Tuesday, 1 November 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: 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 Bilney,Dr Blewett,Mr Brumby,Mr Cadman,Mr Cohen,Mr Cowan,Mr Drummond,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Gayler,Mr Hawker,Mr Hunt,Mr Holding,Mr Jacobi,Mr Katter,Mr Lloyd,Mr Lusher,Mr O'Neil,Mr Peter Morris,Mr Ian Robinson,Mr Ruddock and Mr Spender. 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 Peacock. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beazley,Mr Bilney,Mr John Brown,Mr Charles,Mr Chynoweth,Mr Dobie,Mr Ronald Edwards,Mr Holding and Mr Hollis. 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 Groom and Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That we women of Australia feel the threat of the nuclear arms race to our world, our children and our future. That the threat of nuclear war in Australia is greatly increased by the presence of foreign bases. That we affirm Pine Gap near Alice Springs is one such key foreign communication base. Is a crucial link in the arms race, used for locating targets and therefore a prime target in the event of nuclear war. That we support the national womens' action to oppose the presence of Pine Gap and call for the removal of all foreign bases in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs McHugh and Mr Uren. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to 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 petition of certain citizens of Australia that the motor vessel 'Krait' remain as a dedicated operational War memorial in the care and maintenance of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol as has been the case for the past nineteen and a half years, on behalf of the people of Australia. And that: your petitioners consider that the moneys raised in the recent public appeal have been so raised for restoration to ensure the continuing seaworthiness of the 'Krait' for the purposes of it remaining afloat and continuing to be used in the community service. Your petitioners therefore pray that the current proposal to remove the 'Krait' from the care and maintenance of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol to the National War Memorial in Canberra A.C.T. would, if implemented, seem to represent a breach of faith upon which the aforesaid moneys were raised. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned Electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. A Bill is now pending in your honourable House intituled ''A Bill for An Act relating to discrimination on the ground of sex, marital status or pregnancy or involving sexual harassment''. 2. Your petitioners say that the effects of certain provisions of the Bill if enacted into law will be to enable persons to coerce women to engage in paid employment, and to surrender the care of their children to child care institutions, to grant rights to foreign persons upon a United Nations Commission to enter upon Australian Territory with powers to inspect investigate and to seek to influence, to report and recommend, with the object of procuring total employment of Australian women, and that all of these things will lead to the elimination of the traditional family unit. 3. That your petitioners say that the Bill if passed into law as it now stands will be insulting to the women of Australia, harmful to our families, and a grievous interference with the freedom of the Australian citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Bill may not be allowed to pass into law as it now stands. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cowan. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the plan by the Australian Telecommunications Commission to remove the Local Directory Assistance services from Dubbo will place in jeopardy the existing services to telephone subscribers in the district by: 1. The loss of any local knowledge of the town and district being available to telephone users if the directory assistance service is moved to another centre, 2. The loss of a local and personalised service provided especially to elderly and handicapped people, ethnic groups, etc. 3. The loss of revenue to local businesses when a distant directory assistance operator without a detailed knowledge of Dubbo and its surrounds is unable to give a correct telephone directory listing. We the undersigned believe that Telecom Australia should be instructed to seek the views of country telephone subscribers before proceeding with the closure of the Dubbo directory assistance service. Your petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House will call on the Government to halt the closure of the Dubbo directory assistance service. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Duffy. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows: There are presently only two clinics where residents can donate blood in Canberra: Woden and Civic. Action is being taken to transfer the Civic clinic to Woden, thereby causing severe inconvenience to all those donors who live on the north side of Canberra. Moreover, this proposed action is inconsistent with the call for more blood donors. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Blood Bank Clinic located in Civic, A. C.T., not be moved to Woden Hospital. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fry. 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: Holders of the health care card and pensioner health benefits card cannot receive any level of free dental care from private dentists, as they can medical care from private doctors. The existing network of private dental practices will need to be the principal mode of dental care delivery. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: Holders of the health care card and pensioner health benefits care should be provided with free dental care through private dentists, immediately. Dental care be included in the formulation of Medicare. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of members of the Naval Association of Australia Canterbury-Bankstown Sub/Section together with other petitioners. Respectfully showeth-That we strongly oppose the Governments decision to disband the Fleet Air Arm and the fixed winged aircraft. This vital branch of the Royal Australian Navy has served its country in theatres of war with dedication and distinction. It will be a sad loss to the service and to Australia, and serving members of the fleet. Highly trained and specialist personnel of this branch of the service have had what they termed a long and rewarding career terminated. Men who pledged to serve Queen and Country are being discarded with little prospects for the future . Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will reconsider its decision to terminate this highly professional unit. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Keating. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain concerned citizens of Australia shows-Our concern due to the removal of ''Mead Johnson'' products-Glucose Nutramigen and Pregenstimil from the N.H.S. on October 1st 1983. Your petitioners therefore pray that you may review this, as the increased cost will be a financial burden. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that your petitioners are acutely aware of the adverse economic impact on the grain growing industry of the 15 per cent tariff duty on imported grain harvesters. Your petitioners are aware that the Federal Government as the duly elected national government of the Australian people apparently wishes to assist the local grain harvester manufacturing industry. Your petitioners are aware that the cost of that protection is being involuntarily borne by the grain growing industry. We petition the Federal Government to relieve the grain growing industry of the unfair and discriminatory tariff duty on imported grain harvesters. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Keefe. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia (electors of the division of Grey) respectfully showeth- That controls preventing Adelaide commercial television stations from extending full-strength coverage to the Iron Triangle cities of Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Pirie are contrary to the concept of free competition which is the basis of our economic system. That such controls prevent citizens of this important and populous group of decentralised industrial cities from enjoying a freedom of choice in television programs which is in any way comparable to that applying in the metropolitan area. That television is the only form of audio-visual entertainment within the financial scope of a large proportion of the population of this area. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that-- 1. Any restrictions limiting television coverage of this area should be removed and market forces be permitted to stimulate a broader program choice and better quality. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that we are concerned: (1) That the Committee of Review into the Impact of Radford College exceeded its term of reference; (2) That the composition of the Committee excluded representation from many interested parties concerned with education; Your petitioners therefore pray: (1) That the Government not implement the recommendations of the Radford Report ; (2) That the new funding guidelines of the Commonwealth Schools Commission be suspended; (3) That the Government base its funding on principles and justice and concern for the best education of all Australian schoolchildren. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows their concern for the present unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental and technical problems associated with the mining of uranium, the development of nuclear power with the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: 1. prohibit the establishment in Australia of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. 2. declare a moratorium on all mining and treatment of uranium in Australia. 3. prohibit the export of Australian uranium. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the citizens of New South Wales respectfully shows: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr John Brown. 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 roads 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 commkercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the citizens of Western Australia respectfully shows: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth that the Federal Government should have allowed Parents and Citizens Associations and other such bodies exemption from the Bank Accounts Debits Tax Administration Act. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will amend the Act to allow such bodies to be exempt from the tax and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Howard. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria showeth our concern over the continuing taxation of Parents' Club bank accounts by way of the Bank Account Debit Tax. Your petitioners therefore pray that- Parent clubs being set up by Government Regulation in the State of Victoria ( Regulation XLII) be recognised by the Australian Government as education auxiliaries, in the same way as are School Councils. The Treasurer move immediately to exempt Parent Clubs from the tax in the same way as are School Councils. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms Mayer. Petitions received. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) will second: That this House notes, that in addition to its proposal to destroy the oath of allegiance by deleting all reference to God and the Queen, the Hawke socialist Government now proposes to meddle with the role of the Governor-General, and this House therefore expresses its gravest concern at yet another example of sinister moves to turn Australia into a republic, against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Australians. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recognises the significant level of activity achieved in the housing industry by the Government's First Home Owners Scheme, and (2) calls on financial institutions to lower interest rates on housing loans at the earliest possible opportunity. The notice is seconded by the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear). Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House welcomes the action of the United States and seven countries of the Organisation of East Caribbean States in removing a Soviet-Cuban military base in Grenada and in making possible the restoration of democracy in that country. Mr Baldwin proceeding to give notice of a motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The notice is out of order. By way of guidance to the honourable member, I remind him that argument should not appear in notices. I take the opportunity to point out to honourable members that there is no need, when giving notice of a motion, to mention the name of the seconder of the motion. Mr McVeigh proceeding to give notice of a motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's notice is out of order. Mr McVeigh-Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Will you tell me why the notice is out of order? Mr SPEAKER —If the honourable member would like to see me afterwards, I will explain the Standing Orders to him. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Queensland Premier and his Government for depriving the women of Queensland of fair representation of their stated interests through such frequently requested measures as anti-discrimination legislation, full funding of women's refuges and the establishment of information and support resources for women. Mr McVeigh-Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I draw your attention to your previous ruling. Quite obviously, this notice is out of order. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Darling Downs does not appreciate the ruling. If he would like to see me afterwards, I will explain why his motion was out of order. I remind the honourable member that the rulings are given from this chair, not from the front bench. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with alarm, the Labor Government's proposal to transfer Army Cadet units from the present school base to community units, (2) recognises that the $11m per year currently spent on School Army Cadets is the best value for money the Australian taxpayer receives, and that participation in Cadet units is a necessary part of a youth's education, (3) believes that such a transfer will decimate the current number of Cadet units and halve the number of young men and women who participate in the program , and (4) urges the Government to reverse this decision and allow the Army Cadets to continue to function under the supervision of those highly skilled school teachers and staff who have the interest in developing the character and quality of younger Australians. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the continued failure of the New South Wales Government to introduce a Freedom of Information Act, and (2) calls on the Attorney-General to raise this matter at the next meeting of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General. Report on Living Away from Home Facilities for Isolated Children [COGNATE DEBATE: COMMONWEALTH TERTIARY EDUCATION COMMISSIONReport for 1982-84 Triennium COMMONWEALTH SCHOOLS COMMISSIONReport for 1984-Response to Government Guidelines COMMONWEALTH EDUCATION COMMISSIONSFunding Guidelines COMMONWEALTH SCHOOLS COMMISSIONAnnual Report 1982] Debate resumed from 18 October, on the following paper presented by Mr Dawkins: Report by the Commonwealth Schools Commission on the study of living away from home facilities for isolated children and on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the House take note of the paper. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Leader of the House) —Mr Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering the report of the Commonwealth Schools Commission on living away from home facilities for isolated children, the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission report for the 1982-84 triennium, the report of the Commonwealth Schools Commission for 1984, the funding guidelines of the Commonwealth Education Commissions and the annual report of the Commonwealth Schools Commission, as they are associated measures? Mr SPEAKER —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these five matters? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(2.13) —I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'this House calls on the Government to implement, without delay, the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission to provide necessary additional funding for boarding schools and for hostels to meet the needs of isolated students'. I foreshadow that in respect of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education report I shall move: that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'This House calls on the Government to ensure that (a) adequate funding will be provided to maintain first enrolment levels in Australian universities and colleges of advanced education and (b) TEAS allowance is maintained against unemployment benefits'. In regard to the Commonwealth Schools Commission report for 1984 I shall move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: this House reaffirms the need for (a) all children in non-government schools to receive a basic grant of assistance for their schooling, and (b) grants to non- government schools to be calculated on a predictible percentage of standard costs in government schools. In moving and in foreshadowing those amendments this afternoon, I think it is worth while drawing the attention of the House and of those listening to the fact that it took a Melbourne Cup day to have the Government find time on the program to bring on an education debate. This is a subject which is of enormous interest and concern to all who have watched what has occurred in relation to education in Australia since the advent of the Labor Government. It is significant, of course, that $750,000 was given by the New South Wales Teachers Federation to the Australian Labor Party in the last campaign. That was a Melbourne Cup victory for the Federation because the Government has gone down the path recommended by the Federation, a body which has not been exactly known for its representation but more for its ideological bases in terms of its approach to education. We in the Liberal and National parties strongly believe in the right of choice for parents in education. That is the basis on which all free society is turned. It is not turned on the proposition put forward to the Australian Council of Trade Unions, by representatives of the teachers union, that it is the responsibility of the State and not the parents to educate and bring up their children. Because of that we are here today to express our concern at the resolutions contained in these reports as to the developments that have occurred. Children from isolated areas of the nation who are living away from home are a matter of grave concern to very many honourable members, particularly those on this side of the House. Children who are born and brought up in isolated areas are required, at a later stage in their education, to move to a city or a town somewhere near so that they can advance their education. We are concerned because of what has happened in this particular area. I can only mention a personal experience, having been brought up in the far north of Queensland where the only education at the early stages was a once a week mail service from the Queensland Correspondence School. In those days, of course, the various standards of education right through those bush areas were set by that service. I know that many other honourable members in the House will probably have benefited in the same way. But there is no way in which we can contain or continue that. Because of that parents are forced to send children from those places to the nearest education centre. This can be done only at a significant emotional and financial cost to parents. I am quite sure that every honourable member in the House would be disappointed that the Government has not carried through its levels of commitment to this area that we would have hoped. It is worth pointing out that three basic areas of allowances are paid. Firstly , there is the basic allowance. Secondly, an additional allowance is paid in respect of certain means tested criteria. Thirdly, a special supplementary allowance is paid for boarding. Between 1982-83 the basic allowance, far from being cut, was increased from $780 to $866. The 1983 Budget-the first Labor Budget-lamentably failed to maintain in real terms the 1983 levels. As a result in some country areas that have been dependent on hostels or other boarding away from home institutions, we have seen a closing down of some of these institutions because of the inability of some parents to meet the costs against a background of a poor rural year or other financial commitments. I think it is very regrettable that the time should be allowed to go past without making mention of the very grave strain that is placed on people in isolated areas as a result of these reports. I would like now to make one or two comments about the other motions in this cognate debate. It is particularly interesting to refer to the question of the report of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. It is a significant body; a body whose recommendations previous governments, both Liberal and Labor, have followed over the years. It has made a significant contribution to raising standards within education and to ensuring some form of uniform approach, standard of quality across the nation. When the Government faced up to the 55 recommendations that came out I think it is very regrettable that it managed to reject nine of those recommendations completely and to ignore another twelve. There have been substantial changes as a result of some of the other recommendations. Let me just briefly outline some of the recommendations that have been rejected . The recommendation that the total amount for general recurrent grants to government schools in 1983-84 be increased by 2 per cent in real terms was rejected. The recommendation that the 1984 school enrolment be the criteria for the allocation of funds under the government schools general recurrent grants program in 1984 was rejected. The recommendation that the general recurrent grants for non-government schools be provided on the same general basis as in 1983 was rejected. The recommendation that capital grants for