell that in the amendments which are foreshadowed he is trying to go to the heart of his argument for changing the name. That is, he is suggesting that we should be doing more to achieve reconciliation before the final dissolution of the marriage by having a procedure which helps people who have separated but who have not reached that final stage and that with the benefit of proper counselling their marriage may be saved. So without saying any more, I put it to the honourable member that perhaps there is an inconsistency, for the reasons I have just explained, and in this case it might be better to leave the title as it is. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(5.54) —The Government does not accept the proposed amendment. The family law connotation was referred to by members on both sides of the House. It is a difficult piece of legislation. It relates to the family. I think there is a well-meaning intention that by altering the title of the Bill to 'Marriage Dissolution' we may preserve a marriage. I very much doubt it. Perhaps it is a very late reaction to what former Senator Murphy allegedly did. There was a view at the time that he had created an atmosphere in which divorce was easier to obtain and that he was to blame. I do not think that that is true. In fact, the statistics clearly show that the number of divorces declined after the initial impact of the legislation . The problems society faces are the difficulties that people create for each other. They separate and form other associations, and there is no law against that. I remember appearing for a woman who was found guilty of bigamy on three occasions and was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. In fact, she could have lived in the most adulterous of circumstances and not suffered any penalty. We must look at what the law does, and I do not think that there is much to this amendment. Family law is an effort to sort out the rights of the family. It certainly follows a dissolution, but I do not think that the name of the Bill in any way detracts from its intention. There may be a few rare cases in which the procedures adopted here might well have led to a reconciliation and there has not been a dissolution. To that extent I do not think that the amendment deserves support. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(5.56) —I support the amendment and indicate that I will support all the circulated amendments to be moved by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). I support this amendment because I support the basic thrust of the amendments proposed by the honourable member for Mitchell. This is the first in a series of amendments which closely follow the amendments moved in the Senate by Senator Brian Harradine and which I support. Indeed, I would go even further in my support. If there were a move to strengthen even further some of the amendments proposed by the honourable member for Mitchell-I refer specifically to the proposed amendments to introduce a new section 15A to the Act, that I would support-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member should speak to clause 1. He will have an opportunity to speak on the other clauses at a later time. Mr HODGMAN —If I could finish the sentence and then abandon that point, I would go even further. I say that because, unlike the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) and my colleague the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), I have not practised at all in the field of what was originally called matrimonial causes, or divorce law, and very little in the maintenance area. So the comments I am about to make in relation to the title of the Bill are largely a reflection of the remarks which have been made to me in my parliamentary office over a period of years in relation to the way the Family Law Act is seen by the people of Australia, upon whom it is applied. It is a matter of some significance that, had the result of the seat of Denison been different in 1974, this legislation may not have passed. It passed in this House by one vote and the then member for Denison supported the legislation. Had I been the member for Denison at that stage I would have voted against it. Having said that, I want to emphasise that the reason why I support the first amendment is on the basis of legal accuracy. To me, it describes more accurately what this law is and what it is doing to Australia. I commend the honourable member for Dundas who had worked assiduously, along with others, to make this a Family Law Act. I am disappointed, as is the honourable member for Dundas, that when we have an opportunity in this Parliament tonight to debate this matter and to vote upon it, on one side of the House-our side-there will be a conscience vote; on the other side-- Mr Lionel Bowen —That is wrong. Mr HODGMAN —Is that wrong? If that is wrong, I am delighted. Mr Lionel Bowen —I have already explained it. Mr HODGMAN —I accept with great pleasure the Deputy Prime Minister's remarks. I thought I heard that statement made earlier in the debate, and if that is not correct I am delighted. Mr Maher —It is the opposite. Mr HODGMAN —I am delighted with the assurance given by the Deputy Prime Minister and by the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher). In conclusion, I make one fundamental point about this legislation. I have received numerous complaints that it is not working in the way it was originally intended and it is certainly not working as a family law. I have had the opportunity to read a book written by Mr Patrick Tennyson on the workings of the Family Law Act in Australia since it was introduced. Until it becomes a family law Act and until there is a return to the basic values which applied in this country before 1975, I believe the title proposed by the honourable member for Mitchell is more accurate and I will therefore support it. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(6.00) —I withdraw any imputation that may have appeared to be made by me in relation to the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) as to his motives in proposing this amendment. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Proposed new clause 1A. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(6.01) —I feel that it is not advantageous to continue with my second amendment because it seeks to repeat the first amendment in a different part of the Bill. It purely seeks to change the name of the Bill from the Family Law Amendment Bill to the Marriage Dissolution Bill and, therefore, it would not be my intention to pursue it except to say, briefly, that whilst I understand all the good intentions of the processes built up-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will have to move his amendment if he wishes to speak to it. Mr CADMAN —I will conclude my remarks with the explanation that I have offered. Clauses 2 to 7-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Proposed new clause 7A. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(6.02) —I move: (3) Page 7, after clause 7, insert the following new clause: Insertion of new section 15A ''7A. After section 15 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: Notice of separation '15A. (1) A party to a marriage who is living separately and apart from the other party to the marriage may file in the Family Court or in the Family Court of a State a notice stating that the parties to the marriage have separated and are living separately and apart. '(2) Where a notice is filed under sub-section (1) by a party to a marriage and where there are dependent children, the Principal Director of Court Counselling of the Family Court or the person who administers the counselling facilities of the Family Court of that State, as the case may be, shall, not later than 14 days after the filing of the notice, cause to be served on each party to the marriage a notice requiring that party to attend at such respective times and places, and on such respective dates, as are specified in the notice- (a) an interview with a marriage counsellor; and (b) a conference with the other party to the marriage and that marriage counsellor, for the purposes of- (c) considering the legal, social and financial consequences of a dissolution of the marriage and, in particular, the effects of a dissolution of the marriage on any children of the marriage; and (d) having regard to the consequences and effects referred to in paragraph (c), considering the possibility of a reconciliation. '(3) Evidence of anything said or of any admission made at an interview or conference conducted pursuant to sub-section (2) is not admissible in any court (whether exercising federal jurisdiction or not) or in proceedings before a person authorized by a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, or by consent of parties, to hear evidence.'.''. I first owe some explanation to the Committee, which was adverted to by the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), in regard to this amendment. An amendment to clause 21 which interrelates with this amendment to insert proposed new clause 7A is at the moment being circulated to honourable members. The interrelationship is extremely important. I have noticed with great interest the comments already made by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) in regard to the importance of the counselling procedures of the marriage law processes. No doubt that is true. I believe that at the time the Family Law Act was being debated by the House great store was set on the counselling processes that would apply following the passing of that legislation. Much to the disappointment of many members and the community at large that counselling process is not proceeding as it was orginally intended or as it was outlined it would proceed at that time. The counselling processes attached to the Family Court of Australia are basically designed to assist people in the dissolution processes. The counselling process advises individuals, either separately or together, on how they should proceed with the dissolution of their marriage in regard to the custody of children and settlement of property. It is not a reconciliation process whereas originally it was considered that it would be. I read with interest the comments by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans ) in the Senate when he admitted freely that the counselling processes as originally proposed are not the processes that take place today. My proposal, in fact, sets out that there should be a definite objective for counselling and that objective should be reconciliation. The amendment introduces this procedure by saying that on notification by either one of the parties that have separated there shall be a reconciliation counselling process. Honourable members will be aware, perhaps, of the amendment moved in this style by Senator Harradine in the other place. I have limited the processes put forward by Senator Harradine to include only those instances where there are dependent children within a marriage. I thought that the processes offered by Senator Harradine were interesting but the real stress, the real trauma of the dissolution of marriage is where children are involved. If this Committee follows its intention, as stated this afternoon, of making this a true family law Bill honourable members will seek to strengthen the reconciliation processes and the regard that they have for families and children . I make a special plea in this instance for the 80 per cent of women who suffer badly by the dissolution of marriage-those women who are thrown on their own resources unexpectedly, who have custody of children and who are required to maintain the total family, often with the debts that have been left by a husband who has no regard for them or his children. In my experience roughly 20 per cent of husbands gain custody and they too need support. For 10 years now I have been listening to stories from people in trauma through the dissolution of marriage. They are in the processes of divorce. In practically every instance they say: ' If only we had known that it would be like this. If only we had known there would be so much hate, so much bitterness, so much seeking to drag the other individual down, we would not have entered into the process of divorce'. That is the statement of individual after individual. This amendment is, in fact, a plea on behalf of those children who are so dramatically and disastrously affected by the processes of divorce. In the amendment the process of counselling is required to take place between individuals and a marriage guidance counsellor, both separately and then together. That process must take place within 14 days of the notice of separation. From the day that notice of separation is given the process of 12 months separation begins if the marriage is not reconciled. So we have a definite starting point of separation and the provisions of no fault divorce, the 12-months separation process, come into force. Therefore, we have a definite effort right at the beginning, at the vital and critical time of a separation, as early as legally possible, to have proper counselling processes brought to bear on the family, the children being the utmost consideration and the relationship between the husband and wife of the marriage being a further consideration of that counselling process. The amendment is not, as has been suggested by some speakers in the second reading debate, a proposal that, following reconciliation counselling the 12-months process should start. The proposal is to encourage people quickly to come together to a counsellor and seek to reconcile their differences. Senator Evans has mounted the argument in the other place that under the current counselling procedures only one per cent of cases are successfully reconciled. I accept that but I know that experienced members of the House of Representatives will realise that the current counselling process is not for reconciliation; it is for the settlement of the processes of divorce. It is not related to bringing people together. Legal processes are already well in train by the time the current counselling processes begin. There is bitterness and hatred. In most instances the marriage has gone beyond redemption. The main thrust, the clear objective that we must drive towards, is to establish a reconciliation process in the separation period. The amendment to clause 21 is indeed similar to those proposed by Senator Harradine. It lays out the conditions of what is to occur when the party or parties have filed a notice of separation. The amendment clearly spells out a period of not less than 12 months. It provides for special cases, when a cause can be pleaded for dissolution to take place in a period shorter than that which now occurs. So all the checks and provisions are there. I would like to bring to the notice of the chamber the fact that the Bill we are debating imposes compulsory counselling on what are called new marriages. Young people who have been married for a period of two years are compelled, under this legislation, to come to a counsellor. I contend that it is far more important and far more relevant to the wellbeing of children when they are involved that their mother and father should be compelled to face that process of counselling for reconciliation. I am concerned, of course, for the young marriages, for those young people who separate within two years of marriage, but it is even more crucial that that reconciliation process begin and take place when children are involved. The dreadful stress, pain and hate that is engendered by the divorce process really only affects children. As I have said, in moving this amendment, I seek to assist women in particular. I regard it as imperative that, where there is no regard and support by a husband for his wife and family and where there is support or sympathy by a wife for her husband and children the husband and wife should be brought together to encourage them to make the marriage work. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(6.13) —I have read the amendment circulated in the name of the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). I fail to see any particular merit in what is proposed. The honourable member has just acknowledged that, in the legislation at present, all marriages of under two years' duration cannot proceed to divorce unless there has been compulsory counselling. Of course these could well be marriages in which there are young children; they could be second marriages in which there are older children. There could be ex-nuptial children or children of any age even though the couple has been legally married for only two years. This amendment proposes that parties who live separately may file a notice of divorce. I envisage this requirement as only really helping a spouse who cuts out of the marriage situation with a clear intention to divorce. As I understand it, in most marriages when there is a separation there is a rugged period and the parties separate for a while, but the last thing they want to do is to take the first step towards divorce. I believe that it is quite contrary to the workings of reconciliation, of counselling, of sensitive advising, to get the couple together to actually go and file a notice in the Family Court of Australia. The honourable member for Mitchell is proposing in his amendment that a notice be filed in the Family Court. It would not be compulsory, but if it were not filed there would be no divorce later or there would be a delay in the divorce. The parties, even if they were irretrievably antagonistic and completely separated, would subsequently be made to go individually to marriage counsellors and would then have to appear together. This perfunctory, routine type of charade at reconciliation would be a return to the pre-1959 law, under which solicitors could not lodge an application for divorce unless a statement was made concerning counselling. It was a farce in those days. I am sure that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mitchell was moved in good faith, but from my experience and from what I know of the law before Sir Garfield Barwick brought in his celebrated changes, this amendment would do nothing. We are not dealing with an industrial dispute, when the parties are at loggerheads, when one has to have a compulsory conference. It is not a situation in which the parties are at arm's length as in an industrial situation. We are dealing with a family, a husband and wife with children. There has to be great sensitivity and care in the endeavours to get them back together . The Parliament in its wisdom has said that young marriages of under two years will have to go through this procedure. It is my belief that this amendment should be rejected by the Committee. I see no particular benefit deriving from it. I see no argument that this amendment will strengthen marriage or encourage couples to come back together. There is no possible way that a couple, when separated, can be made to file a notice of separation. It is not yet 1984. We do not have a police state in which someone goes around and says: 'You are living apart. Therefore, you have to file a notice of separation and a registrar has to come and drag you before a marriage counsellor'. That is not what the honourable member for Mitchell wants. He has said that a notice may be filed some time after the parties live apart. If this were accepted this would normally be just the first step towards divorce. Once that first step is taken I am afraid that the die is cast in most cases. Any honourable member in this chamber who has advised couples who have separated will know that once they start seeing solicitors it is a very dicey situation and, in many cases, the marriage is on the rocks. I have looked at this rather hastily drafted amendment that is now before us. To be fair to the honourable member for Mitchell, a supplementary amendment is proposed to another clause. But I think this amendment should be rejected by the Committee. I see no benefit and no merit in it. There is no way in which it would strengthen marriage. Mr NEWMAN(Bass)(6.17) —I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). The reasons the honourable member for Mitchell has moved this amendment have been put very forcibly by him in his address to the Committee. I just add a few further points to the central point that he has been making-that he wants to see that families that have broken up or separated have a chance to come together to save the marriage and, in particular, to save the position of children. That will be done by having a breathing space of 12 months between their decision to separate and their decision on whether to proceed to a permanent dissolution. The honourable member has put the case-he has put the case very well as far as I am concerned-that in that breathing space they will be able to take advantage of expert counselling before taking the final step to divorce. There would be 12 months or whatever between the time that they take the counselling and the time they decide whether to take that final step to divorce. I turn to the additional points I would like to make. As was said in the other place when this legislation was being debated-I agree with this and other members have said it in the debate on this Bill that took place before this Committee stage-the bulk of the amendments to the Family Law Act that we are looking at are designed, as far as I can see, to do two things: First of all, they concentrate on the post-divorce stage to tidy up the problems that exist at that point; secondly, they strengthen the position and the administration of the Family Court of Australia. But they do not concentrate on the very point that the honourable member for Mitchell has been making; that is, strengthening the possibility of reconciliation of families. This is what this amendment is all about-doing something about strengthening the family position. I now turn to the remarks of the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher). I have never before heard such a specious argument. How can he on the one hand use the example of Part III of the Family Law Act 1975-he mentioned section 14 (6) concerning young marriages-and quote the compulsory need for counselling and on the other hand reject this amendment? There is no logic in his argument. But to go further, I could not follow the argument he put. He began by saying that he knows of many parties who were quite happy to separate and live apart but not go to the final stage of dissolution and that they would not like to be dragged in, as he said, to counselling. That is not suggested by this amendment. It applies only to people who decide that they will proceed to a permanent dissolution. They then have to go through the procedure that the amendment prescribes; that is, they have to decide to notify officially that they are to separate and wait 12 months before they can get to the dissolution stage. At that point the counselling takes place. The honourable member for Mitchell did not suggest compulsorily dragging into the courts people who do not want to go to a dissolution. It is only after they decide to go to a dissolution that the honourable member's amendment would start to operate. I ask the honourable member to read the amendment and not make silly arguments when he obviously does not know what the amendment is about. The other accusation made by the honourable member for Lowe was that somehow this amendment was hastily drawn together and produced for our consideration. He well knows that that is not the truth of the matter. The honourable member for Mitchell made it quite clear that he was closely following the amendments put by Senator Harradine in the other place. I think the debate over there went for approximately six or eight weeks. Senator Harradine's amendment was considered and debated on many occasions. As I understand it, Senator Harradine's amendment was a central part of the final debate on 7 October. So it is not something that has been brought in here hastily. It is something that 17 or 18 senators saw fit to vote on. I hope honourable members will have read the arguments put in support of the Harradine amendment in the Senate and will have seen that the arguments put up by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) simply do not hold water. What were the arguments put up by the Attorney-General in the Senate when this Harradine amendment, or the Cabinet amendment in this place, was being looked at ? There were two. First, he rejected it on the basis of cost and, secondly, he said that compulsory counselling simply was not on. Let us deal with those two points. First of all, this amendment is different from the Harradine amendment in that the honourable member for Mitchell qualified the counselling and other procedures by talking only about marriages in which children are involved. It is quite different from the argument put by Senator Harradine. I think Senator Walters asked whether it could be qualified by talking only about marriages in which children were involved. The Attorney-General said that of the 40,000-odd projected divorces only 60 per cent would involve children. The first point I make is that it is clear from the Attorney-General's own argument that there would be a reduction of 40 per cent in the number of divorces. I do not know whether that follows in respect of costs, the $26m that he talked about. That is one point. There would be a reduction in the number of divorces to be considered and to operate under this amendment. The second point I raise concerns the comments made by many honourable members about the present cost of divorce to the community. I give the figures again: In 1982 over $717m was paid out in widows pensions, well over half of whom are divorcees, representing a 174 per cent increase since 1975. Another important statistic is this: Almost 70 per cent of recipients of the supporting parents benefits allocation for 1982 were separated wives or de factos, representing a 300 per cent increase since 1975. In talking about the cost of counselling-whatever it may be from the reduction of $26m-those figures have to be set against the additional allocation of government funds to go into counselling. That is the second point. The third point is this: Senator Teague challenged the Attorney-General's figures. According to the Hansard he said: I am very surprised at this costing of $26m. I would find it more reasonable if the figure was about one sixth of that. I think that a professional marriage counsellor who charged $100 for even lengthy discussions with a couple who were separated or who were seeking marriage counselling would be of some real assistance. There are three points about the argument in relation to costing. First, the honourable member's amendment reduces the original costs assessed by the Attorney-General in the Senate when Senator Harradine's amendment was put. Secondly, we should judge it against those costs to the community of widows pensions and supporting parents benefits. Interestingly enough, in the Senate the Attorney-General did not answer the queries raised by Senator Teague. Thirdly, what is the basis of the assessment of $26m for counselling? I now turn to the second objection put by the Attorney-General, and that concerned compulsory counselling. I have already made one important point. The Attorney-General supports-lauds-the fact that under section 14 (6) of the Act there is compulsory counselling for those persons seeking dissolution after less than two years of marriage. If we can do it in that case, why not do it in this case? The Attorney-General answered that point by putting the case that this great cost, which I have already dealt with, will be some sort of trial. Of course the Attorney-General did not meet the argument when he put that case. For young marriages counselling occurs at the point of dissolution. Of course, this amendment is at the other end of the divorce procedure where people are only considering dissolution and have 12 months to go. That brings me to the next point; that is, that it would appear that when the marriage counselling groups gave their opinions to the Attorney-General this point really was not considered and that they were still looking at the dissolution point. I can only quote Senator Harradine who quoted from page 3 of a report prepared by the Attorney- General's officers. I will come back to that matter and speak again, I hope. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(6.27) —I shall make my comments short. There are three points I should like to make. Firstly, in all the evidence that the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act received, compulsory counselling had a very poor success rate in achieving reconciliations. It had a very poor success rate in helping even in relation to the sort of dissolution counselling that goes on. To compel people to come in for counselling is not terribly helpful. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) who spoke before me might ask: 'Look, if that is the case, why do you have this section 14 (6) and why are you making this amendment? ' I think the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is in part hoist with his own petard because he is making an amendment to alter the date from the date of the filing of the application to an earlier date. Section 14 (6) was originally proposed because the old Matrimonial Causes Act had in it provisions which made divorce very much more difficult. It was felt when the Family Law Act was introduced that it would be necessary to maintain some special provisions in relation to young people-that is, first marriages- because we recognised that they were under very intense pressure at that time and were more likely to be subjected to difficulties which could cause a breakdown. We thought that if we could help them over that period maybe they would have more of a chance of survival. It was in that context that section 14 (6) was proposed and has been left. I think all of us feel that in relation to those very young marriages we have to do something. We really do not know what is necessary to make those marriages which are at risk last, but that is why we have that provision. I can only say that in all the time that I looked at the question of when counselling was to be most helpful I formed the view that the only way in which it would be helpful was if it could get into the scene of a possible breakup at the earliest possible date. Honourable members supporting this amendment will say: 'That is what we are trying to do. By making people give a notice we will have a chance of getting them at the earliest possible date'. Let us look at the report that the Committee brought down. We brought down suggestions that counselling be extended particularly to other courts such as State courts and magistrates courts that have delegated the jurisdiction. We looked at the sorts of matters that the courts were dealing with. They deal frequently with the situation in which a wife is at risk because she has been assaulted by her husband, where children are at risk because they are being neglected and where people come to the notice of courts of summary jurisdiction. Those marriages are very likely to be at risk. If a counselling service in that court system were ready and available, the counsellors might very well be able to be of some help and assistance. I am not satisfied that the Government has yet moved to a situation where those sorts of courts of summary jurisdiction will have the capacity and the service to be able to deal with people at that instance. If I were looking at a way in which I could get counselling to more people where it was likely to be successful, it seems to me that it would be by extending the counselling services in the areas I have suggested-the areas of the courts which are first and more likely to see the parties who are at risk. However, I am not convinced- I certainly want to be consistent-with young marriages and I am not convinced with what might be described as the more mature marriages that are breaking up, that compulsory counselling will have any appreciable effect in the numbers of marriages that are saved, particularly at the time in which that counselling is brought to bear. I think the time of the counsellors is more likely to be better served by working not on the broad mass of cases, but with cases that are identified where they will be helpful in achieving a reconciliation. They are the sorts of cases in which counselling is needed. Mr Cadman —That's fairy land. How do you identify them? What is the process? Mr RUDDOCK —I think these cases are more likely to be identified by people coming in who are in a situation where they recognise that something needs to be done and where their legal advisers recognise that this is a situation where some assistance might be able to be offered. In many of the other procedures the courts have available to them court counsellers who are brought in touch with the parties. In some of the administrative procedures that have gone through people come to notice and there is more prospect of working in the areas where they are able to do so with advantage. Notwithstanding that, one also has to recognise that the solution that is proposed-I am not criticising the objectives the honourable member is seeking to achieve-is very likely to make it more difficult for some cases in which a divorce may be the ultimate outcome. It will be more difficult for some people simply because they have not put in their certificate at the time that they have sought to obtain counselling advice. I am very supportive of the objectives that the honourable member has in mind. I am certainly very supportive of achieving the sorts of objectives that Senator Harradine has in mind. If honourable members look at all the statements I have made on family law matters, on marriage and divorce, they will see that I am resolute in my determination to encourage people to remain married and to strengthen the institution of marriage. But I want to look critically at everything that is proposed to ask that question: 'Will it serve that objective? ' I very much doubt from my judgment and experience that this amendment will do that. I have suggested other areas of activity where I believe counselling, if offered, could be more fruitful. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(6.35) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr Cadman —I wonder whether the Minister is seeking to close the debate on this clause? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Hon. Les Johnson) —Not necessarily. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not want to close the debate although I was a bit anxious to complete the debate this evening. I appreciate what the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) and the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) have said. I will just look at the drafting and at the Family Law Amendment Bill. Section 15 of the Act now provides for parties to seek counselling. I do not know what the objection is once that is the position. The honourable member for Mitchell has moved proposed new section 15A which states: A party to a marriage who is living separately . . . They do not have to be separated under section 15 to get counselling. That is the first thing. They can seek it now. The honourable member says that once they are separated they may or they may not get counselling. In sub-clause (2) the honourable member has put another proviso to which there is no objection, but it only applies where there are dependent children. So all the other matters do not relate to sub-clause (1). They relate only to sub-clause (2). In the terms of the overriding position of dependent children, honourable members will find in all matters relating to dissolution of marriage, the Court has to be satisfied as to what arrangements are being made about the children. This follows. Once there are children arrangements have to be made by the Court. The judge takes a keen interest in the welfare of the children. He sees to all the other provisions, including the wishes of the child. I do not see where there is any gap in what the honourable member is intending to do. The matter that I will advert to now-but it is not really directly in front of us-is the amendment the honourable member proposes to move later to clause 21, that says that such a notice of separation has been filed. Perhaps it could be filed at any time. We then put an additional barrier on that proviso that not until 12 months after the lapsing of the filing of notice can the dissolution take place. We get a situation where the parties have been separated say for 11 months-as advocated by the honourable member-and can file a notice which would effectively create a barrier of two years. Mr Cadman —No. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not mind if the honourable member disagrees. I think this is the interpretation. I cannot advert to it because it is an amendment to clause 21. It makes a special provision for a party where a notice has been filed and that is that a period of not less than 12 months has elapsed since the filing of the notice. We will not argue too much about it. What I am trying to say to the honourable member is that under the existing provisions, under section 15, a party can seek counselling. It is there. I do not see the difference. I do not see why there is so much unnecessary objection to the provision. The idea is that everybody should seek counselling if the parties want it. That is intelligent. It does not always achieve success because the parties are the prime movers in the operation. If they do not achieve success they will not abide by any decisions. The issue is with the court. We are talking about dependent children. The real issue is that the judge has to be satisfied about the children. The question of custody, maintenance and all these matters are germane to the actual dissolution. This cannot in any way be avoided by what the honourable member thinks is a gap in the legislation. Mr NEWMAN(Bass)(6.37) —I interjected when the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) was speaking about the time. I did misunderstand what he was saying. It was said in the other place that the clock starts from the time that the certificate of separation is put in. That is true. I will just make a few more additional points. The Minister for Trade spoke to section 15 of the Family Law Act which does allow people to seek the assistance of a court in counselling facilities. The problem which I am sure the honourable member and other honourable members will recognise and which in fact has been put as some of the arguments against this very amendment, is that people are very suspicious of counselling. One of the parties-quite often both parties-will not be in it. Since I received the amendments proposed by Senator Harradine in my office one party came to see me about problems with the Family Court of Australia. I discussed the Harradine amendment with that party. Unfortunately I have put this to only seven or eight couples. I have to admit the range is not great. It was only on Monday of this week that a wife came to see me. In this case the wife had been divorced for one month. It was a marriage of 18 years. It was a case of the husband finding a young lady with the inevitable result for the wife. Two children of 14 and 16 years of age were involved. When I spoke to her about the provisions of this amendment-as has been put to the House-she said if only that had been there, because if it had been compulsory she felt sure that it would have given an opportunity for both parties to have effected a reconciliation. I can point only to that one case. As to the points made by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) about the effectiveness of counselling, he had to admit that he does not know whether counselling will be effective. Mr Ruddock —In particular cases. Mr NEWMAN —In this particular case. It is interesting that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) had to admit the same thing. In the debate in the other place he said: There are some differences, of course, in the two proposals- he was talking about the section 14 (6) proposal- and it may be that the requirement of counselling in a conference situation, with both parties present, which is a central feature of Senator Harradine's proposal- and, of course, that of the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman)- may make some small difference to the possibility of reconciliation. We do not know. There is simply no evidence available on this point. They are the possible benefits involved. So nobody knows. I suppose we are all operating from our own experience. I feel from my experience that what has been proposed is a positive step in ensuring that there is a gap between the separation and final dissolution. We must give counselling a go under these provisions, when it becomes compulsory. Senator Harradine-I was quoting him just before my time expired the last time I was on my feet-apparently received some documents which had been prepared by the psychological counselling section of the Attorney-General's Department. He quoted from page 3 of a report in which the reporting officer stated: This all suggests several conclusions that counselling is most likely to result in reconciliation if it takes place prior to, or immediately after the separation. There is some concrete evidence from an officer of the Attorney-General's Department which goes far beyond the point I was making a moment ago about this amendment being based on our own experience. That report indicates that great benefits could be derived from the system which has been outlined in the amendment. For those reasons I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mitchell. I have not heard, in this chamber anyway, any real arguments against it. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), in the spirit of this debate, has tried to be helpful but I do not think the arguments he has put are very convincing. As we have been told by the honourable member for Dundas, although he endorses the principles, the sentiment of the amendment, he has finally to come down against it because he does not know whether counselling will work. I hope that everybody in this chamber will see the merit of what the honourable member has proposed and support it. I add one final thing. Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister and others who are against this amendment would see greater merit in it if it were implemented on a trial basis. The honourable member for Mitchell might be prepared to insert a sunset clause in the amendment. Perhaps the system could run for a year or two. Then after a decent trial, as the Attorney-General admits will happen in the case of the counselling of young marrieds, we could see whether it is worth while expending the required funds on the counselling service. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(6.43) —I wish to make a few brief remarks in concluding the debate on this clause. I thank honourable members for their comments. I shall deal first of all with the comments made by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen). I think we are of similar mind in this proposal. The Government's fear of taking some sort of positive step in favour of the support of families is something that I find quite unusual and somewhat objectionable. People of good will and understanding in this chamber and in the Senate say: 'Terrible things are happening to our families throughout the nation because of marriage breakups but we will sit back and watch them'. I think that is the crux of the matter. Nobody is prepared to take one little positive step in the direction of support, aid, guidance and assistance at the appropriate time. The Deputy Prime Minister commented on the provisions of clause 15 concerning counselling and reconciliation. I mentioned earlier in the debate that, if any party wants to call for those provisions he or she may do so. When parties call for those types of conferences it means that they wish, in the circumstances of the court surroundings, to come to the final decision on details of their settlement. Of course, the judge is obliged to consider the welfare of the children, but he considers it under various heads and in a certain light. He first of all has to consider which parent the children identify with most closely. The children are asked, by the judge, the counsellor or the solicitors involved: 'Which parent do you want to live with?' I do not consider that to be counselling. I do not consider that to be having proper regard for the welfare of the children. The children are torn between two parents, being bribed and coerced so that they will accept on the day in court one parent or the other. That is not acceptable. It is not acceptable under the civilised standards of any nation. I think the judge also considers the financial circumstances of either party and decides whether or not the children can be properly supported within the family, whether they can live, I suppose as the saying goes, in the manner to which they are accustomed. That is not a proper counselling process. We talk about the counselling process conducted by legal advisers to couples in the process of divorce. I think many legal advisers in these circumstances absolutely encourage the headlong rush into divorce. They will make claims such as this: 'There is no way that we can move against your husband's solicitor because he has gone too far beyond a point at which we can talk to him. What we must do now is get our hands on as much of the goods as we possibly can'. Members of the legal profession have a dual interest. The first is to themselves and their proper pursuit of the law, which may be very enthusiastic at times, to put a very kindly interpretation on the way they proceed. At other times they may genuinely seek to make some contact with the other partner, but they have no skill, no understanding and no training or qualifications in the area. That is not a proper process and it is one that cannot be offered as an excuse or substitute for proper counselling. Let us look at the facts. Some 60 per cent of divorces involve children. Each year 40 per cent of new marriages fail and 53,000 children finish up with one parent. That is a tremendous number of children. In ten years that is half a million kids. There is no effort by the Government or, apparently, the majority of honourable members in this chamber, to prevent that occurring. I think it is time that as a Parliament we came to grips with these difficult issues. It is all very well to say: 'We will send it off to the Attorney-General and get him to conduct some sort of airy-fairy investigation; in 10 years time we will have another look at it'. In 10 years time another half million children will have had no effort made on their behalf. I make a plea to this House that we should in conscience, on behalf of our constituents, offer some hope for those children and for the resolution of the difficulties of marriage. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(6.50) —We are getting a fair amount of oratory and I appreciate it. Let me repeat that the amendment the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) has moved to create proposed new section 15A states that a party 'may' seek to file notice. That is in his amendment. I am suggesting that that provision is already applicable in existing section 15 which states the same thing. The honourable member seems to be adding in the emphasis of his concern that there is some obligation. I draw the honourable member's attention to his wording: It is 'may' seek. In other words, the parties need not seek to file. What is the difference? Mr Cadman —Refer to clause 21. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, I am talking about the honourable member's amendment now. His amendment is to create proposed new section 15A. Mr Newman —They cannot have a dissolution without it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Let me make the point that we are not talking about dissolution . We are talking about the fact that they may-and the emphasis is on 'may'-seek to file. The honourable member has wasted a lot of time arguing the fact that this is obligatory. It is not because the wording is 'may'. I only draw the honourable member's attention in strict legal terms-I am not against his sentiments; he has admirable sentiments-to the way the amendment is drafted. As it is drafted of course it means that the parties need not file that notice. That is the position. They need not do it. They may have dependent children and this and all the other matters about which the honourable member is so concerned have to be taken into account. So what are we talking about? Is not the same situation obvious in section 15 when a party to a marriage 'may' seek the same reconciliation, advice and counselling? That is the point I make. I do not think I need dwell on it. Mr Cadman —Just in brief reply- The CHAIRMAN —Order! I think the honourable gentleman has already spoken twice in the debate. Question put: That proposed new clause 7A (Mr Cadman's amendment) be inserted. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 42 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Katter, R. C.Anthony, J. D. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Cowan, D. B. McVeigh, D. T.Dobie, J. D. M. Millar, P. C.Drummond, P. H. Newman, K. E.Edwards, Harry O'Keefe, F. L.Fisher, P. S. Robinson, IanGoodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hawker, D. P. M. Street, A. A.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Baldwin, P. J. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. Macphee, I. M.Burr, M. A. Maher, M. J.Campbell, G. Mayer, H.Carlton, J. J. Mildren, J. B.Charles, D. E. Milton, P.Charlesworth, R. I. Morris, AllanChynoweth, R. L. Morris, PeterCohen, B. Mountford, J. G.Coleman, W. T. O'Neil, L. R. T.Cross, M. D. Porter, J. R.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Punch, G. F.Dawkins, J. S. Reeves, J. E.Duffy, M. J. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Everingham, D. N. Scott, J. L.Fatin, W. F. Simmons, D. W.Free, R. V. Snow, J. H.Gayler, J. Spender, J. M.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele Uren, T.Hand, G. L. Wells, D. McM.Hayden, W. G. West, S. J.Holding, A. C. White, P. N. D.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Clauses 8 to 12-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 13 (Appointment, removal and resignation of Judges). Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(7.01) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 13, page 8, lines 13 and 14, omit ''by inserting after sub-section ( 2) the following sub-section:'', substitute ''(1) by inserting after sub-section (2) the following sub-sections:''. (2) Clause 13, page 8, at the end of the clause add the following paragraph: ''; and (b) omitting sub-section (2A) and substituting the following sub- section: '(2A) The Governor-General shall appoint- (a) the person who, at the date of commencement of section 7 of the Family Law Amendment Act 1983, hold office as Judges of the Family Court of Western Australia; and (b) any person who is subsequently appointed as a Judge of the Family Court of Western Australia, as Judges of the Family Court of Australia, and a person so appointed may serve in the office of Judge of the Family Court of Australia notwithstanding that he continues to hold, and serve in, the office of Judge of the Family Court of Western Australia.' ''. The Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act received submissions from the Government of Western Australia that steps should be taken to confer Federal commissions on judges of the Western Australian Family Court to enable them to participate in particular in the appellate work of the Court and generally to experience the way in which the Family Court of Australia was conducting itself elsewhere in Australia. The Committee agreed that that was a desirable objective and included a recommendation to that effect in its report. It stated: In this connection it should be noted that if judges were granted federal commissions it would enable them to sit, if required, in the exercise of jurisdiction under the Family Law Act in any part of Australia. It would not, however, be possible for judges not granted Western Australian commissions to exercise jurisdiction under the Western Australian Family Court Act 1976. Notwithstanding the fact that the Committee recommended as it did, the Government has not accepted that recommendation nor did the previous Government. I gather this is because of the way in which judges in Western Australia and judges under the Family Law Act are paid. I have an amendment that I intend to press later in relation to the remuneration of judges commissioned under the Family Law Act. Because in Western Australia the judges under that Act are the equivalent of district court judges in Western Australia, it is assumed that the Commonwealth would have to pay some additional moneys, presumably to bring the emoluments of the Western Australian judges to the same level as those paid to the Family Court judges. I suppose it is assumed that in some way that would present difficulties for the Commonwealth in an administrative sense, in terms of prestige and in other ways. I must say that if those objections were substantive, I would have hoped that they would have been put to the Joint Select Committee when it examined this matter. I think that there are distinct advantages to be gained from commissioning the Western Australian judges in the same way as the judges of the Family Court are commissioned. It is for this reason that I moved the amendment I did. I understand that when the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) spoke on this matter in another place he also mentioned that he could already give the Western Australian judges commissions. While that might be the case, I think that-I perhaps stand corrected on this-there is only one judge who has been given such a commission. He is an eminent judge, the chief judge of the Western Australian Court and past Chairman of the Family Law Council. I think that there are good reasons why this ought to be extended to the other judges of the Court as outlined, as it appears that the Government is unwilling to make those appointments I have moved my amendment. If the Minister representing the Attorney were able to indicate that the Government was intending to move in this way and to give the Western Australian judges commissions, perhaps there would be no need to press the matter. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(7.07) —I say to the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) that whilst the Government is sympathetic to his proposal it does not feel it should be implemented in this way. I understand that there are obstacles. The Western Australian judges have the status of district court judges. Family Court of Australia judges have superior court status. Apparently, the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and most other people are working at how to overcome the practical obstacles. Whilst there is nothing objectionable in what the honourable member has said, apart from the fact that Western Australian judges are paid more than Family Court judges-- Mr Ruddock —Did I say more? I assumed less. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member assumed less, but they are paid more. So it is on that score that I do not think they would be happy about it. All I say is that the proposition is basically acceptable to the Government, but at present it would be an inappropriate way to do it. I understand that the Attorney-General is working at trying to overcome the obstacles that would be created by granting Federal commissions to judges of district court status. So I hope that my honourable friend-- Mr Ruddock —Do you know how long it might be before it is resolved? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I hope it will be resolved before the next election. Amendments negatived. Clause agreed to. Proposed new clause 13A (Salary and allowances). Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(7.10) —I move: (3) Page 8, after clause 13, insert the following new clause: Salary and allowances ''13A. Section 25 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (1) 'at such respective rates as are fixed from time to time by the Parliament' and substituting the following: ', as follows: (a) the Chief Judge shall be paid salary, annual allowances and travelling allowances at the same rates as the President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; and (b) the Senior Judges, and Judges of the Family Court of Australia shall be paid salary, annual allowances and travelling allowances at the same rates as the Deputy Presidents of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. '.''. This amendment may well overcome the problem I had with clause 13 because I was of the view that district court judges in Western Australia were paid less than superior court judges in the Commonwealth jurisdiction. Over a period there has been a problem in relation to the payment of Family Court judges. The Remuneration Tribunal has determined that they should be paid less than the judges whom Family Court judges have always seen themselves as equivalent to; that is, Deputy Presidents of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. In fact it is argued that some judges who were appointed were given undertakings as to the way in which they would receive emoluments in office. There is some dissatisfaction that judges of the Family Court continue to receive considerably less than Deputy Presidents of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. In the other place Senator Missen outlined very fully the problems associated with the long history of his concern that these judges are not paid on the same basis as Deputy Presidents. I have another reason for pursuing this matter. Over a period I have been concerned that, by the emphasis we have placed upon obtaining people with those special qualities which the Act specifies, that people who are appointed ought to have to deal with custody matters, we have obtained a Court which amongst its membership has people who are less qualified- I mean that as no reflection on the judges-to deal with some of the other very complex and difficult questions of law that Family Court judges from time to time are called upon to deal with. Just to give some broad headings, Family Court judges are required to deal with significant matters of law involving trusts, company arrangements and taxation when considering property disputes. They are very difficult and very contentious and very often they are fought hard . While we might not like it, or the cost involved, it is important that the people dealing with those matters are the most competent people to deal with them. Some evidence was also given to the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act that some Family Court judges, particularly after a long period-we should bear in mind that some of them were appointed very young-and notwithstanding their retiring age, which is different from the retiring age for judges generally, could become stale and perhaps ought to be able to move within a court framework to sit in other areas not as sensitive as Family Court areas. Some people have argued, and I support the view, that judges of the Family Court have to be sufficiently well qualified and remunerated. They have to be the right people for the job. They have to be able to deal with not only difficult social questions but also difficult questions of law. If there were a problem in relation to a judge we would not have to go through the business of removing him from office, which just does not happen, but rather there would be the capacity to move him into other parts of the judical system in which those legal skills which he presumably had when he was appointed could be well used. As long as Family Court judges are remunerated on a significantly lower scale I do not think we will be able to overcome the problems which exist in the Family Court and which I have alluded to. I certainly hope that the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen), representing the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), will be able to indicate support for this amendment. As long as there is no amendment of this sort, the Remuneration Tribunal will believe it appropriate for there to be this historical distinction and the distinction will remain. That is unfortunate. I recognise that an element of cost is involved, to which some allusion may be made. If there are problems of cost, an indication from the Minister for Trade representing the Attorney-General, that this matter will be looked at when the cost can be made available, together with some certainty that these arrangements will be implemented, and an indication of now that will be done, might well be acceptable. If he does not so indicate, this is an important amendment that ought to be proceeded with. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(7.16) —The Government is unable to accept the amendment. It appreciates and agrees with the sentiments expressed, but cost is a factor. The cost would be $7,000 per Family Court judge which would be tantamount to a 10 per cent increase in salary. Other people could think that that was a bit beyond the norm. Nevertheless, the fact is that these judges have a very heavy work load. Of course, that matter is always the subject of Remuneration Tribunal determinations. The former Attorney-General, from the same side of politics as the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), appeared before the Remuneration Tribunal, which was not prepared to accept his advocacy. The honourable gentleman might like to appear on the next occasion and perhaps the matter can be adjusted. It is important that we do not start to fix salaries by legislation because we are not much good at fixing our own; we have to have the Remuneration Tribunal to do it. It is important that there be that Tribunal decision. I hope the Tribunal takes into account the matters that the honourable gentleman has raised. I assure him that the Government is in sympathy with what he said, but does not feel that it can do what he wants in the way he proposes it. Amendment negatived. Clauses 14 to 20-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 21 (Institution of proceedings). Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(7.21) —In light of the vote on the previous matter, the amendment I proposed to move to this clause falls by the wayside. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —The honourable member withdraws his proposed amendment. Clause agreed to. Clauses 22 and 23-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 24 (Dissolution of marriage). Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(7.18) —I move: At the end of the clause add the following paragraph: ''; and (c) by omitting from sub-section (2) '12 months' and substituting '2 years'. This is a very simple amendment which I am sure nobody will have too many problems with. It changes two figures only. It changes '12' to '2'. It is just a process of deleting the figure '1' from the clause. That process increases the period necessary to await dissolution from 12 months to 2 years. I am not strongly in favour of this amendment because I rather felt that the more sensible approach of counselling would have been considered more seriously by honourable members than it was. Despite the comments of the Minister for Trade ( Mr Lionel Bowen) in the closing stages of the debate on that clause, I am somewhat surprised that he did not follow through to clause 21 to see the restriction placed on dissolution by that clause in reference to clause 7. I have moved this amendment because there has to be some slowing down process in the whole system. As honourable members are aware, my electorate is in the western suburbs of Sydney. I frequently have to speak to marriage guidance counsellors and welfare agencies of all sorts who have responsibility for dealing with those in receipt of widows pensions, over half of whom are divorced , those in receipt of supporting parents benefits and many other beneficiaries of the welfare system who are victims of the dissolution of marriage. There can be no doubt in my mind that the academic approach which tends to be adopted by this chamber is not one that is borne out in practice. In many instances young families are under great stress and living under great difficulty. A slowing down process of the dissolution of marriage, a longer waiting period, I believe would lead to a greater opportunity for reconciliation. I noted with interest the comment of the previous Attorney-General, a man distinguished in the law, a man known for his careful consideration of all matters affecting both the legal process and the lives of the individuals of Australia. Senator Durack over the last few weeks has carefully stated his support for a change in the length of time that must elapse before a dissolution of marriage takes place. He was the first law officer of Australia, a man who is respected both for his compassion and his legal ability. We have in this place at the moment a man of ability, but a man without experience. The current Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is not prepared to consider the changes moved in the Senate and strongly supported by Senator Durack. I suspect that this amendment will not satisfy the Government. Despite the claims of a free vote, I think that if I were to push it to a vote, no member of the Australian Labor Party would be willing to cross the floor on this matter. Therefore, I will rest my case, having moved the amendment, and indicate that it is a far less satisfactory approach to this problem than proper counselling, and proper counselling for reconciliation. But it is a process which seeks to support the values of marriage and the values of the family. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(7.23) —The Government does not accept the amendment. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) made the point that he did not think it would be altogether successful. He placed much more emphasis on counselling, and I agree with that. Once a separation takes place and it extends for a period of over six months, the prospects for reconciliation are not very good. Statistics show that that is the case. The real emphasis, as the honourable member said, is that people really feel there ought to be much more education and counselling before marriage. This is the important part. If parties are unsuitable, naturally they will not stay together . One can imagine that the 12 month period of separation presents all sorts of problems for them. I do not see any point in extending the problem area for a two year period. The concept is to try to prevent the marriage taking place if the obvious results are that there is very little likelihood of success. Anybody who looks at the breakdown in marriages can well apply the criterion that in many cases this good advice should be given to young people: 'You fit a category in every sense of the word which means virtually that your chances of success in marriage are not very bright'. That would be worth while. But once the separation takes place, the statistics clearly show that once it goes beyond six months, it becomes more permanent and more obvious. Anybody who has practised in the law knows that it is all very well to talk about what we want to happen. But parties who have separated have already gone through the conflict period. There is a fair amount of hate; there is a lot of contest and bitterness. That is the reason why they separate. It is a bit too academic to say: 'Look, we will let the separation run for a longer period and it will get better'. It invariably gets worse, with all the connotations of the parties forming other liaisons and affiliations and the children and everybody else being affected by that position . Everybody wants to see mariage being a success. But the issue must be looked at prior to marriage, not after a period of 12 months or two years. The statistics clearly show that once the separation takes place, the chances for reconciliation are very minimal. This matter has been the subject of continual debate. If we look at the theory of the Barwick position, it is that once people have separated, they must head towards a settlement of the marital relationship, either in personal terms or in property terms. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(7.25) —I very briefly speak in support of the amendment moved by my colleague, notwithstanding the argument advanced by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen). I can understand that point of view, particularly coming from him as a legal practitioner. I fully support the sentiments that he expressed, that more emphasis should be given to pre-marriage counselling and the preparation of people for marriage. But I still feel that notwithstanding those sentiments, if a couple can approach marriage secure in the knowledge that irrespective of what happens, they can in effect terminate that marriage by living apart for a continuous period of not less than 12 months , the very fact that they have that knowledge could mean that irrespective of how much counselling we give them, at the back of their minds they subconsciously adopt this attitude: 'Well, if we can't get on, we only have to live apart for 12 months'. Therefore, the risk of those young people entering marriage on that basis is very high. The risk, obviously-forgetting about the legal part of it-on the sheer mathematics of it, must make them stop and think at least a little more if they cannot terminate that marriage under a period of two years instead of 12 months. I make the point-notwithstanding the arguments advanced by the Deputy Prime Minister-that fundamentally his argument was weakened a little by virtue of the fact that he did not take cognisance of the view that people can form in assessing their approach to marriage by simply saying: 'Well, it will take me longer to get out of it because the period of separation is two years rather than 12 months'. Maybe that very thought could deter a few people from getting married and putting up with the traumas. On balance, I favour the amendment, notwithstanding the points of view advocated by the Deputy Prime Minister. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 25 to 34-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Proposed new clause 34A. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(7.28) —I move: (4) Page 26, after clause 34, insert the following new clause: Insertion of new section 74A ''34A. After section 74 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: Variations in maintenance payable in respect of children '74A. (1) The regulations may provide for the annual variation of orders for the payment of maintenance in respect of children by reference to variations in the cost of providing for a child ascertained from estimates of the cost of providing for a child published by the Australian Statistician. '(2) Where regulations have been made under sub-section (1), an order that is made under this Act for the payment of maintenance in respect of a child has effect, subject to any order of the court that made the first-mentioned order or of any other court, as from each anniversary of the making of the order as if the order had been varied in accordance with the regulations.'.''. The amendment deals with variations in maintenance payable in respect of children. I am sure all honourable members are very much aware that in the area of maintenance payments by a spouse to keep children of a marriage, arrangements are made for an order which will fix a specific amount that will be paid in relation to that child until the order is terminated or unless one of the parties that has been ordered to pay has died or unless there is a further variation of the maintenance. Consideration interrupted. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! It being 7.30 p.m. I shall report progress. Progress reported. Mr SPEAKER —I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Lionel Bowen-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(7.31) —Variations of maintenance orders for children can be applied for where it is believed that the circumstances have changed. One of the factors that are taken into account in considering changes that might have taken place is the extent to which the consumer price index or other costs have risen. Other factors can be taken into account, and I recognise that. There are no problems about varying orders at any time, but I am seeking from the Committee an agreement that regulations may provide for an annual variation of orders for the payment of maintenance for children by reference to variations in the cost of living. This is to remove one of the matters that might ordinarily be taken into account in seeking variations and to give maintenance orders an element of automaticity. Children's needs are important, and there seems to be no justification for the fact that a parent who is paying maintenance for a child should not continue to pay an amount that is realistic. There ought not need to be the intervention of the Court to get a realistic payment. I appreciate that when this matter was raised in another place the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) said that he agreed with the proposition in the broad and that basically it was a very worthwhile amendment but one that the Government could not support. He said that it simply would not work. He repeated himself over and over again, saying in various ways that it would not work. Senator Missen, when he discussed this matter dealt with some of the problems that were raised about fractions of cents and other difficulties that people have endeavoured to put in the way of implementing this amendment. I do not accept those arguments. When I travelled in the United States and looked in particular at family law in Chicago, one of the factors that operated in the court system was a degree of automaticity in the variation of maintenance awards for children. I think that people who were determined to find a way of making such arrangements work with good will would be able to do so. I do not accept the judgment of those who, as the Attorney-General said, are closest to the coal face that it would be so difficult as to be incapable of being properly implemented and of operating in the way in which the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act intended. This was not an amendment from which any members of the Committee demurred. Many Ministers were involved, including the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), in acceding to this recommendation. I think it should be supported in the form that I have proposed. I do not see in the comments the Attorney offered on a previous occasion substantial reasons why the amendment cannot be proceeded with. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(7.35) —In fairness to the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) I say that the time for his amendment has not yet come. The Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act obviously wanted to see it implemented but I am told that there are logistical problems. I do not know exactly what that means, but the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), I think, will try seriously to do something about it. I also understand that there is the view that financial circumstances can vary from time to time. I think the real issue-I know the honourable member has views about this, and the Family Law Council has expressed views on it- Mr Ruddock —The reviewers of the review. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes. The Chief Judge of the Family Court of Australia favours a system which would encourage judges to build in a discretionary standard for adjustment as part of a maintenance order for a limited period of, say, three years. Everybody has this matter in mind. The question is how to do it. I agree with the honourable member that it should be able to be done. We will give it the most serious consideration. I will discuss the matter with the Attorney- General. Amendment negatived. Clause 35 (Matters to be taken into consideration with respect to maintenance). Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(7.36) —I move: (5) Clause 35, page 26, lines 33-41, omit proposed paragraph (f), substitute the following proposed paragraph: ''(f) the eligibility of either party for a pension, allowance or benefit under any superannuation fund or scheme, whether the fund or scheme was established, or operates, within or outside Australia, and the rate of any such pension, allowance or benefit being paid to either party;''. This amendment makes some adjustment to the matters which are to be taken into account by the Family Court of Australia when it comes to settling the levels of maintenance and the division of property. The amendment removes from the principal Act the capacity for the Court to consider the law of the Commonwealth , State or Territory in regard to pensions. It commits the Court to consider pensions, allowances or benefits under any superannuation fund or scheme, whether the scheme is established within or outside Australia. The amendment would allow the Court to establish whether there is a capacity within families facing the dissolution of marriage for proper maintenance to be paid. I have come across too many instances within my electorate when magistrates or judges say to people of great financial substance and means who appear before the court that they do not have to worry about the major aspects of maintenance because their spouses are immediately eligible for social security payments. It is not a process that I think any thoughtful person could endorse. There is a capacity for those benefits to be applied for and gained without any problems in this day and age. It is a matter for the Department of Social Security to make judgments on the criteria that the rest of the community has to support. For judges sitting in court to take those benefits into account automatically means that the system must recognise that process. The regular payment that a husband may be required to make to a wife in the form of maintenance is often swept aside and the contribution of the state is substituted. I do not think that in practice we can allow people to be completely unaccountable for decisions they have taken. There may be hardship and difficulty within the family. I am certainly in favour of the State supporting families when there is not the substance or the wherewithal for them to continue to maintain themselves, to gain proper access to food and clothing, and to meet the normal day to day needs. Therefore, by this proposal, I am removing the right of the Court to take into account Commonwealth or State benefits. However, the parties or party would immediately become eligible to make claims on the State if their means and circumstances warranted it. I am afraid that for too long we have been faced with the circumstances of the courts, purely for a simple administrative reason, awarding benefits to an individual and taking into account the amount that that indivdual would receive by way of welfare payments. I suspect that the Committee is well aware that in 1982, $717m was paid out in widows' pensions, over half that amount going to those who were divorced. That is an increase of 174 per cent since 1975. Almost 70 per cent of recipients of the supporting parent's benefit allocated for 1982 are separated wives or de factos-a 300 per cent increase since 1975. I do not believe that those figures are an accurate reflection of the number of divorces that have taken place. Rather they are a reflection of the simplified processes that magistrates and judges can apply to people who are before them in the process of dissolution of marriage. It is, therefore, my intention to pursue this amendment for I feel it is one of justice for those in need and it is a matter of justice for those who have to pay the bills. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(7.42) —The Government does not agree with the amendment. As the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) has said, the amendment would prevent a court from looking at the question either of payment or eligibility for payment under any law of the Commonwealth or State. I know that the thrust of his argument is that too much emphasis is being put on the fact that there would be an entitlement because thereby the courts are reducing the maintenance payments that perhaps should be paid by one of the spouses and relying on social security. Let me put it in another context. Surely that should be a matter for the laws relating to social security, whether it be for the Commonwealth or the States, to look at. One has to look at the eligibility of the rights of the parties. Mr Cadman —Of course, it is not. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member for Mitchell is shaking his head, obviously with some sense of disbelief. But this is not a new matter. This provision was in the earlier matrimonial causes legislation introduced way back in the 1960s. It is not a new matter in the sense that it was just thought of in the last few years. It has always been a matter for a court actually to determine the entitlements of the parties before it because it relates to the maintenance of the other party and of the children. It is purely a fiscal finding as to what would be the entitlement under other laws. If the honourable member wants to alter the issues in respect of those entitlements he ought to go to those other laws and not say that a court cannot look at the question of eligibility. In other words, he is saying: 'You may be eligible but we will not take that into consideration'. I think it is a distinction without a difference. If one is eligible under the other laws one will find that one is entitled under those laws. There seems to be superimposed in the honourable member's reasoning the fact that, if we remove this matter from the provision whereby the court is able to look at it, the court would order an additional amount of maintenance to be paid and thereby reduce the liability on the taxpayer. That would not be the situation. It does not logically follow. The fact is that, as the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act decided, there ought to be a more effective method of collecting maintenance. That is the real issue. If maintenance were collected as ordered by the courts we would not then have a social security liability of 75 per cent of the $717m or 58 per cent of the $600m because we would have an ability to enforce the order. At the present time that has not been done and that is the social problem. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(7.44) —Briefly, I am adverting really to judgments that I have seen. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) might like to see the judges' statements which indicate that, for six months, a person will be maintained by his or her spouse. The judgment says that after that period that person will be eligible for welfare payments. Judges are writing these matters into the decisions that they are making. People's lives are being affected on the basis that the judge presupposes that a welfare payment will automatically apply. Mr Lionel Bowen —They have always done it. Mr CADMAN —Whether or not they have always done it, I think it is unconscionable . A judge under those circumstances cannot make that sort of assessment. Mr Lional Bowen —Of course he can. It is the law. Mr CADMAN —It is my proposal that that law be changed. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Cadman's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 44 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Anthony, J. D. Katter, R. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Cadman, A. G. Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Cowan, D. B. MacKellar, M. J. R.Drummond, P. H. McVeigh, D. T.Edwards, Harry Newman, K. E.Goodluck, B. J. O'Keefe, F. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Baldwin, P. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Beddall, D. P. Hurford, C. J.Bilney, G. N. Johnson, LesBlanchard, C. A. Keating, P. J.Blewett, N. Kelly, R. J.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Burr, M. A. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanColeman, W. P. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Mountford, J. G.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald Ruddock, P. M.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L.Fisher, P. S. Simmons, D. W.Free, R. V. Sinclair, I. McC.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Spender, J. M.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hall, Steele Wells, D. McM.Hand, G. L. West, S. J.Hayden, W. G. Willis, R.Holding, A. C. Young, M. J.Hollis, C. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(7.55) —An amendment to clause 35 was proposed by the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. I move: (5) Clause 35, page 27, at the end of the clause add the following paragraph: ''; and (d) by omitting paragraph (2) (o) and substituting the following paragraph: '(o) any fact of circumstances, including any conduct of the parties to the matrimonial relationship, which, in the opinion of the court, the justice of the case requires to be taken into account.'.''. In moving this amendment I want to make it very clear that I in no way want, nor did the Committee in any way want, to see the general reintroduction of fault in the determination of the substantial issue of divorce or in relation to property circumstances generally in a sense of wreaking retribution or something of that sort. The Committee was very much persuaded by the circumstances of a particular case that came to its attention. I do not think it is a matter of hard cases making bad law. There were some very special circumstances. The Committee was of the view that if these matters could not be taken into account by the Family Court of Australia it would want to see a change. The case I have in mind-our discussion influenced this significantly-dealt with a lady who went away with a Swedish sailor. She left her husband, divorced him and later came back, having left the Swedish sailor, and sought to claim maintenance from her first husband whom she left many years before and against whom she had not sought any maintenance. I understand the courts were able to find a way around this matter eventually, but it was a matter of very considerable concern to the Committee. For this reason an amendment was proposed. I want to make it very clear that it was not proposed for the purposes of a reintroduction of fault generally. I noticed in the comments circulated by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans ) and the previous Attorney-General that there was some expectation that that was the Committee's objective. It was not. If the Attorney-General had some other form of words which would enable the courts to deal with these special circumstances-not those which the Attorney-General indicated that the Government considered sufficient, that is only those that go to the economic circumstances of the other party, but those that can go a little further to the sorts of cases that were of concern to me and to other members of this Committee-I would certainly be prepared to accept that that matter be reviewed again and to accept such an undertaking from the Attorney-General. The reason this matter is being pursued is the exceptional circumstances; there is no intention to bring about any broad reintroduction of fault in relation to this matter or in relation to divorce generally. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(7.59) —I am very sympathetic to what the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) said. I was a member of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act and I know the circumstances of the case he referred to. It created the impression that it was outrageous that the court felt it was obliged to make an order in the terms of section 75 (2). I am assured that that was an aberration which the courts have at times. There is provision under the existing clause 35 (2) (o) to take into account any fact or circumstance which in the opinion of the court the justice of the case requires. The Committee quite rightly felt that that ought to take in conduct not on the question of fault but on the question of maintenance. Of course, section 75 is merely subservient to section 74. Section 74 is to be applied by using the criteria in section 75. Section 74 relates to maintenance. I am assured that since then the courts have no longer taken into account that conduct. I was given that assurance by the Attorney-General (Senator Evans). We are saying that the Family Court of Australia can have regard to section 75 (2) (o) which relates to the economic circumstances. That can be taken into account. The position that was given to the Committee, which the honourable member for Dundas refers to, is no longer regarded as relevant. We do not want to be talking about conduct. We were talking about financial conduct in those terms. Mr Ruddock —Think of it in terms of the Swedish sailor case. I am not sure that that was financial conduct. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It was in the sense that the lady in turn was being supported by somebody else. The honourable member might recall that. Mr Ruddock —Yes, I do. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That was the financial aspect of that support. So it is the view of the Government that this is the limit of the extent to which conduct should be relevant; that is, the economic circumstances. We all agree on that. I am assured that if we were to go into the interpretation of what they feel would be the question of the conduct of the parties they say it would be opening the flood gates. We all know that it is not. We know the intention. I am assured that the courts are interpreting the matter to mean economic circumstances. They would not be following the rationale of that decision to which the honourable member refers. Mr Ruddock —Would you look at it again if there were other difficulties to which your attention could be drawn? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, I give the honourable member that assurance. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 36 agreed to. Clause 37 (Setting aside of orders altering property interests). Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(8.03) —by leave-I move: (6) Clause 37, page 31, line 35, omit ''sub-section'', substitute ''sub- sections''. (7) Clause 37, page 31, at the end of the clause add the following sub-section: ''(4) Proceedings for the setting aside of an order under this section shall not be instituted until leave has been obtained from the court in which the proceedings are to be instituted.''. I can be fairly brief in relation to this matter as well. The Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act, in recommendation 32, recommended that the Family Court ought to be given power under section 79A to vary previous maintenance orders. The Committee was of the view that the Court should only do so in very exceptional circumstances. The Government has attempted to enumerate those very special circumstances. The Joint Select Committee was of the view that not only should there be an indication of reluctance for these orders in relation to maintenance and property to be reviewed very sparingly but there ought to be a requirement that the parties seek leave to institute proceedings to vary a property order. Under section 79, where an order is to be set aside or a new order is to be made, the Family Court, in making such an order, would do so only in the most exceptional circumstances. While we dealt with those in the other part of recommendation 32 which is being implemented, we were seeking in this amendment a provision that was in this form: . . . proceedings for the setting aside of an order under s. 79 of the Family Law Act or s. 86 of the Matrimonial Causes Act shall not be instituted until leave has been obtained from the Court in which the proceedings are to be instituted; I notice that the Attorney-General (Senator Evans) suggested in reply to Senator Missen's amendment in the other House that this procedure might only put another impediment and another cost in the way of the party. While there would be a cost and impediment, the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act was of the view that that impediment was appropriate in all the circumstances. This demonstrates the importance that it attached to the need for certainty in relation to orders that are made. Orders ought not to be lightly put aside. To do so would be to remove part of the certainty that we believe ought to be involved in proceedings under this Act and in relation to outcomes that people obtain under this Act. We were of the view that only in most exceptional circumstances should orders be set aside. It was with a view to emphasising the exceptional nature that we attach to it that we saw in relation to section 79A that leave was an important requirement. My amendment seeks to ensure that proceedings brought to set aside an order under section 79A are only brought with the leave of the court in which the proceedings are to be instituted. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(8.06) —Again, whilst I am sympathetic to the intention-as a member of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act I am well aware of the situation-in practice it will mean that once an order is made there will not be too much interest in altering it. With hindsight the Government feels that this amendment would encourage an extra application where leave is required. The Government opposes it on the basis that it feels that it would result in further work and delay because the parties would have to seek leave. I understand what the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) said. He feels this would be a bit of an obstacle which ought to be placed there to prevent people making application. The Court, in dealing with any application, would obviously deal with it in a fashion that would clearly indicate to the parties concerned that it was final and that there would be no further point in seeking leave or any variation. What the Committee had in mind was to give some stability, as the honourable member said, to an order that is made. It felt that it would be necessary to get leave to try to vary it. In practice, if the application for variation is refused that negates the position and protects stability. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(8.07) —The Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen), who represents the Attorney-General (Senator Evans), might be able to give some assurance that this matter will be kept under review. If the case proves to be otherwise than he has suggested, that the courts in some way are of the view that they can reopen these matters in a much more general way than we intended, perhaps some other proposal can be brought back to us. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(8.08) —I assure the honourable member that the matter will be monitored. We do not want to see a proliferation of litigation. We have already made decisions. This is a variation position that the honourable member is anxious to avoid. I agree with that. It would be proper to look into the matter. I will ask the Attorney-General to do that. Amendments negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 38 to 52-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 53. (Proceedings in absence of parties). Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(8.09) —I notice on the program before the House that clause 53 is noted as being opposed by me. That is certainly the case. I wish to move that it be deleted from the Family Law Amendment Bill. Clause 53 is the so- called divorce by post provision. My objection to the clause is that it provides for decision by remote control. It is the type of post box situation in which two individuals, if they so determine, need not be present at the time of dissolution. The hearings of proceedings for dissolution instituted by one party may proceed where: (a) the proceedings are undefended; (b) there are no children of the marriage who have not attained the age of 18 years; (c) the applicant has requested the court to determine the proceedings in the absence of the parties; and (d) the respondent has not requested the court not to determine the proceedings in the absence of the parties . . . I am intrigued by the use of the double negatives but one can perhaps conclude that this is a very negative clause. The provisions of the clause really indicate that, by agreement, parties need not concern themselves with the proceedings of the court and the magistrate or judge can continue the processes of the dissolution of marriage on his own in chambers, completely unattended. This process is a strange one because it means that the individual seeking the dissolution does not have to appear before the judge or before the other party stating his or her opinion and intention. I know of no proceedings in circumstances such as this-for instance, the annulment of a contract-in which neither party need be present or be represented. It is a strange provision and one that will allow an opinion to develop in the community that by the simple process of going to a solicitor-not advising the persons that one is proceeding against, but advising only the court involved of one's intention-the processes will automatically be gone through and there will be no responsibility and no court proceedings in the true sense. The Marriage Act calls a decision to marry a 'very serious decision'. I quote from section 43 of the Family Law Act: The Family Court shall, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under this Act or any other Act, and any other court exercising jurisdiction under this Act . . . have regard to-(a) the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life; That is the basis of the contract entered into by the two people who will now be able to put something in the letter box and say: 'That is the end of it'. I do not agree with that process. I believe that the parties ought to front and answer for their own activities and their own decisions and, whether or not the children are aged 18 or more, for the responsibility they may continue to have to those young people who may still be dependent, who may still be students, and who can suffer just as much trauma as younger children. Therefore, I oppose this provision. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(8.13) —I know that the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) means well but I do not think he has considered the rather difficult position for people in the old days when they had to go to court, stand in the witness box, say what was the problem and get someone else to corroborate the evidence with nobody else there except those watching them going through that ritual. I do not think that was very fair or very edifying. That is what the honourable member is insisting upon. He was wrong in suggesting that the other party would not know of the proceedings. That is not true. It never has been. It would not be justice. The fact is that an appropriate document is served on the other spouse asking whether he or she wishes to defend the proceedings. If two intelligent people decide that they do not wish to go through this ritual, which the honourable member insists on enforcing, as some marionette whereby they have to be examined in the witness box to guarantee that the judge is satisfied when perhaps the guilty party will not even appear and never has been obliged to appear, I do not see the logic of their having to do so. In many cases in practice undefended divorces have taken less than three minutes. The guilty parties-if there is guilt-are never there anyway. That is the point. The honourable member is insisting on one party appearing and doing all these things which he would not have had to go through in all his born days because he is lucky in life. The Joint Comittee on the Family Law Act was concerned about this extraordinary position by which we would regiment people's lives to the extent that if a person has to go through all this trouble to convince a judge that he is genuine when the other party does not now have to appear in any way. We cannot make people appear if they do not want to do so. All that would do is oblige the people who need to talk about the settlement of their matter to do it in physical terms. As a matter of interest, most adoption orders are made in the absence of the child. As long as a judge is satisified on the evidence before him-sworn affidavits and the like-that an application is fitting and proper, it is granted in chambers. I see no difference, particularly where no children are involved- that is the position here-in doing this. It is merely to bring into the system of justice the principle that if the parties have come to a position themselves that they will no longer remain together, they can use a formal document called a decree as evidence of dissolution. It is no more serious than that. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(8.17) —I support the views advanced by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). Again I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) on the very positive way in which he responded. I know that as a legal practitioner he understands the legalities of the situation very well, but to me this is far more important than just looking at the mere legalities and perhaps saving some people certain traumas. I would not want even to advocate that those who agree with the amendment are adopting a cavalier attitude. I do not want to advocate that and I am not advocating it; I just put it in that way because unless we adopt the point of view expressed by the honourable member for Mitchell we are, in effect, downgrading the very serious contract that two people enter into. The Deputy Prime Minister indicated what happens in certain other legal cases. I indicate to him that, at least in Queensland, if someone fails to register a child when he or she is born, through an oversight, when that child becomes an adult, he is required to appear personally before a judge of the Supreme Court. If it is necessary in such instances for people to appear personally, surely it is doubly important that people who enter into the most serious contract, in good faith, for life-the most important contract for the greatest period-be requested, in terminating what has been a public act, at least to appear in public. Marriage is a public act. It is performed by a minister of religion or a registered marriage celebrant appointed by the Government and it has to be performed in front of witnesses. It is wrong, therefore, that in effect people can terminate that binding contract merely by adopting divorce by mail. Mr Chairman, I remind you that Dr Daniel Overduin, the Honorary Director of the Family Foundation, is reported as saying: The proposed provisions for 'divorce by post' were not only criticised by the Law Council of Australia, but also by a number of church and community leaders. I believe that the church which, through their priests, pastors and ministers, celebrate more than 60 per cent of Australia's marriages, should take a vital interest in family law and policy. Since we do not enter marriage 'by post' we should not introduce 'mail order divorce' . . . We need to return to a better understanding of marriage, a greater appreciation of the family, and a legally- enforceable demand for individual accountability. I fail to understand how a judge in 1 1/2 minutes, in some cases, can assess a case from a filled-in form. He has not seen anyone and he has to accept that there is no indication whatsoever of reconciliation. It is terribly important that we look at the statistics and realise how disappointing this is. Long life contracts are entered into in good faith, in a public act and witnessed. For every 2 1/2 marriages there is one divorce. I accept, although I do not agree with it morally on religious grounds, no fault divorce, but as a legislator I have to be practical. I have to accept that not all people base such things on a moral concept. On the one hand in this debate great emphasis has been placed, quite rightly, on more effective counselling and pre-marriage preparation. The point has not been made-it should be made and must be made-that if prior to entering marriage and undertaking counselling people know that it is quite legitimate on all sorts of grounds to obtain a divorce by mail, then by indicating the ease of breaking the contract I believe we are not putting enough emphasis on how serious that contract is. That is why I oppose this amendment. In the debates in the Senate the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) indicated that the Government, under pressure, had changed the original legislation, which said that even if there were children under 18 years of age divorce by mail would be allowed. At least the Government has brought forward an amendment which states that children have to be over 18 years of age. That means that of the 44,000 divorces in Australia each year-one in every 2 1/2 marriages going through divorce courts-27,000 of those divorces involve children under 18 years of age. I totally object to this clause. It belittles a solemn contract. It downgrades public family life and the appreciation of it. Anyone who has taken the time to read the history of the crash of any of the great empires of the past will understand that the Roman Empire and the Greek Empire tumbled because of the destruction of family life. Mr Baldwin —Here we go. Mr McVEIGH —It is all right for those opposite who want to criticise, but a significant number of people are concerned about this legislation. It is up to those who feel very strongly about it to oppose it. Notwithstanding the many eloquent words spoken about counselling and pre-marriage guidance and consultation, if it is easy to get out of a marriage in the end we are belittling and defeating the whole purpose of marriage. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(8.26) —As has just been said, we cannot marry by post and I would argue that we should not be able to divorce by post. Indeed, it is interesting to look at marriage law and to see that not only is the presence of the parties required but also the marriage must take place in the presence of independent witnesses. In other words, independent witnesses are required at the time to confirm the marriage. I therefore suggest from a legal premise that it is an oddity indeed that for entry into marriage the presence of the parties and witnesses is required but for the termination of the marriage the presence of neither the parties nor the witnesses is required. I also want to raise the long tradition of the law in relation to the disputation of documents. Mr Chairman, how often in your long and distinguished parliamentary career have you heard of cases of people who said: 'I signed that document under duress; I signed that document under pressure; I signed that document because I was coerced into so doing'? There is always a power of coercion when economic sanctions are attached. Whether the contract is a simple commercial contract or a contract involving matrimony, there are commercial and economic consequences which attach. Having deliberately not practised in this jurisdiction I have actually had constituents in my office who have said: 'I agreed to such and such an order because I was told by the lawyer from the Australian Legal Aid Office who was acting for my wife that if I did not agree to that course of action it would cost me more in the long run'. I have to say that it seems to be an unfortunate aspect of this jurisdiction that there is a significant amount of what I would describe as economic bargaining and bartering in the background. I agree with the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh). I think it is a demeaning provision. It is an unfortunate thing to say, but I think it needs to be said that the words 'divorce by post' have probably created more unhappiness throughout this country than any other part of this legislation currently before the Parliament. Of the marriages performed in this country 70 per cent are performed by members of the churches by the clergy. The clergy is unamimous in its opposition to this provision. The Law Council of Australia, representing all the lawyers in Australia who practise in this jurisdiction, is against this provision. I have had representations from members of the family law association in my State, who have said that, whatever else is said on the mainland, they want me to ensure that this particular provision is defeated. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) is a much more distinguished lawyer than I am. He has practised in this jurisdiction. I ask him: Where is the logic in having, as it is, the law throughout this country that if one wants a real estate licence or an autioneer's licence one must appear personally? If one wants to become a commercial agent or a private inquiry agent one has to appear personally. If one is disqualified in an ex parte traffic court hearing and one wants to apply for a hardship licence one has to appear personally. The Parliament of the nation is solemnly preparing to legislate that in relation to the termination of a marriage no personal appearance is required. On ecclesiastical grounds, on legal grounds and, dare I say it, on moral grounds, I believe that this provision is scandalous in that it is demeaning of the institution which the Act itself purports to stand up for and defend. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) will no doubt be recognised-and I hope it will be recorded in this Parliament-for the courage with which he put his precise views on a number of matters upon which he was defeated. On each of those matters I voted with him. I will vote with him on this matter. I believe that the case for this proposal to be defeated is very strong indeed. I hope that this House will demonstrate to the people of Australia that it believes that divorce by post is going too far-that divorce by post has no role to play in a 1983 Australian Christian society. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(8.32) —I think it is appropriate that I speak on this matter , as I chaired the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. Recommendation 50 of the Committee's report states: The Committee recommends that simplified procedures in the cases of undefended dissolution be introduced in Australia to provide for affidavit evidence without the necessity for parties to appear unless the court otherwise decrees. I have said during the debate today and during debates on other occasions that I regard the family as being an institution just as important to me as it is to any other Australian. I looked at the Family Law Act very closely and, in concert with my colleagues, made a number of propositions which, we were of the view, would strengthen the family and indicate the importance that the Parliament attaches to the family unit, recognising the difficult situations in which we are working. Ultimately the Committee recommended a number of propositions that were designed to give effect to the broad themes I mentioned in my speech during the second reading debate. The Committee was of the view that this was a proposal to which it could not object; it has been put to us as an appropriate reform and in all the circumstances was reasonable. Listening to the speeches of my colleagues-one might like to be able to say that I was persuaded, but I do not want to suggest that my colleagues have omitted any important information-one would have formed the view that they thought it was of fundamental importance that people be present at the time when the dissolution is announced. The proposition that they have all put forward and spoken to in asking honourable members to support this amendment is that that provision be deleted. The fact of the matter is that at the moment most people-I think it is a great majority but I have heard some other figures today that suggest that it is a significant minority-do not appear at the time a divorce is pronounced. They appear by hired hand. They do not appear personally at all, but pay somebody else to represent them on that occasion. They do not go through any particular penance. They do not feel anything. They have simply parted with some money and said: 'Look, you go and do it for me'. If one were serious that it is important that people be present when they are divorced one would be arguing that we ought to amend the Act to say that people have to be present in person. As the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) suggested, it is regarded as being important in relation to private inquiry licences and other matters that people be present personally. But nobody has suggested that. Nobody has moved an amendment to give effect to that. Nobody is asking that people be told that they cannot send their lawyer. When divorce is dealt with in the way in which it has been, I cannot see very much difference between what is proposed and what is done now except that people will not be asked to pay out money. If the comments of the honourable member for Mitchell in relation to the legal profession and its desire to make money out of divorce have any validity at all, they have validity in this area more than in any other , because this is the area in which people are paid to do, quite frankly, very little. The important questions that the honourable member for Denison suggested might be raised would rarely be raised by those who are being paid to go along. There are other contractual arrangements which are enforced by parties not being present-essentially by administrative procedures. Most courts have administrative procedures for collecting debts which arise out of contractual arrangements. The question was raised as to whether they exist. It was said that contractual arrangements are not enforced in this way by administrative procedures. I can say only that they all have default procedures which do not require the presence of parties before orders are made. They are made administratively in default of a person submitting a formal document to say 'I appear'-a formal document; not his going to court. What we are talking about are administrative procedures designed for these cases. As I have said, the Committee was persuaded that there was very little difference between what was proposed and the sending along of the hired hand. I think that it has to be understood that that is the difference we are talking about. It is not a suggestion that people be required to appear in person. I must say that if people were suggesting that, I would find it difficult to support such a proposition. Question put: That Clause 53 be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hayden, W. G.Beazley, K. C. Hollis, C.Beddall, D. P. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Keating, P. J.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Campbell, G. Mayer, H.Charles, D. E. Mildren, J. B.Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Mountford, J. G.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald Ruddock, P. M.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffith, A. G. Wells, D. McM.Hall, Steele West, S. J.Hand, G. L. Willis, R. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewan (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Coleman, W. P. McVeigh, D. T.Cowan, D. B. Millar, P. C.Fisher, P. S. Newman, K. E.Goodluck, B. J. O'Keefe, F. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Sinclair, I. McC.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Tuckey, C. W.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause agreed to. Clauses 54 to 67-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 68 (Family Law Council). Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(8.46) —I move: Clause 68, page 51, before paragraph (1) (a), insert the following paragraphs: ''(aa) by inserting in sub-section (2) 'magistrates,' after 'judges,'; ''(ab) by inserting in sub-section (2)', Senators, Members of the House of Representatives' after 'organizations';''. This amendment seeks to add to those eligible for membership of the Family Law Council senators, members of the House of Representatives and magistrates. The clause details the classes of people eligible to be members of the Council. I have indicated previously the extent to which I believe the Parliament ought to be interested in family law. As the family is important, it is important that we play a positive role in the development of monitoring of a law of this sort. One way in which that can be done is by members of the Parliament having membership of the Family Law Council. I understand that membership by parliamentarians was proposed in the original legislation and that some members of the Senate were actually invited to be members of the Family Law Council. Then the previous Government decided that it would not proceed to have parliamentary representation on the Council. I regret in a sense that the new Government, having looked at these matters again, has persisted with that view. I know that the Attorney-General (Senator Evans) says that he can still appoint a parliamentarian and a magistrate if he wants to. Those classes of people ought to be eligible for specific membership. I persist with this amendment because I regard it as important. At the moment members of the Parliament have representation on the Advisory Council of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the Australian Council for Union Training, the Council of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, the Council of the Australian National University, the Council of the National Library of Australia and the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust. Having regard to those organisations on which it is deemed appropriate that the Parliament be represented, there is no way in which one can sustain an argument that parliamentarians ought not to be on the Family Law Council. It would be beneficial for that organisation. It is important, in view of the importance we attach to the family, that parliamentarians be represented. I have today expressed concern about the way in which these matters have been handled, initially by the former Government but later by this Government. I have expressed concern that the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act was requested to review reports of the Family Law Council. Ultimately, before the Parliament was asked to consider legislation, our parliamentary review was referred to the people who were being reviewed for them to comment. It appears that the comments of those being reviewed are all too frequently the views being accepted. I do not regard that as satisfactory. I think the Parliament ought to be represented on that body. A magistrate was recently a member of the Council. I understand one is not now on the Council. Magistrates have a very important role to play in the administration of many aspects of family law, particularly in relation to children and maintenance. It is important that their experience be available and particularly that the magistrates with the experience of working in the summary jurisdiction courts be in a position to be able to contribute to reform of law. I think the Family Law Council is the appropriate medium in which they would be able to contribute. These amendments are important and I would like to think that the Government would review its position in relation to this matter. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(8.50) —I assure the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) that the Government is interested because under the present law we can appoint magistrates and members of Parliament. Under the previous law we could not have appointed members of Parliament. I draw his attention to that fact. I understand that a senator would have been interested in becoming a member of the Family Law Council but the previous Government never altered the legislation. In fact, he can now become a member. So I hope that the honourable member for Dundas agrees. We are saying that the law allows for it to happen but it has not happened. I think that is the criticism. I give him an assurance that there is no reason at all why appointments should not be made. In fact I support him in his other criticism that the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act went to a lot of trouble to make a lot of findings which were then reviewed by somebody else. That is not what we are about. The position with regard to magistrates is bona fide. In fact, some evidence given by a magistrate before the Select Committee was very valuable and he played an effective part in conciliation proceedings. In other words, all wisdom does not remain with those who never want to venture into Parliament or never want to be involved in matters such as magistrates' hearings. There are people who at times have a vested interest in their own importance. We must always have a counterbalance to that situation. I think we can get it. I give the honourable member an assurance that the Act as it stands enables appointments to be made in the way he wants. His criticism is valid; they have not been made. Mr Ruddock —But it names others who can be appointed. I think parliamentarians ought to be named. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes. The honourable member is right and I will engage in some persuasion in his interests. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. The CHAIRMAN —Is it the wish of the Committee that the remainder of the Bill be taken as a whole? Mr Cadman —Mr Chairman, you will notice that an amendment has been circulated-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The question is: That the remainder of the Bill be agreed to. Mr Cadman —There has been an amendment moved in regard to this. The CHAIRMAN —I understand that the honourable gentleman's amendment No. 7 was consequential upon his amendment No. 1 being agreed to. Mr Cadman —Yes, that is true. The CHAIRMAN —Since it was not agreed to, I understood that the honourable gentleman did not intend to proceed. Is that the case? Mr Cadman —Yes, that is right. Remainder of the Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 October, on motion by Mr Duffy: 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 Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr PORTER(Barker)(8.56) —I raise in the adjournment debate tonight the heartless and callous action taken by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) in withdrawing pregestimil from the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. This product is a special infant formula and is used by children suffering from food allergies and other medical conditions. This and other products have been withdrawn from the PBS list because the Government has failed to reach an agreement with manufacturers of the product regarding the re-negotiated price which the Government is prepared to pay for it. The Minister, instead of entering into meaningful and fruitful negotiations, has apparently got into a huff and has taken the product off the subsidised list, trying undoubtedly to harm the manufacturer. As a consequence of the Government's action, a tin of pregestimil, which used to cost the consumer $2, now costs $20. I give the House one example of the effect of this enormous increase in the cost of the product on a family in my electorate. Mr Griffiths —They have a mark up of 150 per cent. Mr PORTER —The honourable member should wait until he hears what I have to say. The married couple to whom I refer have two children. One is three and the other is a 10-month-old daughter. This young baby has biliary atresia, which means she has no bile duct connecting her liver to her bowel. Her condition was detected when she was about eight weeks old. Doctors operated, but the operation was a failure and they discovered she has a blood clotting disorder which rules out further operations. Therefore, doctors have given her four months to live. Given her condition, pregestimil is the only food that she can have and this happens to be the product which the Minister has removed from the subsidised list. As a result of the Minister's unbelievably callous action, this baby girl's parents are now faced not only with the prospect of having to watch their daughter die, but with the financial burden of having to find an extra $50 or $60 a week for the milk formula on top of the cost of supplying their daughter's existing medication and vitamins. The little girl's father is a timber mill hand with a gross weekly wage of about $260. This family's income was already being stretched to cover the extra costs of his daughter's medical treatment. Apparently, he has been able to earn a little extra by working night shift, but even so they clearly will not be able to cover this enormous increase for their daughter's special milk formula; nor should they have to. I simply ask the Minister: How on earth does he justify his action? Surely it is not fair or equitable that the middle to low income families with children needing special medications and formula should face additional costs of this magnitude. I believe the Minister's action in allowing this situation to arise is absolutely despicable. If he wants to have an argument with the drug companies it is up to him but it should not be at the expense of my constituents who already have an extraordingary emotional burden to carry. The Minister must have known what the consequences of his action would be. If he did not he is a fool. If he did, and if this is the best we can expect from his in introducing a new socialised medical scheme in this country, God help us. The Minister must act immediately to restore these products to the subsidised list. Let him resolve his conflict through some form of arbitration rather than using these unfortunate people I have described as the helpless pawns in his brawl. I have given but one example. I understand about 1,000 children require this product. Some 2,000 other people are affected by the withdrawal of other products from the pharmaceutical benefits subsidised list. This situation should never have been allowed to arise. I ask the Minister to resolve it immediately. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 9.02 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Peter Morris to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Shipping Commission Act 1956, and for related purposes. Mr Willis to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Public Service Act 1922 and certain other Acts. Mr Willis to present a Bill for an Act to amend section 24 of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979. Mr Willis to present a Bill for an Act to repeal the Commonwealth Employees ( Employment Provisions) Act 1977. Mr Hurford to move- That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which has referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament. Stratplan Computer Centre Melbourne, Victoria. Mr Lionel Bowen to move- That, for the sitting of the House on Tuesday, 1 November 1983, so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent orders of the day, government business, being called on before questions without notice, which shall be called on at 3 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 19 October 1983: Conciliation and Arbitration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 217 Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determination-Statutory Rules 1983, No.223 Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 , No.218 Postal Services Act-Australian Postal Commission-By-Laws-Postal (Staff)-1983- Amendment No. 1 Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos 221, 222 Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No.220 Seat of Government (Administraton) Act- Ordinances-1983- No. 30-Flammable Liquids (Amendment) No. 45-Crimes (Amendment) (No. 2) No. 47-Cemeteries (Amendment) No. 48-Careless Use of Fire (Amendment) No. 49-Canberra Theatre Trust (Amendment) (No. 2) No. 50-Milk Authority (Amendment) No. 51-Canberra Commercial Development Authority (Amendment) Telecommunications Act-Australian Telecommunications Commission-By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts)-Amendment No. 38 Telecommunications (Community Calls)-Amendment No. 31 Telecommunications (General)-Amendment No. 38 Telecommunications (Staff)-Amendment No. 43 The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 281 Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: (1) Will he take urgent action against those persons who are reportedly profiting from drug trafficking, and to this end will he act upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking by his Honour Mr Justice E. S. Williams, as contained in Book C, and as set out on page C376 of the Report of the Royal Commission. (2) In particular, will he undertake an urgent investigation with a view to implementing the recommendations contained on page C376 as they relate to amendments to section 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Government will continue to make the best possible use of available resources in the fight against persons reportedly profiting from drug trafficking. In the context of the question of access to taxation information by the National Crimes Commission, the Government has the sensitive question of the income tax secrecy provisions under review. Question No. 340 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: Is the Minister able to provide an analysis of claims for compensation resulting from repetitive strain injury in the Minister's Department for each of the years 1978 to 1983. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: 1978-2 claims lodged and both accepted: 1 male-caused by constant stamping of documents; 1 female-caused by lifting heavy books and papers. 1979-3 claims lodged and all accepted: 1 male-caused by using jack hammer at work; 2 females-caused by typing and operating data processing machine. 1980-2 claims lodged and both accepted: 1 male-caused by constant stamping of documents; 1 female-caused by operating an accounting machine while holding a pen between thumb and forefinger. 1981-4 claims lodged and all accepted: 4 females-caused by typing and operating data processing machines/visual display units. 1982-7 claims lodged and all eventually accepted (1 claim had been denied but decision was reversed as a result of an appeal): 7 females-caused by operating data processing machines. 1983-6 claims lodged, 5 accepted, 1 unsettled: 1 male-caused by angle of accelerator pedal on Commonwealth car (frequent driving); 5 females-caused by opening and closing car doors, continuing use of register stamps, typing, opening and closing drawer (unsettled). Question No. 443 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: What Commonwealth funds, listed by purpose, in the form of (a) grants, (b) subsidies, (c) special purpose grants, (d) dollar for dollar contributions or (e ) other contributions have been partly or totally (i) received or (ii) returned or refused by the Queensland Government, from December 1972 to August 1983. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: A total of $5,602,448 was paid to the Queensland Government or its agencies in the period December 1972 to August 1983 through programs administered by organisations that now constitute the Ministry of Home Affairs and Environment. As far as can be determined, no funds have been refused or returned. An analysis of the total payment made during the period in question appears below: Special Dollar for purpose dollar Other Grants Subsidies grants contributions contributions Total $ $ $ $ $ $ Environment Division . . . . 758,000 33,000 . . 791,000 National Estate Program 3,589,333 . . . . . . . . 3,589,333 Bureau of Flora and Fauna 480,543 . . . . . . . . 480,543 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority . . . . 448,133 . . . . 448,133 Australia Council 293,439 . . . . . . . . 293,439 Total 4,363,315 . . 1,206,133 33,000 . . 5,602,448 Question No. 514 Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 14 September 1983: Has kangaroo management been an item for discussion at recent meetings of the Australian Environment Council; if so, what decisions were made regarding management, and did all States agree. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. However, the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers, which is the Ministerial forum where kangaroo management matters are normally considered, did discuss a number of matters related to this subject at its most recent meeting on 7 July 1983. While no specific management matters were submitted for decision by Council, information was provided to States on proposed Commonwealth initiatives in the kangaroo management area and all members of Council agreed to adopt and circulate for comment a draft code of practice for kangaroo culling. Question No. 515 Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 14 September 1983: (1) Which States will be co-operating with the Commonwealth in the proposed kangaroo monitoring scheme. (2) What refined survey techniques will be introduced. (3) Will export quotas be directly tied to the results of the census on a State by State basis. (4) What proposals will the Commonwealth be putting to the States to reduce the illegal shooting of kangaroos. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) It is hoped that all Australian States and Territories will co-operate with the Commonwealth in the establishment of a National kangaroo monitoring unit. (2) Appropriate survey techniques will be considered by the monitoring unit when established, however continuing use and refinement of aerial surveys is expected. (3) Harvesting quotas will continue to be set on a State by State basis using all relevant information, including the most recent results of population surveys. (4) While control of harvesting operations is primarily a State responsibility, the question of illegal shooting will be of concern to the monitoring unit. Through the passage of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1983, the Commonwealth will be providing a strong deterrent to persons contemplating the illegal taking of kangaroos for export. Further, the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers has announced the distribution for comment of a draft code of practice for kangaroo harvesting which is aimed at reducing the incidence of illegal or unacceptable harvesting practices.