non-government schools be increased in real terms by 5 per cent was rejected. The recommendation that funds for the severely handicapped children's program be increased by 25 per cent in real terms was rejected. The recommendation that the general support element of the English as a second language program be increased by 2 per cent in real terms in 1984, to be used specifically to enable Aboriginal children to participate, was rejected. The ethnic schools program, to be known as the community language teaching program, was rejected. The recommendation that the professional development program be provided with the same level of funds in real terms in 1984 was rejected. The recommendation that the country areas program be provided with a funding increase of 18 per cent in real terms was rejected. On top of those that were rejected, no responses were given to another 12 areas , including four recommendations concerning capital grants for government and non-government schools covering leasing assistance, facilities for isolated children, funding levels for joint government and non-government school programs and the distribution of joint program funds according to need, and recommendations concerning additional funds for handicapped children below school age, accounting requirements in the use of special education programs, the distribution of funds within the English as a second language program to meet the special needs of Aboriginal students, the extension of the ESL program to cover students temporarily resident in Australia and the basis of the distribution of funds amongst the States for the multicultural education program being the same as for 1983. Those points illustrate the response this Government has given to the very weighty considerations handed to it by the Schools Commission. We should not stop there. We should look at the commitment given by the Labor Government to the electorate prior to the March election because there are few more disgraceful areas of non-performance and broken promises than education. This is something we have grown used to in the various portfolios-walk around Australia, find a mouth open and stuff a promise into it. It may not be necessary to pick it up for a year or two, and by that stage the issue might be dead. Because of that, I want to outline briefly some of the areas which I think have caused enormous concern. The first is the promise that the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance would be brought to the same level as unemployment benefit. What has really happened? The unemployment benefit has gone up and the gap between TEAS and the unemployment benefit has widened. Where is the commitment to education when the allowance paid to a student attending a tertiary education institution has gone down in real terms compared with the unemployment benefit? Where is the commitment that the Labor Party gave in the election campaign? Where is the real return to the student in receipt of that allowance? It is a disgrace to think that those opposite could promise an increase in TEAS and in the unemployment benefit and yet allow the gap to widen, not to narrow. This heads the long list of broken promises in education. This is quite a litany of broken promises. Labor promised to institute a new program for primary schools at a cost of $9m per annum. It put a money level on it. That promise has not been honoured. It promised to provide in the first year of office an additional $37m for recurrent resources for government schools. That promise has not been honoured, but was noted by a well-known beneficiary, the Teachers Federation, which recently said in a headline that $37m was still owed. It knows how to get value for three-quarters of a million dollars-by coming up with responses like that. On top of that, the Government has not honoured its promise to provide an additional $16m for needy non-government schools in the first year of its program. It promised to provide $24m over three years for computer education. That promise has not been honoured. The Government has now said that it will provide $18m. Of course, it has done that against the background that its own advisory body, the Commonwealth Schools Commission has recommended the expenditure of $125m. This is some indication of the level of shortfall. To add to that, the Labor Government promised to establish a revolving loan fund with an initial contribution of $5m for the construction of planned new non -government schools. That promise has not been honoured. In the area of technical and further education the Government promised a special triennial program costing $30m to upgrade equipment and facilities in the least technologically advanced schools and to stimulate employment in Australian manufacturing. That promise has not been honoured. On top of that, we can look at a list of lesser amounts which were promised during the election campaign but which were not committed. There are very many other areas of major concern, not the least of which is the breaking of the nexus between the amounts paid to state schools and to non- government schools for recurrent expenditure. It is well known that the level of payment made to non-government schools is related to the direct cost of State government operations. That nexus has been broken. That is the beginning of the crunch on State aid. It is the beginning of the end for many schools that are very needy indeed. The Roman Catholic education system will be severely squeezed by this move. It is the sort of move that the Government should know better than to continue. That is the area in which there is the greatest need. Vast amounts of money need to be invested to bring Roman Catholic schools to proper and appropriate levels. The Government stands condemned for its total rejection of the Roman Catholic education system. I have no doubt that church leaders will let their comments be known, as indeed some have already. The breaking of the nexus-the relationship between payments to State government schools and to non- government schools for recurrent costs-would probably be the greatest warning to all of those who are interested in the education system of this nation. Mr SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Lusher —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak later. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(2.28) —Mr Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on these important educational matters. I listened to the remarks of the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) and I saw him shed his crocodile tears about the tertiary education assistance scheme. I would ask the honourable member for Ryan what the former Government did in seven years about the TEAS allowance. It did absolutely nothing. He mentioned the tying of the TEAS allowance to the unemployment benefit. One must ask whether he would have reduced the level of the unemployment benefit. It is not good enough for members of the Opposition to cry crocodile tears about the TEAS allowance. The honourable member for Ryan also spoke about broken promises. Honourable members on the other side of the chamber should be experts at broken promises because we had seven years of borken promises from them. It should be pointed out that this Government would have been able to do more in the education field if it had not been faced with a massive deficit of $9.5 billion when it came to office. The honourable member for Ryan scraped the bottom of the barrel when he engaged in the old scare stories about the Catholic education system. Let him come to my electorate and look at the category 2 and category 3 Catholic schools and see what they have and what they will get when the Government increases the allocation to these most disadvantaged sections of the educational field. So let us hear no more of these scare stories about Roman Catholic schools. There are many Roman Catholic schools in my electorate. They understand the Government's education priorities. Let us have no more of these scare stories, no more crocodile tears about the TEAS allowance and no more stories about broken promises because the previous Government during its seven years in office did absolutely nothing. The shambles that the education system was in when we came to government was caused because the previous Government had control of that system for seven years. The Labor Government has a commitment to all sectors of education, not just to the wealthy sector that is so much a part of the other side. During the life of this Government many of the disadvantages of the education system will be corrected. No doubt during this debate we will hear a lot from the Opposition. As I said before, let us look at the previous Government's record of seven years of broken promises when it had control of education. I should like to speak briefly on the Tertiary Education Commission guidelines. I believe the guidelines are a measure of the place education holds in this Government's priorities. After years of neglect of the tertiary sector of education there is to be a real increase in funding for this most important sector. This Government will also make an important contribution to rational and stable planning for and by tertiary institutions through the restoration of retrospective cost supplementation. Mr Cowan —Could you explain that? Mr HOLLIS —If the honourable member cannot understand it he can come down and see me in my office and I will be happy to explain it to him. Obviously Opposition members know absolutely nothing about education. I will be pleased to deal with the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) in my office afterwards. If he would like to come there I will explain what it means. This Government will also take the first and significant step towards ensuring greater participation in higher education and more equitable participation by disadvantaged groups. If the honourable member would like to know what that means he can come down to my office and I will explain that also. By international standards, especially in comparison with other advanced countries, Australia has a low rate of participation in tertiary education and it suffers because of that. Australia is not entering the technological age. We are in the technological age, like most developed countries we entered it totally unprepared. If we are to compete on the world markets we must have greater participation in the tertiary sector of education. Moves towards more equal participation by disadvantaged groups are especially welcomed. It has long surprised me the talent we waste in this country. I speak from some personal experience. Coming from a working class background there was no way I could afford to send myself or my parents could afford to send me to university in the 1950s. Mr Cowan —It would not have helped you anyway. Mr HOLLIS —Well, I eventually got there, so whether it helped me is beside the point. Then universities were the preserve of the wealthy. For too long women, the children of ordinary working people, members of some ethnic minority groups, rural youth-except the children of the squattocracy; we have a few examples of those in this House-and most notably Aborigines have been considerably under- represented in or unequally distributed across courses in institutions within the tertiary education sector. They have been deprived of much that their society offers and our society has been deprived of the contribution they could make. This Government is determined to change this state of affairs. In recent years all sectors of education have been plagued by uncertainty in Commonwealth funding. As a member of the Council of the University of Wollongong I know how difficult this is for universities. This uncertainty is exemplified by the approach to cost supplementations whereby institutions were given a prospective allowance for cost increases and were left in doubt about whether any additional cost increases would be met. The Government is concerned that this uncertainty has had a debilitating effect, particularly on higher education which is virtually 100 per cent dependent upon Commonwealth funding. The Government's decision to restore restrospective cost supplementation will help to restore stability and rational planning to tertiary education. These guidelines specify immediate steps, to have effect from the beginning of 1984, to shape the Commission's planning for the triennium beginning 1985, which will contribute towards putting the Government's education policy on a carefully planned and long term basis. The Government is concerned with the reform and development of all aspects of tertiary education-its organisation, processes, outcomes and participation levels and equality of access. In this year, the last year of the tertiary education triennium, the Government will concentrate on the last two of these. The Government's immediate objective is to provide for at least an additional 3,000 student places in universities and colleges of advanced education in 1984. An additional $10m in recurrent grants, based on marginal cost levels, will be provided for this purpose in 1984. This will enable additional staff to be employed. The Government looks to all institutions for a positive response to the provision of a wider range of opportunities for young people and special efforts to attract those social groups which are at present under-represented amongst those benefiting from higher education. This Government also believes that the development of arrangements between institutions based on the co-operative planning of educational programs can contribute to the goal of increasing participation in higher education. In this context, the Government already has announced that the enforced amalgamation of universities and neighbouring colleges of advanced education at Armidale and Newcastle will not proceed, but it looks to the State and the institutions to plan co-operatively for increased participation based upon the joint use of staff and other resources, including the technical and further education facilities in the regions. I mention the successful amalgamation of the former Wollongong Institute of Education and the University of Wollongong. There have been some initial problems, such as lack of library space, but the administration of both bodies worked together, as did both councils and the staff, to produce what I believe is a successful amalgamation and a model that other institutions could perhaps look at. This has been another first for my area, the Illawarra. I turn now to what I regard as the most neglected sector of education, that is, adult education. All education must be seen as a lifelong process and I believe that adult education can play a significant role in preparing people for this new technological age. In speaking of adult education I am not specifically referring to literacy classes, important as these are-I welcome the Government's initiative in this area-technical courses or mature age entry to universities. I am talking about non-vocational adult education. Some years ago I studied the provision of adult education in Japan. I have also studied adult education in the Scandinavian countries. Presently we do not compare very favourably with these countries but I know that under this Labor Government, with its strong commitment to education and its policy that education is a lifelong process and is available to all, adult education-that section that my friend Mike Newman refers to as the poor cousin-will take its rightful place in the mosaic of the Australian education scene. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(2.38) —These are important reports and those of us in the House who are interested in these matters are glad that the Government has brought on this debate. It is probably the first debate on education that the Government has brought on in this Parliament. In view of the Government's terrible record in education it may seem at first sight to show some courage. But I am sure that the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) is right when he draws attention to the fact that public attention today will not be focused very strongly on this Parliament and what happens in it. That must give us some clue to why the debate has been brought on today. The record is one of disasters and broken promises. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis), who has just resumed his seat, was indignant because the honourable member for Ryan drew attention to the fact that countrary to the commitment and undertaking of the Australian Labor Party, the gap between the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance and the unemployment benefit has widened. That is the fundamental and basic fact. It is one to which he and the Government generally should pay some attention because they placed great emphasis on narrowing, or rather on eliminating, this gap. The Government said that it would equate the TEAS allowance with the unemployment benefit and ultimately with the average weekly wage. It attached importance to that. I quote the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) when in opposition. She said: Whilever there is such a disparity between the level of payment available for unemployment benefit and the level of assistance for full time students, students from modest backgrounds will from time to time be forced out of universities and tertiary institutions and on to the dole. How the Government-- referring to the former Government- can possible defend and maintain that system really defies rational understanding. But, in fact, the situation has worsened under the Labor Government. The unemployment benefit has gone up but the TEAS benefit has gone up 5 per cent-in other words, in real terms it has not gone up because it went up at a rate much less than the inflation rate. That is of a piece with many other undertakings or promises in the student or university area. Honourable members should remember the 300 post-doctoral fellowships that were going to advance our national research effort. They should remember the emergency loans scheme which was to replace the former Government's loan scheme. They should remember the facilities that were to be provided for child care on campus to help student parents. All of those promises have not been heard of since, although they were, of course, taken seriously as undertakings. Is it any surprise that the student Press is so outspoken in its criticism of this Government? Tharunka, the University of New South Wales journal, had headlines such as 'Government Stabs Students in the Back' and 'Record of Deceit'. The student paper in Canberra-- Mr Baldwin —Strange to hear you citing them. Mr COLEMAN —They are in this mood because of this long record of broken promises , promises which were taken seriously by students and others involved in the university or tertiary education area. This is a serious record of broken promises. Woroni has shown a cartoon of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) with the caption: 'He lies and he knows he lies'. We know the allusion in that cartoon. This is the sort of reaction the Government is getting throughout the student world. Of course, it is getting this reaction in the wider educational community . The honourable member for Ryan quoted the headline over Mr van Davy's article appearing in the Teachers' Journal and referring to the Government's promise when in opposition of an extra $37m in the first year of government for recurrent resources in government schools. The headline over Mr van Davy's article was '$37 million still owing!' Worst of all, I believe, is the breaking of the promises to maintain existing funding for non-government schools. Of course, this is an extremely touchy area. Within a very short time of the Labor Party coming to government, 41 schools found that their funding was to be cut. The principle of a basic grant to every Australian school child, with variations and increases in the case of needy schools, has been broken. The percentage link between the per capita payment to a non-government school and the cost of training or schooling in a government school has also been cut and broken. These are radical changes which one can see only as the thin edge of the wedge. It is of a pattern with other moves. For example, we see in section 37 of one of these papers on participation and equity that no new schools are to be opened if there is the possibility that they would take students away from existing government schools in that area. The aim appears to be the dismantling of the independent school sector. Certainly that is what the Australian Teachers Federation and some parents and citizens federations have called for. They are not expressing popular opinion. According to the poll published in the Australian the other day over 70 per cent of parents whose children are at government schools support state aid to non- government schools. That has been accepted by the public for many years. It is one of the achievements of recent times. But now that is going. The Government, egged on by the Teachers Federation which makes no secret of its intention or hope of totally dismantling the non-government school sector seems to be moving in that direction. No wonder the Catholic Bishops of Victoria in October had a pastoral letter condemning the Government's education policies read in every church in Victoria. No wonder the Most Reverend John Kelly wrote to the Age discussing these cuts. I will quote his letter: It has been announced that cuts will be made from the so called 'wealthy' independent schools. But note the cunning inbuilt contradiction, the money from these cuts will not be given to indigent government schools, rather it will go to 'poorer' independent schools, i.e. mainly Catholic schools. In the face of that blatant sectarian tactic I challenge any Catholic independent school to accept this Judas money. That is what the Most Reverend John Kelly said. The Archbishop of Melbourne, Sir Frank Little, added this on the controversy: We now have a better sectarianism running riot. It has been described to me as the worst in living memory. To put it cynically, or ironically it is some achievement in such a short period of months to have disrupted a system that was working well, that had and still has public backing, for the sake of dogmas of one kind or another or to appease some of the teachers federations, and to undermine the established system of funding and move into a system which appears plainly to be one step towards dismantling all funding for non-government schools. I ask the honourable member for Macarthur and others who say they are concerned about these matters to look at this long list of broken promises, at the damage that is being done to the education fabric in Australia, and to put some pressure on the Government and the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) to reverse these policies before it is too late. I turn to the Commonwealth Schools Commission report for 1984. In Appendix B, the summary of the Commission's recommendations for 1984 and the Government's responses, I notice that, of the 55 recommendations, nine are rejected. Those rejected include recommendations that the total amount for general recurrent grants to government schools in 1984 be increased by 2 per cent in real terms; that the enrolment basis for the allocation of funds in the government schools general recurrent grants program in 1984 be the 1984 school census; in relation to non-government schools, that general recurrent grants be provided on the same general basis as in 1983; that capital grants for non-government schools be increased in real terms by 5 per cent; that funds for severely handicapped children's programs be increased by 25 per cent in real terms; that the general support element of the English as a second language program be increased by 2 per cent in real terms in 1984, to be used specifically to enable Aboriginal children to participate; that the ethnic schools program be known as the community languages teaching program; that the professional development program be provided with the same level of funds in real terms in 1984; and that the country area program be provided with a funding increase of 18 per cent in real terms. Those recommendations have all been rejected. Of the other recommendations, 12 have had no response at all. They have not been rejected; there has been no response. They include a range of important recommendations, including one that provisions for teacher housing in rural areas within the capital grants program be the same for government and non- government school sectors. That important recommendation has received no response. Regarding the multicultural education program, the recommendation that the basis for the distribution of funds among the States be the same as for 1983 has received no response. I could go on with a whole range of important recommendations to which there has been either no response or a rejection. I hope that attention is concentrated on those decisions by the Government. However, I draw attention in particular to what the Commission said in relation to the important computer education program. It stated: The Commission welcomes the introduction of the computer education program for secondary schools and the decision to fund it on a triennial basis. It went on: The amount provided is less than that recommended by the Commission. It wishes to emphasise that the extension of the program 'will require additional funds beyond those currently projected for the triennium'. Even here it is worth nothing that, of the funding of $6m, it has to be said that a disproportionate amount-not a vastly disproportionate amount, but nevertheless a disproportionate amount-is going to the government schools as opposed to the non -government schools. In the last couple of minutes I would like to concentrate on what has happened to the professional development program. The Commission states that it 'regrets the significant reduction which has occurred in the general allocation for the professional development program'. This has been a very significant program, the major aim of which is to improve the quality of schooling by enhancing the professional competence of staff and the capacity of parents to contribute as a sort of school community to the education of their children. It is frequently argued when people are concerned with the quality of education and Commonwealth policies that this is to a very great extent outside the control of the Commonwealth and that it comes within the State education departments. When one refers with dismay and concern to the way parents vote with their feet and drift away from the state schools to non-state schools and when one asks 'Is there nothing that the Commonwealth can do to improve the standards in schools, is there nothing that the Commonwealth Government can do other than spending more and more money on the schools and having no effect on the standards in the schools or certainly no effect of a kind that stops parents voting with their feet against those schools', one is told: 'No. Not the Commonwealth. It will have to be for the States'. Yet one of the good programs that the Schools Commission has been administering which is directed to precisely this area of improving the standards in the schools and certainly in the state schools, which would have some influence in stopping the drift away from the state schools is the professional development program, which has suffered, in the words of the report, 'a significant reduction'. When the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs says that she is particularly concerned to raise the standard of state schools before we say 'Hear, hear!'-as most of us would if we took the words seriously-we have to look at the fact that one of the programs which we are doing something about raising the standards of and restoring the reputation of state schools has suffered a significant reduction. I think that tells us what this Government is really about. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(2.52) —Both the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) and the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) attempted to use the same old scare tactics, particularly with respect to the Catholic system of education throughout Australia. The reality is that under this Government such schools will receive substantially more funds compared with the situation under the previous Government. Quite clearly, there is nothing that such schools have in common with the 41 schools that have been designated to receive funding cuts next year, a decision, I might add, which was clearly signalled earlier this year by the Australian Labor Party policy speech delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Let us get an important aspect correct about the question of the automatic nexus. When the nexus was operating, the gap between the most wealthy schools and the most needy schools had grown from about 21 per cent to about 29 per cent . Yet the people on the other side have the audacity to come into this chamber and suggest that the Government is doing something fundamentally wrong in directing funds towards those most needy schools. If the Government had not made the decision this year to break the automatic nexus, schools in category 3 levels would have received $5m less in 1984 compared with the $5m more that they are going to receive as a results of the Government's decision. I think that the other hypocrisy and misrepresentation of the people on the other side is amply demonstrated by the fact that when the honourable member for Wentworth talks about the tertiary education assistance scheme, it is worth while recalling that under the previous Government TEAS was not increased in three out of the last five years. Yet they have the hide to come into this chamber and get very excited about a decision that this Government has made with respect to TEAS. Let us not become too excited and critical of the actions of this Government in just under eight months. We should compare this Government's actions with the fact that in three out of the last five years of the administration of the previous Government there was no increase in TEAS. My main purpose in entering the debate this afternoon is to make some comments about a recent decision tied up with the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission report, that is of great importance to rural education throughout Australia. I refer particularly to the decision of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission in respect of the Orange Agricultural College, which is located in my electorate. The college has been in existence for a very short time-only since 1973. Its governing structure-a very capable governing structure , the board of management-has been operating in that time largely under the auspices of the New South Wales Department of Agriculture. Attempts have been made in recent years to destabilise the college, and constantly over the last few years the educational sword of Damocles has been held over its head, particularly with respect to its future funding. Some 12 months ago the Fraser Government sought an educational shotgun marriage between the college and another institution. This action was rejected not only by the board of management of the college but also by the staff and students of the college, people throughout rural Australia and particularly rural organisations such as the Livestock and Grain Producers Association of New South Wales and the National Farmers Federation. The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) , who was at the time the shadow Minister for Education, took the opportunity at my invitation, and also at the invitation of the Orange Agricultural College, to visit the institution to see for himself exactly what the problems were. We gave a commitment that an incoming Labor government would have nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of forced amalgamation, that there would be no shotgun marriages for educational convenience under a Labor government. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis) mentioned the University of New England, the Armidale College of Advanced Education and other such institutions throughout Australia which were threatened by the inane education policies of the previous Government, the members of which now deservedly sit in opposition. I believe that this Goverment's decisions were very right and proper. The assurance given with regard to not having a forced amalgamation was repeated by our present Prime Minister at an election rally that was held in Orange on 28 February this year. There has certainly been no equivocation by this Government with respect to the funding of institutions that were threatened with forced amalgamation. Since I have been the member for Calare, since 5 March this year, I have had a number of discussions with college authorities, both staff and students. I have been a strong supporter at all times of the need for an autonomous corporate status to be granted to the Orange Agricultural College. On 2 September this year, in a news release that was issued in Bathurst, the New South Wales Premier announced that he had written to the Prime Minister with a request that the Orange Agricultural College be granted corporate advanced education status from next year. He called on the Commonwealth to reject any proposal that the funding of the college would be conditional upon its amalgamation. That is a very important point: He called on the Commonwealth to reject any proposal that the funding of the college be conditional upon its amalgamation. The New South Wales Minister for Education, Mr Mulock, also made representations to the Commonwealth and set out co-operative arrangements which could be entered into between the Orange Agricultural College and the Mitchell College of Advanced Education, both of which are very fine educational institutions situated in central-western New South Wales. A joint co-ordinating body is to be established by the councils of the two colleges, which will be responsible for advising on the rational development of higher educational services in the central western region. Mr Wran announced these arrangements about mid-September, along with his decision to grant advanced education status to the Orange Agricultural College. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 3 p.m. the debate is interrupted in accordance with the resolution of the House of 20 October. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member for Calare will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown) left Australia yesterday to lead a parliamentary delegation to Italy, Spain and Greece. Mr Brown will then travel to London, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Tokyo for discussions relating to his ministerial responsibilities. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) is Acting Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) is Acting Minister for Administrative Services and the Acting Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce until Mr Brown returns. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Was the Foreign Minister's statement on Grenada, issued yesterday, the thrust of the Prime Minister's advice to the President of the United States in last week's telephone conversation? If not, did he advise the President of the change of direction before it was announced yesterday? Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, I do not know the practices, customs and habits of the Leader of the Opposition in regard to these matters, but I can assure him that as far as I am concerned I will not be disclosing in any detail, in this House or outside it, the conversations I have when the President of the United States rings me or when any other head of state contacts me. The Leader of the Opposition may regard that as an appropriate sort of practice; I can assure him that I do not. In respect of the position of the Government, my position and that of the Foreign Minister, the Foreign Minister rang me on Wednesday of last week when this issue arose. We discussed the matter together and agreed upon the appropriate thrust of the Government's position on this matter. Following that conversation the Foreign Minister issued his statement. I spoke to the President the following day. I repeat that I have no intention of doing him the discourtesy, or this country the disservice, of disclosing the details of that conversation. What, however, is more important and to the point is that the Cabinet discussed this matter yesterday. There was, as there had been from the Wednesday of the previous week, an identity of position between the Foreign Minister and me. Indeed there was a unanimity of position within the Cabinet. In those circumstances, Mr Speaker, I think you would regard it as appropriate that I read to the Leader of the Opposition and to the House a short statement which is relevant to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. It states: Cabinet reviewed the serious situation in Grenada which the Government has been following closely and which the Prime Minister discussed with President Reagan on 27 October. The Government regrets the loss of life and injuries which have occurred on the Island following the overthrow of Prime Minister Bishop and his Government and during the current military operations. It also notes the continuing international controversy about the causes and effects of the military action on Grenada. The Government wishes to see the current military operations in Grenada ended as soon as possible and the withdrawal of the intervening forces. In his discussion with the Prime Minister, President Reagan said the U.S. looked to withdraw its forces at the earliest opportunity. The Government welcomes this assurance from the President. While acknowledging the concern of the U.S. and the regional countries regarding the developments in Grenada and elsewhere in the Caribbean and the possible risks to foreign citizens on the Island, the Government finds it hard to justify the use of force, certainly before all other possible courses of action had been exhausted. The Australian Government was not consulted or advised in advance of the intervention but in their discussion today Ministers agreed that had the Government been consulted it would have counselled against intervention. In view of the situation on the Island and as the Commonwealth Secretary General has so rightly noted, there is an urgent need to provide the people of Grenada with the earliest opportunity to determine their own future free of pressures and constraints of any kind. There is a Grenadan constitution and there are constitutional processes that could be followed. In present circumstances efforts to restore constitutional government in Grenada appear to be the best available course of action in the search for stability, harmony and peace on the Island. We concluded: The Government notes a number of suggestions about possible involvement of Commonwealth peace-keeping forces in Grenada. It does not contemplate Australian participation in such a force should it eventuate. I conclude by observing that this Government regards the question seriously. The Foreign Minister and I will continue to monitor the developments in that way. We will give whatever constructive assistance we can in the resolution of the problem in that area. We will not attempt, as has the Opposition, to play domestic politics on this matter. Dr KLUGMAN —My question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall the election promise to help create half a million jobs in the first three years after coming to office? Has there been a significant increase in employment since March-April? Mr HAWKE —I am, of course, indebted to the honourable member for Prospect for his penetrating and very relevant question. There have been a number of very promising signs of economic improvement over recent times. The September employment figures are particularly encouraging. I hope that all honourable members of this House, whether they are on the Government side or the Opposition side, would welcome the fact that, in the period since April, in seasonally adjusted terms there have been an additional 80,000 new jobs. I remind the House that that increase of 80,000 jobs in that period this year under this Government compares and contrasts with a decline of 8,000 in the same period last year under the former Government. That is what has happend on the employment front. On the inflation front we are now, for the first time in two years, down into single digit figures with the September quarter consumer price index rise of 1.6 per cent. Having said that I am not saying that there is any cause for complacency; rather we must build on the improvement which is reflected in those facts. Obviously also there is, however, cause for a degree of comfort in the downward trend in interest rates which has been reflected in the trading following the latest bond tender. We hope, indeed we believe, that that downward trend in interest rates will continue. When we take all those relevant economic indicators into account we on this side of the House believe that we can say with a considerable degree of confidence that this Government is on target in regard to its objective of the creation of half a million new jobs in its first term of office. I acknowledge quite frankly that the achievement of that target will depend upon our policies as well as on a number of factors outside our control. It will, within this country, depend upon an adherence to the prices and incomes accord and on an improvement in the inflation performance. The important point is that this Government will play its part, as it has effectively in the last seven months, in producing these results. I must say that the attitude of this Government in respect of the question of employment and unemployment contrasts starkly to the attitude of the Opposition. The Opposition, not content with creating three-quarters of a million unemployed during its term of office, is now showing a totally callous disregard for the victims of its own policies. The honourable member for Darling Downs and shadow Minister for Primary Industry told the National Party's Federal Council meeting in Sydney last weekend-I ask honourable members of the House to note this-that the unemployed should be issued with identity cards. Not content with that he went on to say, and I ask honourable members of the House to note the statement by the shadow Minister: 'Let us bring these people to heel and make them real Australians'. There he is. That is what he is saying about the victims of the Opposition's own callous policies. He is now saying: 'Let us bring them to heel and make them real Australians'. I trust that all honourable members of this House will regard that statement with repugnance. Does the Leader of the Opposition associate himself with those remarks? If he does not, why does he not repudiate them? Or does the Leader of the Opposition accept what is accepted increasingly as the fact in this country, that the running of Opposition policies is now with the National Party and not with the Liberal Party? Mr DOBIE —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security aware that the Hawke Labor Government's callous attack on the very aged in our community, those over 70, begins today? Is he aware of Press reports that 'more than 16,000 old age pensioners stand to lose their pensions . . . because the Department of Social Security has been unable to confirm details of their incomes'? Does the Minister agree that to withdraw the pension pending finalisation of income details is a callous disregard of the need for security among the aged? Will the Minister assure the House that pensions will be withdrawn only after the Department has completed an assessment of the individual's position under the income test criteria? Dr BLEWETT —The Government has made all possible efforts to secure information about the position of pensioners over 70 in relation to the means test. It has also made it quite clear to all groups that, if people miss out on a pension now , they may place the required information before us and all pension back- payments will be made. So, nobody will be unfairly treated by a decision which the Government made in order to distribute resources more effectively to those in need in this community. Mr SIMMONS —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Health, follows a notice of motion I gave in the House on 13 October regarding certain nutritional products marketed by Bristol-Myers Co. Pty Ltd. Is the Minister aware of the financial hardship and emotional distress being experienced by families who rely on certain of these nutritional products marketed by the Bristol-Myers Company? Can the Minister say why these products were removed from the pharmaceutical benefits scheme? What action is being taken either to restore these products to the list or to provide some other form of government subsidy to affected families? Dr BLEWETT —The products referred to by the honourable member for Calare are nutrients produced by Bristol-Myers-nutramagin, pregestimil and lofanelac. I am quite aware of the very serious problems that have occurred for many families as a result of the excessive price increases imposed by Bristol-Myers. As with so many other issues in the health field, this is one more problem we have inherited from the previous Government, which recognised that the pharmaceutical benefits scheme was quite unsatisfactory but which was incapable of making the necessary amendments to it. Mr Carlton —That is nonsense. Dr BLEWETT —Let me just refer to the ex-Minister. He confessed quite recently in the House that there had been a need for substantial changes to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, and he put forward the rather lame excuse that, after seven years, the previous Government did not have time to correct the scheme. They were seven years in which it was aware of many of these problems and of the changes needed. In the Bristol-Myers problem we again have governmental procrastination. It is now three years since Bristol-Myers asked the previous Government to consider price rises for these products. Once more we have a history of procrastination. No decision whatsoever was made by the previous Government and it is one more problem that this Government inherited. While I recognised that, because of the low sales volume of these products and their uniqueness, there was a certain basis for the claim for price increases by Bristol-Myers, I regarded the increases it demanded-increases of over 50 per cent-as completely unjustifiable. I believed those excessive increases were simply profiteering from sick children. Therefore, I had no choice when faced with that but to delist those products rather than give-- Mr Carlton —You delisted them, they didn't. Dr BLEWETT —We delisted them rather than give the company that increase which, as I say, was simply an example of profiteering. I want to make it quite clear that it was my opinion when those prices were presented to me, and it is my opinion now, that it is the task of government to protect the taxpayer from excessive profiteering by overseas companies. I want to make it quite clear again that we will not tolerate blackmail from such companies. If companies present to us prices which are simply unjustifiable and unreasonable we will delist their products. I am glad to say that given the stance the Government has taken and given the further negotiations with Bristol-Myers, the company has now agreed to reduce its price increase by 50 per cent, which is some indication of that excessive price charge. As a result of that decision, after negotiation with the Government concerning this reduction, we are prepared immediately to relist those three products, and they will be available as soon as possible on the standard pharmaceutical benefits list. Mr PEACOCK —Will the Special Minister of State confirm that Australian Federal Police information on the New South Wales early release allegations is much more comprehensive than was previously acknowledged by the Federal Government, the New South Wales Government or, indeed, Police Commissioner Abbott-for example, that extensive photographic surveillance exists? Would he also confirm that a number of Federal Police drug targets were tipped off that their telephones were being tapped in the course of the investigations? Do these facts not undercut claims that a judicial inquiry or a full police investigation of the early release scheme would jeopardise the Federal Police drug investigation? Mr BEAZLEY —The answer to the honourable gentleman's question is that we have reiterated on several occasions in this House, and I am pleased to reiterate it here again, that all materials that we had in our possession relating to the early release scheme have been made available to the New South Wales authorities at the times they came into our possession since the initial passage of information on, I think, 16 May. That material has been available to the New South Wales authorities to use in whatever investigations they see fit to conduct into any possible breaches of their State laws. I do not think any Commonwealth obligation extends beyond the actions we have already undertaken in this matter. I have said before in this House that I will not engage in speculation into what may or may not be in the transcripts or in any of the material that has been handed on to the New South Wales Government. It would be completely inappropriate for me to do so both in terms of the specific investigation and the general principles in relation to investigations. As we have said before, these are important matters related both to the security of such investigations, which in themselves are important, and to the civil liberties of the people involved. If there are further questions along these lines which attempt to elicit bits and pieces of information which may or may not be within the transcripts and the materials handed on, the answer will be exactly the same. Mr LEO McLEAY —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister and relates to foreign affairs in which I have taken some interest in the last month. Could the Prime Minister advise the House of the Government's attitude to relations with the Association of South East Asian Nations countries in the light of reports of serious disagreements with them over the situation in Cambodia? Mr HAWKE —I welcome both the return and the question. It is an important question. I want to assure the House that this Government gives the highest priority to the further development of close and co-operative relations which we enjoy with the ASEAN countries. Let it be quite clear, we have also attempted to develop a more mature relationship with Vietnam. Our close relations with ASEAN as well as our very close relations with the United States of America and with China and our capacity to talk to Vietnam provide, in our judgment and in the judgments of others, a basis for our attempts to make a contribution to the peaceful settlement in Indo-China. Australia fully shares the very deep concerns of its regional neighbours, including their security concerns, at the tragic situation which continues to face the people of Cambodia. Because of that concern the Australian Government supported the ASEAN resolution at the recent meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. We voted in favour of it on 27 October. Mr Hodgman —Why didn't you co-sponsor it? Mr HAWKE —If the honourable member contains himself he will hear about that aspect too. It is a fact that we did not co-sponsor this year's resolution. In a statement to the General Assembly on 26 October the Australian representative in that body touched, in particular, on our difficulties in this year's resolution and the text dealing with the Cambodian resistance coalition which, as all honourable members know, includes the Khmer Rouge led by Pol Pot. This Government acknowledges the integrity of the strenuous efforts on behalf of the Cambodian people which have been exercised by Prince Sihanouk and Mr Son Sann, who lead the other components of the coalition. But speaking for this Government , and I believe the overwhelming majority of the Australian people, we cannot forget the repugnant and brutal record of the former Pol Pot Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia. Having said that, I point out that at the same time our permanent representative at the United Nations emphasised our agreement, the agreement of the Australian Government, with the fundamental principles underlying the approach of the ASEAN countries. In that speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Mr Woolcott reiterated the Australian Government's condemnation of Vietnam's invasion and occupation of Cambodia. Let it be quite clear-I trust that the Leader of the Opposition at least and other members of the Opposition understand this-this Government in no way condones Vietnam's invasion and occupation of Cambodia. We want-I believe this is a bipartisan position-to see an independent, non-aligned and neutral Cambodia free of foreign forces and with a government of its own choice. We want to see a total Vietnamese withdrawal from that unfortunate country. We are not simply uttering words on this matter; we are actively seeking areas in which there may be dialogue between all the parties and we are trying to assist that development. It is a matter of record that in recent months we have discussed these issues with the ASEAN countries. I personally have discussed it with the President of the United States, with President Suharto and with Premier Zhao, and the Foreign Minister has pursued these discussions equally. We recognise-we cannot do otherwise-that the decision of this Government not to co-sponsor has upset the ASEAN countries. We believe that the subsequent clarification by our representative in the United Nations has assuaged the initial feelings of the ASEAN countries. I am certain that in a couple of weeks time, having accepted the invitation of the Government of Thailand to visit Thailand, I will be able in conversations with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister of Thailand to indicate to them that there is no ground whatsoever for the ASEAN countries to feel that in any way the position of the Australian Government in support of the fundamental position in regard to Indo-China has diminished. Mr STEELE HALL —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the reply of the office of the Deputy Premier of New South Wales to the National Times on Mr Ferguson's behalf that he had no knowledge of the content of the Australian Federal Police transcripts concerning Messrs Jackson and Harris, does the Prime Minister stand by his previous reply that Mr Ferguson was informed of these matters by the honourable member for Port Adelaide, the former Special Minister of State, on 16 May this year? Mr HAWKE —I stand by the simple factual situation. Mr Peacock —That you are not telling the truth. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, I do not know whether we have to continue to listen to these pathetic interjections by the Leader of the Opposition. He has as much chance of advancing his cause in this way as Amarant had of winning the Melbourne Cup, and Amarant had the good sense to pull up. I repeat the facts because the slow learners on the other side seem to have enormous difficulty in understanding them. The facts are simple and straightforward. We on this side of the House, as always, have been consistently truthful. All the information has been conveyed by this Government and by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police to the New South Wales authorities. I believe that the House will be interested to note that quite recently-within the last hour or so-a statement was made by the Premier of New South Wales announcing the introduction into the New South Wales Parliament of legislation designed to enable the setting up of special commissions of inquiry. Those special commissions of inquiry will go to the allegations that have been made by Mr Bottom and, very interestingly, the allegations that have been made by the Deputy Leader of the National Party. Won' t that be interesting, Mr Speaker! Mr Lionel Bowen —What about the statute of limitations? Mr HAWKE —We will just beat the statute of limitations. A criminal offence allegedly took place in 1979, of which the Deputy Leader of the National Party says he had knowledge, and he has waited until 1983, when he is engaged in the decimation of the Liberal Party, to refer to it. Mr Peacock —Have you heard of the Mafia in the United States? When were you with the Mafia? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, I trust that the Leader of the Opposition will have the guts to direct a question or to move a substantive motion in place of the snide interjection he has just made. We will test the Leader of the Opposition. We will see whether he asks a question or moves a substantive motion. Mr Peacock —Just answer the interjection. Tell us about your Mafia connections. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition is issuing invitations across the table. The honourable member knows that interjections imputing improper motives are not part of the proceedings of the House unless-- Mr Lusher —He is doing that to Sinclair. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Hume. Interjections are not recorded in Hansard unless the Chair or the person addressing the House draws attention to them. I remind honourable members that all imputations of improper motives must be the subject of a substantive motion only. I call the Prime Minister. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. In the light of the ruling you have just given, can I ask the Prime Minister either to withdraw that imputation against me or to put it in the form of a substantive motion? Mr SPEAKER —Order! Would the Deputy Leader of the National Party indicate the imputation? Mr Sinclair —In that answer just given by the Prime Minister there was a suggestion that my name was specifically mentioned with respect to a delay in reporting on matters to which I have referred covering the administration of justice in New South Wales and a recollection of events which was reported to my electorate council immediately after my acquittal. Mr HAWKE —You have to be joking; come on. Mr Sinclair —The fact that the Prime Minister has little honour does not really do much credit to him. I ask that the honourable gentleman withdraw that imputation. Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the Deputy Leader says it was incorrect I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw it. Mr HAWKE —If what was incorrect? I have made no imputation. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. Mr HAWKE —Braying is no substitute for thinking. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I must admit that I am at a loss to know what the imputation was. My understanding was that the Prime Minister mentioned something that has been in the Press in the last few days. Mr Sinclair —It was the manner of his reference to it. Mr SPEAKER —The Chair cannot ask for withdrawal of accents or inflections of voice. I can ask only for withdrawal of words. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —I will try to retain a more even accent but it is difficult in the face of the provocation one gets from the other side of the House. I was saying that within the last hour or so the Premier of New South Wales has made an announcement in regard to legislation to set up special commissions of inquiry which will deal with the two matters of the allegations by a Mr Bottom and a Mr Sinclair. In respect of the particular question referred to me let me quote from the news release which has just come out. It states: In relation to the allegations concerning Mr Jackson and involving Federal Police tapes relating to three prisoners released from Broken Hill gaol, the Police Commissioner, after consultation with the Federal Police Commissioner, Mr Grey, has reopened inquiries and it is expected that Mr Abbott will submit a report on this matter early next week. At that time, if there is any matter which is unresolved, then the Government will refer the Broken Hill allegations to the Special Commission of Inquiry. It is to be hoped that the reference to the Commission will be made next week. The position is quite clear, as I have made clear and as the Special Minister of State has made quite clear. As far as this Government is concerned, at all times we have acted expeditiously and honourably and conveyed all the information. The matter has been in the hands of the New South Wales Government. It is quite clear in respect of the action of the Government and its authorities that these matters will be fully investigated. We on this side of the House look forward fully to those investigations. Mr Steele Hall —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Prime Minister has not addressed my question. It is a matter of the form of this House that he answer the question put to him. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Steedman proceeding to address a question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations- Mr McVeigh-Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I raise for your consideration the point that the matter of what I may or may not have said does not come under the ministerial responsibility of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and is out of order. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to ask his question so that I can see whether it comes under the administration of the Minister. Mr Steedman having addressed a question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The question asks for an opinion and is therefore out of order. Mr HOWARD —I preface my question to the Treasurer by saying that I welcome the changes announced by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister in relation to the management of the Australian exchange rate and future arrangements in respect of forward exchange. I think they are sensible steps in the right direction. Is it a fact that successive appreciations of the Australian dollar in recent months have eroded the competitiveness of Australian industry and damaged job prospects ? Did the Prime Minister inform the parliamentary Caucus today that there would not be any further appreciations in the Australian dollar? What new anti- inflationary measures, therefore, will the Government take to replace the anti- inflationary effects of further appreciations of the Australian dollar? Mr KEATING —The Prime Minister said no such thing at the Caucus meeting today. He was asked a question about monetary management and he made it quite clear that he was not in the business of speculating about the dollar. Apart from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition trying to damn me with faint praise, he would understand that in the end the exchange rate reflects all the fundamentals in the economy. When the Government came to office a devaluation took place which had nothing to do with those fundamentals or with the balance of payments. It took place essentially because of the irresponsible statements of the present Leader of the Opposition and some of his colleagues, who were suggesting that there would be a flight of capital from this country which would not return. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition flung to one side the interests of the nation and suggested that Australia was moving down the path of France and other countries, which had embarked on an expansionary policy, and that we would be damned to continuing devaluations of the Australian dollar. Not only was that not true but also the fact is that the funds which were lost in the week before the election were returned within almost two weeks of that period. If anything, if capital inflow is to be a measure of the international acceptability of a government, the Leader of the Opposition ought to start munching his words. Quite obviously Australia is regarded, under the policies of this Government, as being a very sound place to invest. Let me deal with a couple of other points inherent in the Deputy Leader's question. Essentially the exchange rate has now reflected the fact that there was no balance of payments problem at the time of the devaluation. The trade weighted index is back up to about where it was-we know it moves to some degree day by day-at the time of the devaluation, or about 10 per cent below where it was at the peak of the period of revaluations which took place under the previous Government. If you like, the dollar has gone down 10 per cent and back 10 per cent as a result of the capital inflow. The point needs to be observed that as the United States dollar has weakened around the world we, like most other countries, have been copping a poultice of money as a result. The difficulty in the final analysis will be that the strength which the United States dollar has attached to it will weaken over time, and I think that Australia, as with Japan, West Germany and Britain, will experience some of that problem. There is also the day to day problem which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to in commending the Government in respect of changes in the exchange rate. The fact that we set a mid-rate with the United States dollar at 9.30 a.m. and sit with that rate all through the day while people see whether or not the United States dollar weakens on Asian markets leads us to the position where we are exposed. That has resulted in capital movements intra-day which we are now trying to avoid and which I think these changes will avoid. If anything, it is those intra-day movements which have been the difficulty in trying to deal with the exchange rate. The fundamental element suggested in the Deputy Leader's questions is that in some way competitiveness can be adjusted by a movement in the exchange rate independent of the fundamentals in the economy. Mr Howard —No. Mr KEATING —The honourable member says no. I recognise the fact that that is not , in fact, what he implied and what I thought he implied. I would reject absolutely that the way in which the fundamentals in the Australian economy are going to be restored is if the fundamental parameters in the economy are going to be restored, including our inflation rate, and the fact that that is much more a measure of our international competitiveness than any dickying around with the exchange rate for political purposes. So for this Government's part, on the question of the exchange rate, we have implemented changes which I think were long overdue, which will deal with the intra-day problem of capital inflow and which will, I think, perhaps make monetary management and exchange rate management that much easier. But fundamentally, what has happened is that there was no underlying reason for the devaluation. At the time the Government took office the market reflected that fact. The exchange rates now very much reflect the fundamentals of the Australian economy. Mr GRIFFITHS —I address my question to the Treasurer. I refer him to the September quarter consumer price index result of 1.6 per cent, released last week. I ask the Treasurer whether this is consistent with inflation forecasts contained in the Budget and whether the Government's economic strategy is on course. Mr KEATING —The consumer price index figure very much confirms the Government's inflation forecast outlined in the Budget. Very definitely, the Government's economic policies are very much on course. In fact, the Government is very heartened by the figure of 1.6 per cent, which is consistent with its budgetary forecast of an inflation rate on-year average of 7 1/2 per cent and an inflation rate through the year of 5 1/2 per cent. I might also add that in recent times the employment figures to which the Prime Minister referred again very much confirm the Budget forecast in that respect, that is, of basically employment growth of 1 1/2 per cent or 90,000 over the year, or 130,000 between April 1983 and 30 June 1984. In fact, on the consumer price index, 1.6 per cent was the lowest quarter for five years and the lowest September quarter since 1975 which has produced for the first time since 1981 an inflation rate in single digits of 9.2 per cent, which is very comforting indeed in terms of the Government's general projections. I might also add, picking up a point the Prime Minister raised earlier in respect of interest rates, that since the beginning of this financial year, despite the howlings of the Opposition and some of the Cassandra-like comments which we heard so much of at the time the Budget was presented, we have seen a decline in interest rates, particularly in the bond tenders, despite the fact that we are financing a very large Budget deficit this year. We have on the short end seen a decline of over 2 per cent and on the long end a decline of over one per cent in the actual bond tender results. Of course, in secondary market trading of Commonwealth bonds since, we see an even further decline. So our confidence that we could fund a deficit of this magnitude in a climate of declining interest rates has been to this stage very largely borne out. I might add on that note that a very large part of the Government's budgetary financing task has indeed already been accommodated within the first four months of this financial year. I have referred to the employment figures. As far as housing goes, which shows again another element of the Government's budgetary forecasts, we have seen a 35 per cent increase in loans over those approved at the low point of July 1982. Again, in the business surveys we see continuing confidence being expressed by business people when they are questioned. I think the fundamental point which needs to be made about the consumer price index is that if the policies of restraint which this Government is urging on the community are followed, and if the wage fixing principles announced by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission are adhered to, then indeed one can look forward with confidence to the fulfilment of those expectations in the Budget in terms of the inflation forecast. The lower consumer price index figures will also, I think, give a fillip and perhaps will provide scope for further interest rate falls. I notice that not only in Australia but also abroad, particularly after seven years of the incredible performance and incredible forecasting by the former Government, the public is indeed very wary of forecasts by any government now about inflation and that, indeed, the actual posting of the numbers on the board is making so much difference to the attitudes and the credibility of governments in respect of inflation. Particularly in Britain and in the United States of America, where we have seen lower inflation rates, there has been a pick-up in consumer spending which has then produced a pick-up in investment. We hope that with the expansionary policies which the Government has implemented these lower inflation numbers will produce not only further interest falls but also a pick- up in consumer spending which will ultimately lead to a pick-up in investment. In final answer to the honourable gentleman's question, the projections are very much on course. The Government's budgetary and economic strategy is enhanced by the consumer price index figure. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I address my question to the Prime Minister. I preface it by saying that the Opposition welcomes today's news about Roxby Downs, although I understand that the Northern Territory Labor Party is not so happy about it-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the honourable member to get on with his question. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I ask the Prime Minister whether he can inform the House of the special qualities of uranium at Roxby Downs which make it safe to mine and export, unlike the uranium from other deposits. Will he admit that Cabinet's proposal has nothing to do with rational common sense but reflects the fact that the State Labor Government of South Australia would be defeated if Roxby were halted? Can the Prime Minister give an assurance to the Northern Territory Assembly and the Queensland Government that this Government's decision on uranium will not discriminate against the Northern Territory and Queensland, both of which also have major uranium projects planned? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that, whatever decision the Government reaches on uranium, it will not be overturned at the next Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party? Mr HAWKE —In respect of the first part of the question, if one is talking about Roxby one is not talking about the special qualities of uranium there; one is referring to the nature of the mine and the incidentality, if I can coin that word, of uranium to other deposits. The question of the Government's policy in regard to uranium will proceed. What has happened to this point is that the Cabinet has met and considered the matter. There will be a special meeting of the Caucus of the Party next Monday where that recommendation of the Cabinet will be considered. As distinct from the constitution of those parties on the other side, there is a democratic process within the Australian Labor Party that has served this Party well. It will continue to do so. The people of Australia, as they have increasingly done around Australia in the last two years, will, I am sure, continue to adjudge those processes of our Party to be infinitely superior to the dog's breakfast which characterises the policies and processes of the Opposition. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —For the information of honourable members I present a report published by the Bureau of Transport Economics on marine oil spill risk in Australia. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members I present the 1982-83 annual report of the Department of Primary Industry. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 16 of the Dairying Research Act 1972, I present the annual report of the Dairy Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1983. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 28 of the Oilseeds Levy Collection and Research Act 1977, I present the 1982-83 annual report of the Oilseeds Research Committee. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 7 of the Tobacco Industry Act 1955, I present the 1982-83 annual report of the Tobacco Industry Trust Account. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to section 15A of the Australian Electoral Office Act 1973, I present the 1982-83 annual report of the Australian Electoral Office. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications and Acting Minister for Administrative Services) —For the information of honourable members, I present the 1982-83 annual report of the Commonwealth Fire Board. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to section 28 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, I present the 1982-83 annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr McVEIGH —Yes, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr McVEIGH —In answer to a dorothy dix question today, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) attributed to me certain statements that I was supposed to have made at a Federal National Party of Australia council meeting in Sydney. I advise you, Mr Speaker, that no such meeting was held in Sydney. Unlike the Prime Minister, I am not God and I cannot attend a meeting that was not held in Sydney. Mr Hawke —Did you make the statement? Mr McVEIGH —Yes, but not in Sydney. Ministerial Statement Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement on the Government's immigration and ethnic affairs policies. Mr SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, is this the statement that the honourable gentleman is making? Mr Peacock —It is propaganda. Mr WEST —The paper has been circulated in this place. Mr Peacock —Is it a Labor Party publication? Mr WEST —No. I am seeking leave- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister is seeking leave to make a statement. Mr Sinclair —I am asking a question. Is this the statement for which he is seeking leave? Mr Lionel Bowen —Wouldn't you have had this statement before? Mr Sinclair —Not in that wrapper. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Is leave granted? Mr WEST —Where did you acquire that document? This is the paper that has been circulated in this place. Mr Peacock —You're not circulating it? Mr WEST —Yes. It is contained between those covers. Mr Sinclair —So you're not seeking leave to make that statement? Mr WEST —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister has sought leave to make a statement. Is leave granted? Mr Sinclair —I am asking whether this is the statement that he is making-- Mr SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr WEST —Yes, that is the statement. Mr Sinclair —In that case, Mr Speaker, I raise a matter of privilege. I think it has been a practice in this place that statements are made and printed in accordance with the Standing Orders. I understand that this statement has been printed by the Government Printer. I believe it is quite improper for a paper to be distributed in this House with blatant political party advertising on its cover. The Opposition does not in any way accept that it is appropriate for the Government, in introducing statements in this place, to have the Government Printer place a cover on the statement which has, as its obvious purpose, the propagation of the policies of the Government's own party. The statement, as honourable members will know, is entitled 'Labor's Policies in Action'. We are well aware of its inaction. But I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that it is not appropriate for a document in the form of this statement, which the Minister and the Leader of the House have said is the one for which they seek approval, to be distributed in this House. I ask that you refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges for consideration. Mr Lionel Bowen —Mr Speaker, no matter of privilege is involved. In this case, the Minister sought leave to make a statement, a copy of which was given to the Opposition. The Opposition apparently is objecting to the form of the cover. The statement will be the words of the Minister, and not any wrapping that a member of the Opposition might have in his hand. Mr Sinclair —It is the cover. Mr Lionel Bowen —The right honourable member is good at cover-up. My submission, Mr Speaker, is that no question of privilege is involved. There has been no question of any of the privileges of the House being impugned. The issue at the moment is for the Minister to make a statement; the Opposition can then reply. Mr Peacock —There is an election campaign in Moreton. The statement must be authorised. The name of the printer is not shown. It is not authorised. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —When the House comes to order I will respond to the matters raised. A statement made to the House is an oral statement. The Minister is seeking leave to make an oral statement. The question is: Is leave granted? Mr Sinclair —I have raised a matter of privilege. Have you ruled on it? Mr SPEAKER —No question of privilege is involved. The statement by the Minister is an oral statement to the House. Is leave granted? Mr Sinclair —Leave is granted for the statement contained within the cover on the basis that at the end of the statement the Minister will move: That the House take note of the paper. Mr SPEAKER —Leave is granted. I call the Minister. Mr WEST —I thank the House. Before I begin my statement, I am informed by my Department that this document was not printed by the Government Printer. It came from my Department. Mr Macphee —Who paid for it? Mr Peacock —Your Department? Mr WEST —I am talking about-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. Mr WEST —I am talking about the cover. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister will resume his seat. Leave has been granted for the Minister to make a statement. When the House comes to order the Minister will proceed to make that statement and he will not preface it with other remarks. The House having come to order, I call the Minister. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Will you advise which standing order gives a prerogative to the Chair to determine the contents of a statement made by a Minister for which leave has been granted in this place? Mr SPEAKER —I am sorry, the right honourable gentleman will have to indicate to me where I have so determined. Mr Peacock —This thing is before the Parliament now. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition-- Mr Peacock —Who gave the Clerk the crooked document? Mr SPEAKER —I warn the Leader of the Opposition. This has been quite ridiculous. I asked the Minister to proceed with his statement and not the sort of remarks he was making which were provoking comment across the chamber. I would have thought that the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia would have approved of that action. I call the Minister. Mr WEST —Before the 1983 election, the Australian Labor Party carried out a comprehensive review of existing policies relating to migration, citizenship, the settlement of migrants and other policies, programs and services. We decided there was a need for major reforms and on 21 February 1983 we outlined these in a statement headed 'Immigration and Community Relations'. That statement sets out clearly an extensive range of undertakings to achieve humane and equitable policies. I now account to Parliament and the people of Australia on the Government's achievements in these areas in its first eight months of office. Let me remind honourable members of our pre-election policies, which can be broadly summarised as: 1. Support for an active migration program with high priority to family reunion and to Australia's international humanitarian obligations, while sensitive to the state of the economy and the labour market. 2. Elimination of discrimination on the grounds of sex, nationality, race, colour or ethnic origin, in all aspects of entry and all other policies, programs and services. 3. Free movement to Australia of tourists and other visitors. Remaining controls exist only for the protection of Australia from terrorism and other violent and unlawful acts, and for those people trying to avoid Australia's migration laws. 4. Fair but firm administration of Australia's migration laws. 5. Guaranteeing the rights of all people to equality of opportunity and of access to services and programs, and to retain and develop their cultures and beliefs subject only to Australian laws. 6. Development of understanding and fostering of harmonious relations among all elements of our multicultural Australian society. 7. Providing services and facilities to encourage and assist migrants to settle into the Australian community, building wherever possible on community networks. This involves sensitising and developing Australia's mainstream services to ensure that they provide equitably for all members of the community, and developing special arrangements, where necessary, to overcome disadvantages faced by particular groups in society, and 8. Ensuring the rights and privacy of individuals in all aspects of administration. Labor recognised that the achievement of these goals in a climate of financial stringency and with pressure on other resources was likely to be difficult. It is with pride that the Government can report substantial progress in many of these areas. I appreciate that many people and community groups will be interested in obtaining more detail and I table for the information of honourable members a set of supporting papers to my statement. Mr Howard —Did you have these printed by the Labor Party too? Mr WEST —These papers were printed by my Department, in good faith as far as I was concerned, and in the normal way. Mr Howard —You did not show much good faith with what you distributed. That was a blatant act of bad faith. Mr WEST —That is not so. As far as the document is concerned, the cover was not circulated with my authorisation. Mr Howard —Yes, because you authorised the politicisation of your Department. Mr Hodgman —Disgraceful. Mr WEST —Copies of the paper that I tabled will be made available through the Bills and Papers Office. I have also arranged for its translation into 11 major community languages. The Migration Program The Government is commited to a non-discriminatory migration program. If the so -called shadow Minister, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), would just listen to what I have to say he might be able to concentrate on his shadow portfolio. Priority has been given to family reunion, minimising adverse effects on the labour market, and humanitarian obligations. We intend to visa up to 90, 000 migrants in 1983-84. This would comprise up to 57,000 family reunion migrants and up to 20,000 refugees. This compares with the intake of 27,000 under the family reunion migration policy of the previous Government. The 1983- 84 program of up to 20,000 arrivals under the refugee and special humanitarian program compares with 17,000 arrivals in 1982-83. Labor has increased emphasis on family reunion migration under approximately the same total intake. This has been achieved by reducing migration to fill alleged job shortages, from about 32 ,000 arrivals in 1982-83; this year we will visa no more than 11,000. We found many of the alleged job shortages did not exist as some industries wound down under the former Government. We retain a capacity to fill real skill shortages by the retention of the employer nomination category. Shortly the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and I will produce a revised means of identifying occupations in demand rather than relying upon simple lists of occupations in alleged demand shortage as occurred under the former Government. We will not continue to use, as the previous Government has done, the migration program as a substitute for sound work force planning. There is a requirement to train and retrain Australian residents and citizens to meet emerging labour needs. It was claimed by many migrant organisations that, under the former Government, it was much easier for rich English-speaking and highly skilled migrants to obtain family reunion entry than for others. We reviewed the points system to overcome these deficiencies. We have retained an emphasis on pre-arranged employment and have given additional weight to sponsorship by an Australian citizen, thus giving an added incentive to apply for Australian citizenship. The Government had intended to abolish assurances of support, but competing demands for funds and the high cost involved have forced the Government to delay this action. We promised to diversify the refugee program and the special humanitarian provisions for people in human rights difficulties. This has been done. Greater numbers of refugees from Central and South America, the Middle East and East Timor, including East Timorese in Portugal, will be resettled in Australia, in addition to Indo-Chinese and Eastern Europeans. The Government is also helping people affected by civil strife in Sri Lanka and the Lebanon, and by repression in El Salvador and Chile. The Labor Party when in opposition promised that, in office, it would pursue international solutions to refugee situations. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, (Mr Hayden) and I have been active in that role. Mr Hayden has raised these issues in Thailand, Vietnam and the United States. I attended intergovernmental consultations convened by the United States on the Indo-Chinese refugee situation, in addition to visiting Association of South East Asian Nations nations of first refuge. In both forums, I stressed the need for consultations with all parties concerned and the need for steady rates of resettlement. I also stressed the pursuit of voluntary repatriation of refugees from ASEAN countries of first refuge as an alternative to resettlement. We have been encouraged by ASEAN leaders to work towards these objectives through our improved relationship with Vietnam. New Zealand citizens are being allowed continued visa-free entry under trans-Tasman arrangements as part of the special relationship which exists between our countries, recently formalised in the closer economic relations agreement. Trans-Tasman travel and migration will be closely monitored to protect Australia's interests. Elimination of Discrimination The Government is determined to eliminate all forms of discrimination in migration and citizenship laws, and in the provision of other services. We have already introduced some reforms and others have been activated to achieve this goal. For instance, we have moved to place all migrants seeking Government employment on an equal footing. The British subject requirement for permanent employment in the Public Service is to be removed from all relevant Commonwealth Acts and Regulations. In the Public Service Act, Australian citizenship with a power of waiver will apply. As promised, steps are being taken to reform the Citizenship Act. I intend to introduce a Bill to give effect to a complex set of amendments later in this parliamentary sitting. It is intended to remove, where possible, existing anomalies and discrimination from the Act on the grounds of sex, ethnic origin and nationality of non-citizens. There are still 1.2 million people in Australia eligible to become citizens who have not applied. To encourage them the Government is considering changing the oath of allegiance to be more truly Australian in character. It is also considering reducing the residential requirement from three to two years and reducing the severity of the English language requirements. The Migration Amendment Bill 1983 was passed by the House of Representatives on 24 August this year. The Bill seeks to reform the Migration Act to remove the discrimination between 'aliens'-who are not British subjects-and other ' immigrants'-who are British subjects contained in all sections of the Act, including criminal deportation provisions. The Bill treats as equal all non- Australian citizens resident here and sets a time limit on their liability to criminal deportation of an aggregate of 10 years permanent residence in Australia. Changes have been made to those sections of the Act which were inimical to people's civil rights. When the Human Rights Commission completes its review of the Act, the Government will consider any need for further amendments. I should add that we are considering action to repeal the Aliens Act which requires aliens to register periodically. Consistent with the provisions in the Migration Amendment Bill, the Government, in May, announced more liberal criteria underlining its new criminal deportation policy. The purpose of deportation will not be to impose a second punishment; its main objective will be to protect Australian people. The policy affects permanent residents who are not Australian citizens and who commit serious crimes resulting in a sentence of imprisonment for 12 months or more. Appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is built into the provisions of the Migration Amendment Bill for criminal deportation cases. Where exceptional circumstances lead me to deport, notwithstanding an Administrative Appeals Tribunal recommendation to the contrary, the Government's policy requires me to inform Parliament of my reasons for doing so. The Government's proposed amendments to the Citizenship Act will provide a right of appeal to the AAT in refusal of citizenship cases. We have taken action on our election commitments in these areas. That action demonstrates the Government's goal of ensuring the rights and privacy of individuals in all aspects of administration. Consistent with this goal, we have also acted to improve conditions at Villawood Detention Centre. Improvements afford detainees more privacy, longer visiting hours and access to a welfare officer. I sought these improvements following my visit to the centre in the early days of my Ministry. They accord with recommendations made by the Human Rights Commission. Temporary Entry and Residence Control The Labor Government is keen to promote Australia's tourism and business potential. We welcome visitors and encourage their free movement. No longer will visitors be refused entry solely on the ground of their having views incompatible with our own. We remain concerned, however, to protect the Australian community from circumvention of Australia's migration laws and offences under the Migration Act. We think there are as many as 50,000 prohibited immigrants in Australia, with a further 6,000 to 10,000 becoming prohibited immigrants each year. Indications are that about two-thirds of the prohibited immigrants work and, in doing so, deprive legal residents of Australia of employment opportunities. Our efforts to locate such people will be handled fairly and sensitively. Enforcing departure is unpleasant but essential to fair and proper implementation of migration laws and policies. Because of the continuing job shortage in Australia, stricter measures have been applied to the entry of working holidaymakers to Australia under international agreements. The number of such visas issued will be limited to 10, 000 in 1983-84, a reduction of 8,000 on the 1982-83 figure. This redresses the imbalance against Australia which existed before. The Government is also reviewing the private overseas student program. It has appointed a committee of review to report by the end of February 1984. The Committee is to recommend changes to the program, for implementation by 1985, which recognise the Government's wish to encourage private overseas students to study in Australia without reducing opportunities for Australian residents or dramatically increasing public sector outlays. Migrant Settlement Australia is a multicultural society. Six million of our population were either born overseas or have at least one overseas-born parent. Over 300 languages, including about 200 Aboriginal languages, are spoken in our community. The diversity of the Australian society needs to be understood, accepted and provided for by Government and non-Government service providers, and the community at large. Different groups must be able to interact freely while sharing a common commitment to social and national ideals and providing common support for core institutional arrangements. We must give due recognition to legal, political and educational institutions and to the use of English as our common language for communication. The communique of the National Economic Summit Conference of April 1983 declared: There is acceptance that the future well-being of this country depends upon the acceptance of the cultural, social and economic implications of a multicultural Australia. But the real test of multiculturalism is not merely a commitment to words. Multiculturalism has implications for attitudes and actions on the part of all of us and places particular responsibilities on those involved in serving the needs of migrants. Those responsibilities must be reflected in policies and programs to meet the needs of the total community. Ethnic groups must be free to retain and express their ethnic identity if they wish to do so, subject to Australian laws, without sacrificing their rights of equal access to the community's resources. We intend to see that multiculturalism does not become a vehicle through which certain groups remain or become chronically disadvantaged. Consequently, the Government has made substantial progress in ensuring that mainstream service providers cater for migrants as well as for the other constituent members of the Australian community. The responsibilities for achieving this are spread across a number of portfolios administered by my colleagues. One example is the announcement by my colleague the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) of the provision of initial funding in the 1983-84 Budget for a public broadcasting foundation, expansion of ethnic radio through the public broadcasting system, and a timetable for the expansion of multicultural television Australia wide. These were our election commitments. I will also ensure that all migrants are informed of the new Medicare arrangements . The Government's broad philosophy in providing services is to ensure that the settlement needs of new arrivals are fully met by special programs and that needs which apply equally to those born in Australia and those who have come from other countries are met, wherever possible, by adapting mainstream services . The Government's approach is to build on community-based services where appropriate. This is no simple task and requires understanding and co-operation by the whole community. Equality of access has been boosted by more than doubling funds for cost shared translating and interpreting services with the States and Northern Territory governments. The provision of these services in such vital areas as health, education and the law will, with State co-operation, be considerably expanded. In addition, I have the agreement of State Ministers to a major review of language services to identify deficiencies in service provision and to develop a future policy strategy. The Government has also advanced and re-directed the functions of the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters by establishing a registration body which will be jointly operated and subsidised by the Commonwealth and State governments. Other steps include current moves to upgrade the quality of Australia's unique Telephone Interpreter Service through the installation of efficient equipment to cover even more Australian residents on a toll-free basis, and through the development of a computerised information service for the TIS operators. The Australian Labor Party promised to expand substantially the grant in aid scheme for community-based welfare workers and to boost the funding of migrant resource centres. In both these areas, we took immediate steps to increase Government support for what are essentially self-help programs co-operatively administered by the Government and the community. Migrant resource centres have received a 43 per cent increase in funds, bringing the level of funding to $1.5m . This will enable them to upgrade their services, particularly to newly arrived migrants, and to assist the unemployed in industrial areas which have high concentrations of non-English speakers. Increasing the grant in aid scheme by $1 .6m a year will provide 60 additional grants. This raises funding to a level of almost $5m a year and enables a greater response to the particular needs of newly established ethnic communities, the special needs of migrant women, and the problems of unemployed migrant youth. Agencies assisting ethnic aged and those developing welfare rights programs for migrants are being encouraged to apply by advertisements for grant in aid applications. The most critical need of migrants is ability to communicate in English. We have addressed serious deficiencies in existing programs, as promised. We have provided funds to put the State Adult Migrant Education Service on a fully professional and permanent basis through increasing permanent employment opportunities for teachers. Arrangements are under way to establish a new materials and syllabus development centre to increase the effectiveness of English language teaching through better professional support. Additional funds have been made available to expand and improve occupational English classes for migrants in the workplace. The Government has taken initiatives to improve the position of migrant women and to assist their settlement in Australia. Our goal is equal opportunity for all people within Australia. Migrant women suffer particular disadvantages relating to health, occupational health and safety, psychiatric care, discrimination in employment, sexual harassment, and learning English as a second language. We have made progress in fulfilling our election commitments by establishing a migrant women's desk in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; providing substantial funds for child care facilities in association with community-based English language classes; extending to migrant women in the community child care facilities currently provided for women attending English language classes at migrant centres; and allocating funds within the national women's emergency services program for the employment of ethnic workers at women 's refuges. Migrant women will also benefit from the range of other settlement initiatives offered by the Government. The Government has also reviewed substantial components of post-arrival programs and services for migrants established under previous governments. Our review covered the areas of education, employment, welfare, the law and civil rights, interpreting-translating, and the arts and media. I have arranged for the printing of a booklet outlining the results of that review. Some substantial changes have been made, particularly in improving information services to new settlers and welfare facilities to small, newly arrived and under-resourced ethnic groups. We expect further assessment may be needed and are committed to a major review of post-arrival programs and services in 1986. The Government's objective is to improve and upgrade co-ordination across post-arrival services for migrants. A co-ordinating committee of senior officials from a number of Commonwealth departments-the Committee on Post-arrival Programs and Services for Migrants-will report at least annually on the implementation of Government decisions on post-arrival programs and services for migrants. In addition, we have reached agreement with State Ministers that regional consultative arrangements will be strengthened to avoid unnecessary overlaps in services and to minimise any tensions between community groups. Our commitment to assist ethnic organisations to act as advocates for ethnic groups and individuals has also been acted on, and the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia has received our strong financial support. The Government is determined to expand efforts aimed at improving inter-group relations at the same time as we undertake community education initiatives which will have an impact on all Australian residents. This was one of my objectives when I established the review of the operation and administration of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs-AIMA. The Government will ensure that migration and ethnic affairs policies and programs continue to be responsive to the needs of the Australian community. We are establishing a National Population Council, as promised, which will provide an important source of advice across a range of population, ethnic affairs, and migration matters. Today I have indicated that, in our first eight months of office, the Government has made important advances across the range of its pre- election strategy and commitments. This has involved a re-ordering of priorities and changes in direction, and has required some tough decisions at a time when resources are not readily available. Our actions show that we are not pursuing short-term, stop-gap measures; our efforts are directed to the continued development of Australia as a multicultural society. We are committed to migration policies and laws incorporating our humane and non-discriminatory approach. We are determined to make citizenship more attainable for those with an entitlement to it. The Government's actions include improving English language learning programs and injecting funds into other post-arrival programs and services with special emphases on the needs of disadvantaged groups. We are determined to improve the quality of access of migrants to all community programs and services. Our efforts involve improving inter-group relations and undertaking community education initiatives to the benefit of all residents of Australia. The Labor Government intends to pursue a policy of a steady migration intake. The Government will also ensure that the programs and services for the community at large cater adequately for migrants. In addition, special services will be provided, wherever necessary, to facilitate migrant settlement and integration into the community. Australia in 1983 is a multicultural nation. We believe that all residents of Australia should enjoy equal rights and opportunities and be free of discrimination and injustice. I present the following paper: Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Policies-Ministerial Statement, 1 November 1983. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.26) —On behalf of the Opposition I immediately move an amendment to the motion just moved. I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'this House condemns the Minister and the Government for scandalous misuse of public moneys in producing blatant political propaganda material for the ALP in the cover ''LABOR'S POLICIES IN ACTION'' attached to certain copies of the ministerial statement, the cost of the said material and covers being paid for by the taxpayers of Australia'. It is a matter of profound regret that what was to have been a ministerial statement in this House this afternoon has turned out to be a political manifesto of the socialist Left encased in a cover paid for by the taxpayers of Australia. Earlier today I received a copy of the statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) without a cover attached. Shortly thereafter I received a further copy with a cover attached. I wish the people of Australia could see these proceedings on television. They would see that I have in my hand a green cover to the Minister's statement. It has at the top the crest of the Commonwealth of Australia, clearly proving, I suggest, beyond any doubt that it is paid for by the taxpayers of Australia. It has in small print the words 'Immigration and Ethnic Affairs'. Then in big print there appear the words 'LABOR'S POLICIES IN' followed by the word 'ACTION' in graphic form, under which is a logo and the words 'The Hon. Stewart West, M.P., Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, November 1983'. This is a scandal. It would be bad enough on its own, but for this to happen in the middle of the Moreton by-election campaign is one of the greatest scandals that one can possibly bring to mind. Since the matter has been exposed, let us look at the hedging. First of all, it was put very properly by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) by interjection that this has been printed by the Government Printer at cost to the taxpayers of Australia. That produced a response from the Minister in which he said: 'No, it has been produced by my Department'. As the former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), has asked me to inquire: Has the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs now become a branch of the Australian Labor Party? Is it preparing and providing this cover at taxpayers' expense in the week of a Federal by-election for a critical seat-- Mr Sinclair —Without authorisation? Mr HODGMAN —Without authorisation, in breach of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out? This cover is not only illegal; it has been produced at cost to the taxpayers of Australia. The Opposition demands to know how many copies of these covers have been printed. What was the total cost? Dr Theophanous —A point of order-- Mr HODGMAN —You will not shut me up on this one, Andrew. Dr Theophanous —I take a point of order. The honourable member has just accused the Minister of illegality. If that is his claim, he has the option of moving a substantive motion under the Standing Orders. If not, he has to keep quiet. He cannot bandy about these accusations in this way. We are used to this sort of accusation coming from him. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member has stated his point of order. I am prepared to rule on the point of order. Mr HODGMAN —If I could, sir, the Minister now says it was issued without his authority, so that point of order is frivolous, a waste of time, and a futile attempt to keep the Opposition quiet on this scandal. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HODGMAN —Whoever produced this document produced it at the taxpayers' expense in the week of a Federal by-election. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, it is in breach of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. It does not carry the name of the person who authorised it and it does not carry the name of the printer. This, I suggest, is a scandal. The Opposition demands to know the cost, how many of these documents have been printed, and who authorised them to be printed if the Minister did not. I accept the Minister's assurance to this House that he did not authorise it; it was issued without his authority. Now we have been handed copies of this document but with the front page cut off. Let us hasten the day when we can have these proceedings televised so that the taxpayers of Australia can take a good look at the people sitting on that side of the chamber who are supposed to be running this country. I have never in 16 years in politics-State and Federal- seen such a blatant and scandalous misuse of taxpayers' funds. Government members ought to be absolutely ashamed of themselves. They are the ones who come into this chamber and preach morality. The honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous) was not even in the chamber when the Minister commenced his remarks. He did not even know that the Minister said that he did not authorise this document to be issued. That is typical of the honourable member. He comes in here, makes a couple of interjections, hopes to get a headline, thinks he will get the ethnic vote, and wanders out again. The fact of the matter is that we discovered in the week of the Moreton by-election a scandal of which the Government should be ashamed, and more will be said on this issue by the seconder of this motion, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). I turn to this political manifesto. This is not a ministerial statement; it is a political manifesto of the socialist Left. As I have said in this Parliament over and over again, Australia's immigration and ethnic affairs policies have taken a dangerous and radical turn to the left under this Minister. He is, as you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, the senior member of the socialist Left in the Hawke socialist Government. He is the only socialist Left Minister in the inner Cabinet. I do not blame him for one moment, because he has these philosophical commitments, for taking advantage of his position. What he is doing to Australia's immigration and ethnic affairs policies might be all right for the socialist Left and for those who hang around the fringes of that lunatic philosophy, but down the track it will be bad news for the people of Australia. Mr West —Why don't you address yourself to the issue? Mr HODGMAN —I am about to address myself to the issues. They are the sorts of issues that the people of Queensland felt very strongly about the week before last. This Government-the Minister confirmed it in his statement-without any mandate whatsoever considers itself to be not just above the Queen but above God and proposes to destroy the oath of allegiance to take out all reference to God and the Queen. Those proposals are both atheist and republican. In case the Minister thinks it is funny, independent political commentators say that one of the reasons the Australian Labor Party got the thrashing it got in Queensland was that he dared to bring forward this issue, demonstrating his absolute contempt for both God and the Queen. I ask the Minister whether he has bothered to look at the Australian Citizenship Act. Does he know that the Australian Citizenship Act was amended in 1973 by a former Labor Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam? Does he know that the Act provides for an oath or an affirmation? In other words, at present people who wish to become Australian citizens have a choice; they can either take an oath- it is indeed a beautiful oath-or they can take an affirmation. Both set out very clearly the commitments and the obligations of an Australian citizen. This is what the Australian Labor Party and the extremist republicans within its ranks are determined to destroy. These are the words that the Minister says are not sufficiently Australian. I challenge him to debate that matter with the people of Australia, two out of three of whom are dead against his endeavours to turn this country into a socialist republic. Let me read the words of the oath that the Minister says is not Australian enough. The oath states: I . . . renouncing all other allegiance, swear by Almighty God-- the Minister takes exception to that- that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia-- that came about as a result of the initiatives of a Labor Prime Minister, the Honourable E. G. Whitlam- Her heirs and successors according to law-- and listen to this- and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen. The Minister tells me that is not Australian enough. Let us look at the affirmation which states: I . . . renouncing all other allegiance, solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen. The Minister says that that is not Australian enough and that he will take out all reference to the Queen and to God. I have to remind him, in case he is unaware of the fact-and this is stated in his ministerial statement-that 81 per cent of Australians happen to believe in God. They will take pretty savagely to his proposal to discriminate against those who wish to exercise their right to take an oath to God. Will the Government then move through the State Labor Governments and have the oath abolished in the courts of law? Will it take the oath of allegiance out of this Parliament? Will the people backing the Government in this matter and promoting the destruction of the oath of allegiance move to remove prayers from this Parliament? This is the sort of thing that Government members have in their minds because of their commitment. The plain fact is that on this issue I challenge the Minister to show where he has a mandate. He has none. When did the Government go to the people of Australia before 5 March and say: 'If we get into power we will take God out of the oath and we will take the Queen out of the oath'? Honourable members on the other side think it is hilarious. I wish we were on television so that the people of Australia could see this atheist, republican rabble on the treasury bench at this moment. Government members think they are above God. They are carried away with their own arrogance. They have no mandate whatsoever to do what they will try to do. It is not a matter only of the oath; they will meddle with the powers of the Governor-General also. Mr Howard —They are getting nervous about that, too. Mr HODGMAN —They are getting nervous. They got a thrashing in Queensland, and this is one of the issues on which they went down the gurgler. The Government could not even get a swing of more than 3 per cent against a governmnt which has been in power for 26 years. Government members are atheist, socialist republicans, and that is what the people of Australia know them to be. They can laugh now but this is one of the issues which will put Andrew Peacock into the Lodge and Bob Hawke out of the Lodge at the next Federal election. Let me turn now to some other issues. The Minister said: 'We have liberalised the laws in relation to deportation'. Mark the interjection of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender); he called it the Mafia protection legislation. That is spot on. The Government has virtually abolished deportation . I should like to know how many people the Government will deport for treason or treachery. That is all the Government has left now. Despite our amendments the Government does not have the power to deport somebody who harbours a Soviety spy. It is extraordinary that if Mr Ivanov, who was so well known to the Australian Labor Party, had been harboured by a person who was not an Australian citizen, according to the amendments brought in by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs he could not be deported. Ignoring the advice of one of the top Queen's Counsel in Australia he has now put it on the statute books that we can get rid of them only for treason, treachery and piracy. Tell me the last time we had a good case of piracy in Australia. If they are in the Mafia, if they are engaged in drug running, if they murder or if they are engaged in corrupting the youth of this country we will not be able to deport them. The Government has not just heard that from me; it heard it from the honourable member for North Sydney, and it will hear it in the Senate. I hope the Australian Democrats will combine with the Opposition to support the amendments that we will bring forward. Mr Howard —Terrible. Mr HODGMAN —It is terrible, and Australia will reap the reward of the Government 's term in office. Let me turn to a couple of other matters. Why is the Government anti-British? Let us put it on the table. Why did the Government take away the requirement that people who come to this country should speak English? Does the government think that English is not spoken in Australia? The Minister mentioned 300 languages of which, I acknowledge, 200 are Aboriginal. The Government has deliberately discriminated against those of British stock. I think the people of Australia ought to know that the effect of these new policies will make it harder for people of British stock to come to this country and it will make it harder for people from other Commonwealth countries to come to this country. I ask the Minister whether that is really the way he believes we should be shaping the future. We are a multicultural society. Why does the Minister take a stockwhip to people of British origin? It is typical of his thinking. He hates Britain, he hates the Queen, he hates traditions. He is going to try to destroy them. But he has no mandate, and furthermore-- Mr Porter —Oh, God! Mr HODGMAN —Honourable members opposite think that they are above God. The approval rating of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is 70 per cent and God's approval rating in the last gallup poll was 81 per cent. So the Prime Minister still has a bit of a distance to go before he takes over from the Almighty. I come back to another matter. The Minister says that he has brought in a firm and sensitive policy. He has brought in a most rigid and authoritarian policy. He refuses to exercise discretion. He simply puts a slide-rule against all cases and says: 'You can only stay in Australia if you marry an Australian citizen'. Is that not marvellous if one is already married to somebody else? Is it not marvellous if one does not want to get married at all? Last year Liberal Ministers looked at 15,000 cases. They worked long hours in their offices and they approved 1,000 cases on humanitarian grounds. But the Minister will not do that. Effectively he says: 'You get married, sport, and do it within seven weeks or you are off'. I have never felt so upset about a government which is so committed to atheism, socialism, republicanism, for which it has no mandate. I warn and suggest that the Government is daring to do things that Mr Whitlam would never have done. It will reap its reward at the next election. It is a oncer government led by a oncer Prime Minister. It will be thrown out at the next federal election, and rightly so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! Is the amendment seconded? Mr Sinclair —Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the amendment. I think in the light of the decision-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The original question was that the House take note of the paper. To this the honourable member for Denison-- Mr Sinclair —Mr Deputy Speaker, the normal practice is for me to finish speaking before you start reading that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the National Party has no right to seek to rebuke the Chair. The original question was that the House take note of the paper. To this the honourable member for Denison has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. Mr Sinclair —Mr Deputy Speaker, I think it is important that people read section 164 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the National Party is always very lethargic in his response to the Chair. I call the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Mr Hayden —Mr Deputy Speaker, as an atheist, socialist, republican, I move: That the debate be adjourned. Mr Sinclair —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. That is not an appropriate motion. I am on my feet. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It is not the prerogative of the Minister to so move when the Deputy Leader of the National Party is proceeding with the debate. I call the Deputy Leader of the National Party. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(4.44) —Mr Deputy Speaker, section 164 (1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act reads as follows: (1) on and after the date of issue and before the return of any writ for the election of a member of the Senate, or of the House of Representatives,-- I draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that there is a by- election in the seat of Moreton in Queensland next Saturday- or for the taking of any referendum vote, every article, report, letter, or other matter commenting upon any candidate, or political party, or the issues being submitted to the electors, printed and published in any newspaper, circular, pamphlet, or 'dodger' shall be signed by the author or authors, giving his or their true name and address or names and addresses at the end of the said article, report, letter, or other matter, or where part only of the article, report, letter or matter appears in any issue of a newspaper, circular, pamphlet or 'dodger', at the end of that part. Penalty: one hundred dollars. Members of this House this afternoon have been treated to a display by the Government which deserves total censure. Three versions of the ministerial statement have been distributed. Mr Deputy Speaker, the first is the copy which was distributed to you, and which is in front of you. This copy was before and is still in the hands of the clerks of this Parliament. I am told it is in the hands of a number of the members of the media in the Press gallery and, of course it has been distributed to a few members within this place. The second version was distributed, I think, to only a few select members of this place; that is the one received by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker). It has had the cover ripped off it. All honourable members can see that that is a hand- inserted staple by the honourable member for Wannon. It was presented to him with the cover entirely removed. Mark III looks as though it has been through a guillotine. I can suggest a few others around this place that might well be favourably subjected to the same treatment. There is a cover on the back and no printed cover on the front. However, it is important that we turn to Mark I. As I mentioned in this place when talking on the matter of privilege, the statement is headed: 'Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Labor's Policies in Action'. We have spoken of that before. It has two hands embracing a family-two adults and two children. Perhaps that is the socialist objective. I am glad to see there is at least a husband and wife in the family, which is a little different from some of the propaganda. Underneath are the words: 'The Hon. Stewart West, M.P., Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, November 1983'. I mentioned a moment ago section 164 (1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Document Mark I refers to 'Labor's Policies in Action'. This is not a government document; this is a piece of political propaganda issued in this place, publicly and to media who circulate in Queensland, just a few days before the Moreton by-election. It is a pamphlet or dodger, depending on how we define it. We might well ask who printed it. We are told it was not printed by the Commonwealth Government Printer, it was printed by the Department of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West). So the plot thickens. It is not sufficient for the Minister, within the finances of the Australian Labor Party, such as they are, to print a political brochure. His own Department has so identified itself with this cause that it has used its departmental funds, which have been authorised by this Parliament out of taxpayers' funds, to print a political brochure for distribution in the Moreton by-election and for distribution already to the media and amongst members in this Parliament. Why did the Government distribute the document to members of the Press gallery? Members of the gallery have it. We just have to ask our friends up there. I turn now to document Mark II. I think it is important for us to realise that it needs to be authorised. What is the authorisation? A few moments ago the Minister said it was distributed without his knowledge. What name appears on it? 'The Hon. Stewart West, M.P., Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. November 1983' appears on it. If we have a look at the requirement of the Electoral Act we see that not only his name but also his address should appear at the end of the said article, report or letter. Actually, his name appears on page 1 of the ministerial statement, not at the end. We will give it to him that at least the name appears, but his address does not. The most important part is that this is a blatant piece of political propaganda. It has been produced with taxpayers' funds a few days before the Moreton by-election. It is the most discriminatory action for any government of Australia to take. This Government had the effrontery to circulate within this Parliament a political document, without authorisation, in breach of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, and it expects members of this place to treat it as a responsible document. Mr Peacock —It is the very day the over-70s lost their money. Mr SINCLAIR —As the Leader of the Opposition says, it is the very day that the over-70s lost their money, the very day that the assets test on pensions is to be applied. This blatant piece of political propaganda goes beyond the province of this Parliament. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say 'I didn't know about it', or 'It wasn't printed by the Commonwealth Printer, it was printed by my Department'. I will have the Minister on that. I think it is absolutely essential for the people of Australia to know the extent to which this so-called honest Government of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will extend. For any government to be prepared to produce political propaganda, to distribute it in this place, to distribute it to the media and to distribute it so that it will be circulated-- Mr Chynoweth —You are wasting time. Sit down. Mr SINCLAIR —It is okay for the honourable member to condone illegalities. It is okay for him to say that the Commonwealth Electoral Act does not matter. I tell my dear friend that if he would like to look at section 164 of that Act he will find a penalty within it. His dear colleague, the Minister who is sitting at the table, is in breach of that Act and the Government of which he is a member is in breach of that Act. The Government has brought into this Parliament this afternoon a document which cannot be accepted in any way as an acceptable document for distribution in the electorate of Moreton. It is sad that even at this moment so few members of the Government are prepared even to debate the issue, the migration policy of the Government. That migration policy, as my colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has just said, is subject to very real doubts and criticism by us. We are concerned about the well-being of the migrants in our community. We believe they should be cared for and respected by the Government whose fiat is necessary for their admission into this country. That document, which sets down the policies of the Labor Party, has not even been supported by a representational group of the members of the Government at the time of its presentation. Quite obviously, immigration policy is not important to the Labor Party. I think we need to remember that in the cover that it has sought to place on this statement on migration policy it has compounded a felony. Let us look at the situation. First, very few members of the Government are in the chamber to hear the debate. Sure, there are a couple more here now but at one stage when the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs made his statement only six were present. There is demonstrably little interest in the statement. Secondly, in the presentation of the statement the Government has been prepared to resort to a piece of blatant political propaganda. Members of the Government are in no way concerned about the contents; their concern has been to present a brave, new, bright image to the people of Moreton to try to persuade them of something-something about Labor's inaction. It is also interesting to note that one of the so plentiful members of the left wing of the Labor Party has apparently decided on a more colourful green. I do not know whether a red cover might not have been more appropriate. I think it is important that we all realise that this bit of political propaganda is totally against the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and against the customary practices of this Parliament. I sought to raise earlier as a matter of privilege whether or not it was appropriate for a document to be circulated in this form. I am quite sure it is not appropriate, Mr Deputy Speaker. Within the Parliament it is important that political parties are not identified in this way. It is very important that new Australians have confidence in the man who supposedly represents their interests on matters that affect their lives and well-being. Yet here today he has shown that it is in the pattern of political propaganda that he excels, not in the detail of the policies that should be implemented. I find that the statement itself lacks sincerity. Only in a very furtive way does it attempt to address the tremendous emotional problems of people who, regrettably, under this Government are so often denied the opportunity to come to Australia. The Minister talks of trying to maintain a flow of migrants into our country but, regrettably, the paper itself has been completely clouded by the blatant political exercise represented by the cover in which it is enshrouded. I think every member of this chamber should endorse the amendment that the Opposition has moved to this motion. I believe that we, as a House, should now refer to the Chief Australian Electoral Officer for appropriate action this political propaganda distributed in this place by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I believe that we should condemn him for his habits and practices and for the fact that he has been so prepared to breach what we all regard as very important essentials in the disparity of policies the Government presents to this place. I believe he is trying to cover the matter up. I believe his effusion and evasion in trying in some way to dissociate himself from this happening is a disgrace. I believe every member of the House should support the amendment moved by my colleague the honourable member for Denison. For the sake of those honourable members who have not heard it, I repeat it: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'this House condemns the Minister and the Government for scandalous misuse of public moneys in producing blatant political propaganda material for the ALP in the cover 'LABOR'S POLICIES IN ACTION' attached to the ministerial statement, the cost of the said material being paid for by the taxpayers of Australia'. Every taxpayer of Australia, in other words, has been associated with that bit of blatant political propaganda. The Government is not content with requiring the average trade unionist who supports the coalition to support the Labor Party through the union levies. It is not content with trying to mislead the migrants of Australia. It has now, in this place and in this document, shown its total disrespect for the customs and practices of an election and for the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I suggest that every member of the Government, as well as members of the coalition, should support this amendment. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(4.55) —in reply -We have just heard from the honourable members for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) the greatest load of hyprocritical hogwash with which I have ever been insulted. Today I have put down a statement about the achievements of the Government in a sincere attempt to inform the House of our immigration intake policies, our legislation and our ethnic affairs policies. If members of the Opposition would only bother to look at the attachments I have tabled today they would see that we have sincerely attempted to provide information to honourable members about our immigration program for the next 12 months and the way in which it will operate, our problems with the fringe areas such as working holidays and what we are doing with regard to private overseas students. I have set down the whole range of new initiatives under our ethnic affairs policy, such as the migrant education program, our attempts to institute teacher permanency, the provision of more money to the States for interpreter translating services, the implementation of courses in industry, the provision of more funds for migrant resource centres and the implementation of another 60 grants-in-aid. I can tell members of the Opposition this: The migrant communities of Australia will watch carefully how we implement our policies. They are not interested in the Opposition's hogwash about our attempting to whip up racial hatred between British subjects and non-English speaking people. I was misguided; I was under the impression that the Opposition would support me in my attempts to remove discrimination from all the legislation which applies to my portfolio in my attempts to implement mainstream policies to improve the services that are available to migrants and to inform the migrant communities of Australia about the policies and the programs that are available so that they do not miss out on their entitlements. That is exactly what we are trying to do and I make no apology for it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The two honourable gentlemen on my left who are interjecting have already addressed the House on this question. I ask them now to pay some courtesy to the succeeding speaker. Mr WEST —Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not want to overreact to their nonsense. We have put down in the statement exactly what we are doing. The attachments spell out exactly where we stand with regard to the migration program and ethnic affairs program initiatives that we have taken. Frankly, I am appalled at the way in which the Opposition has carried on today. I am informed by senior officers in my Department that there is absolutely nothing wrong in a Minister's attempting to inform the people of Australia of our policies. Mr Sinclair —'Labor's policies in action'. You are joking. Mr WEST —In case the right honourable members does not know, we are a Labor Government. We are certainly not a Liberal-National Party coalition Government. The people of Australia are damn pleased that they have a Labor Government and that they are not governed by the mob opposite. It is perfectly obvious that members of the Opposition are attempting to revert to their old tricks. They will find out that we on this side of the House are a lot tougher and more determined than they are. They can go on with their nonsense until the cows come home. They will get nowhere. Mr Sinclair —We will see what the Australian Electoral Officer says about it. Mr WEST —Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest that if we cannot control this mob of orang-utans you send them back to Taronga Park where they belong. Mr Howard —You are not doing very well. Mr WEST —I am doing a damn sight better than the honourable member is. Mr Howard —You are not doing very well, chum. Mr WEST —I am certainly doing a lot better than the honourable member is. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party is not doing very well in incessantly interjecting. I ask him to come to order. Mr WEST —I put this in all sincerity before the House. I understand that what has happened is not a precedent. Mr Carlton —You could be in great sincerity and still be wrong, you know. Mr WEST —This is the position. I have been informed by senior members of my Department that there is no reason-- Mr MacKellar —You said that too. Mr WEST —If the honourable member will only listen. I have been informed that there is no reason why a government should not inform the people of Australia of what it is doing. I make no apologies for informing them. Mr Howard —What about the cover? Mr WEST —As far as the cover is concerned, I did not authorise the distribution of the cover in this House. Mr Howard —You didn't? Mr WEST —No, I did not authorise the distribution of the cover in this House. I can only say that the Opposition is being very tough and hard on people who may have made a genuine mistake in relation to sending material that obviously should have been kept and handled through the Department. That is the position and I have nothing further to say on the matter. I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Hodgman's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. L. (Teller) Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Morrison, W. L.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Carlton, J. J. McVeigh, D. T.Coleman, W. P. Macphee, I. M.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. O'Keefe, F. L.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fisher, P. S. Ruddock, P. M.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Street, A. A.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Fry, K. L. Fife, W. C.Brown, Robert Tuckey, C. W.Darling, E. E. Newman, K. E.Kent, L. Cameron, IanMountford, J. G. Millar, P. C.Brown, John Shipton, R. F. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Amendment Bill 1983 Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill 1983 Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Bill 1983 Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill 1983 Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the amendments made by the House to the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill. Assent to the following Bills reported: Family Law Amendment (Legal Aid Costs) Bill 1983 Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1983 Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 Meat Inspection Bill 1983 Family Law Amendment Bill 1983 Migration Amendment (Emigration of Certain Children) Bill 1983 Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The disturbing trend in Australian foreign policy, and particularly the failure to support peace initiatives in Grenada. 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 PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(5.11) —The Opposition has submitted for discussion this matter of public importance: The disturbing trend in Australian foreign policy, and particularly the failure to support peace initiatives in Grenada. Behind it is a strong criticism of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), who is at the table. In seven to eight months this man has had the relationship with the Association of South East Asian Nations torn into tatters; has been dismissed on more than one occasion by the United States Secretary of State as a dangerous lightweight; has changed the nature of our attitude towards African affairs by seeking to recognise those who engage in terrorism and bring about change in apartheid attitudes, thereby supporting terrorist organisations rather than continuing the strong support we gave for change in Southern Africa by non- violent means; and has sought to bring about a change in foreign policy throughout the Australian Labor Party by taking on the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) time and again and-on this point I should give him credit-winning time and again . However, we are nearing the end of the calendar year, and this man has not come into this Parliament and given us any global assessment by the Government of international affairs today. Even the most adolescent observer of foreign policy knows that one must explain one's strategic and global assessment and comprehend it before one can get any of one's regional relationships right. That is probably why, as a starting point, our relationships with ASEAN today are in such a poor state. Singapore is appalled by our attitudes. Malaysia is similarly appalled. Their Foreign Minister walked out on this Minister in the United Nations. Thailand has accused this Government of being in bed with the Vietnamese. In the last 48 hours the Indonesian Foreign Minister has indicated that ASEAN is considering reprisals against Australia. The Minister says that, behind it all, the attitude is that should the alliance and the coalition take over in Kampuchea they would be concerned with Pol Pot's presence. So too would I. In the early part of my remarks I remind the House that it was the party opposite that recognised Pol Pot as the legitimate government of Kampuchea, and it did that against the strongest concerns indicated in this Parliament by members who were here in 1975. When Government members make statements of moral turpitude about that regime they should remember that it was the Labor Party in government that blessed that government with legal and moral recognition before it even comprehended the nature of the regime. So Government members should not coddle their consciences here and give that as the excuse for shattering their relationships with the place of allegedly first priority in foreign affairs. There were three areas of significance to Australia where we had particular purchase and particular leverage under the previous government. We have lost that altogether in two of those areas. I have referred to ASEAN. Anyone who takes any note of the Prime Minister's apologia today for the State of our poor relations with ASEAN will have no understanding of what is transpiring in that relationship at present. The other area was our significant role, indeed a leadership role, in the Commonwealth itself. Just as the Minister for Foreign Affairs embraces socialism, which was outmoded before it was in the Labor Party platform, so too has he sneered at the Commonwealth as an outdated organisation. That view is a dated view. The strength, the leverage, the purchase that Australia exerted in the Commonwealth was something of which the overwhelming majority of Australians were proud. We worked for change, peaceful change, and a return to peaceful conditions in countries within the Commonwealth. This Government, with the latest threat to a Commonwealth country, has walked away from any real role in Commonwealth affairs. It is no mere remark in passing to say that foreign policy has become the pawn in the Labor Party's internal power game. I now turn to the facts about Grenada, which is mentioned in this matter of public importance. Mr Milton —It is about time. Mr PEACOCK —If the honourable member is complaining because he was hurt by those quick remarks, the reality is that they referred to the disturbing trend under this lightweight Minister, who spends time playing with the left wing and as yet has not put down a policy of substance in the foreign policy arena. Honourable members would need to search beyond the time of the last Labor Government through to the 1930s, when we were only playing with foreign policy at Britain's apron strings, to find a less effective Foreign Minister. He has damaged relations in every important area in which we had a significant role. Whilst he might determine his effectiveness by the column inches he can produce against the Prime Minister, that is not the determinant of foreign policy. Let us look at the facts on Grenada which from the time of the American incursion with the Caribbean Commonwealth countries, this Minister sneered at, and then said hour by hour that he was becoming increasingly concerned with. He disagreed with his Prime Minister, who clearly did not indicate last week in that telephone conversation with the President the sort of line that the Government has now adopted, who clearly did not notify the President of the United States about the changing line. The Government of Grenada had been overthrown in a bloody coup. The Prime Minister had been assassinated. The Foreign Minister and other Cabinet Ministers had been assassinated. Civilians had been assassinated and the Governor-General had been placed under house arrest. All this lightweight will do is wring his hands and say: 'I am a trifle concerned about it'. He is ignoring the request of the Organisation of East Caribbean States, he is ignoring the concern of the United States and putting to one side the tragedy that is being enacted in the Caribbean. Some can say that it is a long way from Australia's sphere of influence. Australia's sphere of influence is the Commonwealth, and to run away from that is to run away from a most powerful forum of which we are the most powerful member. In saying that I do not denigrate the United States. Honourable members should look at the role we play. The lightweight at the table will not face the facts. There was a sole remaining source of legitimate constitutional authority in Grenada. That source was the Governor-General. He was placed under house arrest, but nevertheless he requested that the United States and other Caribbean countries intervene. Why? It was to restore law and order and to restore democracy to Grenada. They responded to that request. Those who criticise their actions ignore the very real concerns and the legitimate interests of those countries involved. I have no doubt that the United States will be absolutely dismayed by the Government's statement of yesterday. It will be dismayed at the weakness of the Prime Minister, dismayed at the vacillation of the Prime Minister, who told the President of the United States in Washington in June: There is no country . . . that this country (that is, the United States) will be able to rely on more as a constructive ally than Australia. That is the sort of thing he used to tell the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). That is the sort of thing he used to tell David Combe. He takes the same manipulative approach he uses in domestic politics into the international sphere. The Prime Minister either has, as the honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman) recognises-he called him a two-faced hypocrite once-one face and one voice abroad or another at home. If he is two-faced on uranium, he is two-faced in international relations. He just cannot deliver the goods when it comes to hard decisions in the national interest. As I said, no one can take any joy at all from the situation in Grenada. We all regret the loss of life, both before and since the intervention by the United States and other countries. What our efforts have to be directed to now is the early restoration of peace and democracy to Grenada and stability to the Caribbean region. That will require, of course, the earliest possible withdrawal of United States and Caribbean troops and the holding of democratic elections. But it is facile and irresponsible to suggest, as the Government has done, that this can be achieved in a vacuum. The Government says that there is a constitutional process in Grenada it can point to. Mr Milton —Who says? Mr PEACOCK —Who says? The Government said. In a statement yesterday, the honourable member's Government, which he chooses to disown from time to time, said that while acknowledging the concern of the United States and the regional countries regarding the developments in Grenada, it calls for the utilisation of the Grenadan Constitution. It indicates in the statement that the constitutional processes could be followed. How does one follow processes when a Prime Minister is assassinated, the Government as a whole is moved out of office and assassinated, citizens are slaughtered and the Governor-General is under house arrest? The Government wrings its hands in its pacifist approach and tells us to refer to the Constitution. The Constitution of Grenada was torn up, and torn up in a bloody way. There are no present provisions that guarantee return to law and order once the outside forces withdraw. Unless and until law and order is restored there can be no basis for a return to stable democratic government in Grenada. That, of course, is precisely where the Commonwealth has a vital role to play and where Australia, as a senior member of the Commonwealth, can make a real contribution to restoring peace in Grenada. Grenada is a member of the Commonwealth. Its welfare is a matter of concern, not only to the Commonwealth Caribbean countries, but also to the whole of the Commonwealth. Proposals are currently being developed by the Commonwealth Secretary-General for a Commonwealth security force to be established there to maintain law and order after the foreign troop withdrawal and to supervise democratic elections. What the Australian Government should be doing is keeping in constant contact with the Commonwealth Secretary-General and with the leaders of other Commonwealth countries such as Canada and New Zealand and exploring with them what sort of Commonwealth presence might be required and what terms of reference might be given and indicating a willingness to contribute constructively to a peace settlement. Australian participation does not have to be military participation alone. It does not even have to be military in nature. It could be police, it could be civilian contribution or observers to the election. The Government has not made one positive, constructive suggestion regarding this tragedy-not one. It has simply denigrated the United States. It has denigrated the Caribbean countries and washed its hands of the affair totally. It has not made one constructive suggestion. It is constantly denigrating the Commonwealth under this lightweight Minister. The Commonwealth has demonstrated, as I said, a unique capacity to bring about peaceful solutions in areas of conflict. Zimbabwe is a classic example as is, to a lesser extent, Cyprus. Australia has played not only a constructive but also a leading role in these efforts. It has been a motivating force in many areas. Here was a real opportunity to assist in a humanitarian way and to contribute substantially to peace efforts. But unlike the previous Government's support for Commonwealth initiatives, this Government walks away from responsibilities. Not only has it closed off its options for Australian participation without consultation and without receiving a firm proposal but also its abrupt and precipitate actions will make more difficult, undoubtedly, the Secretary-General's efforts to find a peaceful solution to the problem. The Government's attitude to an Australian role, of course, has not always been so negative. Let us hear what was said last week. It makes interesting reading, in the light of the actions to date. The Prime Minister said last week that Australian participation in a Commonwealth peacekeeping force 'would be considered if, in fact, a request was made'. In the statement to the House today he said that the Government 'does not contemplate Australian participation in such a force should it eventuate'. There was no discussion and no consistency. He was rolled by the Left again. Mr Howard —Again. Mr PEACOCK —That is it exactly. The appeasement of the Left has resulted in the instability and the unpredictability of Australia's foreign policy and the ultimate result tragically is the complete irrelevance of our great country in international affairs under this lightweight and duplicitous man who is Prime Minister. There was one thing last week and another thing this week. There was one thing in New York, one thing in Washington and another thing here. The Government destroys alliances, walks away from responsibilities and does not grasp the opportunity to exercise the leverage, the purchase and the influence that Australia unquestionably had in Commonwealth affairs. The Commonwealth is an area of great responsibility to us. It is a sphere of influence to us. It has been abused by this Government. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(5.27) —Mr-- Mr Hodgman —Resign, Minister. Mr HAYDEN —May I finish my speech first? Mr Deputy Speaker, it has been an extraordinary afternoon, given the preceding debate. The right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), the Deputy Leader of the National Party, gave an imitation of a windjammer under full sail. We just had the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) perform like a thunderclap without a lightning strike. He rumbled all over the place without reaching anywhere. We were treated to various pronunciations of Grenada, from 'Grenarda', to 'Greenada'-almost Cockney like-and told to think of 'grenade', it is 'Grenada'. That is the easiest way to get it. What an extraordinary afternoon! The matter of public importance proposed by the Leader of the Opposition is: The disturbing trend in Australian foreign policy, and particularly the failure to support peace initiatives in Granada. The world will stop over on the way past Grenada, all in 15 minutes-not a tour de force, but a tour de farce, masterminded by the Leader of the Opposition! I would not call it exactly one of his golden days or golden performances. Why the agitation? Why the feverish performance-rather unusual from the Leader of the Opposition, who has a style of more aplomb-or used to have. My colleague, my staff member, Mr Costello, draws my attention to yesterday morning's Sydney Morning Herald. The motive is there. The article states: A phone call to Canberra political journalists went out yesterday from the aide to the former Prime Minister. 'Mr Fraser', said the aide, 'is interested in talking about Grenada. Give him a call at Nareen.' A call to Nareen confirmed Mr Fraser was indeed interested in talking about Grenada . . . On it goes. So the prince in exile across the water is waiting to walk back and has the Leader of the Opposition agitated. So we now know. But there is more to it than that. Opposition members-Resign. Mr HAYDEN —Not just yet. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has spoken. I call the Minister. Mr HAYDEN —This afternoon we have witnessed the Leader of the Opposition suddenly coming alive, galvanised, as it were, by half-voltage shock treatment. Over the weekend he got full-voltage shock treatment. He got it in my home State of Queensland. He got the full treatment from the Premier of Queensland. What the Premier of Queensland effectively said, writing the Leader of the Opposition off as of no account, is that the Liberal and National parties in the national Parliament would be better off led by a superannuated sheepdog. I guess that a superannuated sheepdog might be beyond its best, but there would be a reasonable hope that it would find its way home. The honourable member does not know where he started from, where he is right now or indeed where he is going, except that he seems to be going awfully fast and downhill all the way. The Leader of the Opposition has forgotten all that he ever learnt about foreign policy, just as he has never understood anything about economics; hence his reluctance to talk about the subject which will determine the future of this country. Mr Peacock —Tell us why you recognised Pol Pot. Why did you recognise him? You recognised him. Mr HAYDEN —Let the Leader of the Opposition determine the development of the comments I wish to make. He referred to Pol Pot's recognition. How immoral! Let us look at the immorality of it. The Leader of the Opposition is in high dudgeon on the issue of morality about the recognition of Pol Pot. We heard him a few minutes ago and he is at fever pitch right now. In April 1981 he pointed out: More horrific information about Pol Pot emerged after the invasion of Kampuchea by Vietnamese forces in December 1978. He continued: On principle I could not remain part of a government committed to recognition of the Pol Pot regime. Fine morality! It took him two and a half years to say it; that is the only problem. Let us look at the morality of the Leader of the Opposition since December 1979. He is worried about Pol Pot. He set the agenda for this debate; I am responding. He cannot complain. In December 1979 he stated: The Australian Government believed that to de-recognise- he is referring to Pol Pot- would be interpreted as endorsing Vietnam's invasion of Kampuchea. This it was not prepared to do. But 12 months later the Leader of the Opposition, who was then the Minister for Foreign Affairs, stated: The Government acknowledges that immediate withdrawal might create a vacuum which could lead to the return to power of Pol Pot, to which we are opposed. However, Australia sees a need for an immediate start to be made on the phased withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Kampuchea. So we have not the bleeding heart but the shifting heart-international morality on a yo-yo. I do not intend to waste any more time on that particular point. He is worried that the Americans may have lost some confidence in me as a result of my performance. Let me tell him what they have said. I had been hoping someone would provoke me into overcoming my natural modesty in these things-- Mr Hawke —Go on. Mr HAYDEN —As it is an instruction from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), I must do so. I received a telex from Washington dated 19 September. I quote it exactly: Following is the text of a statement read to the Press today by the State Department spokesman (this was at the regular Press briefing and there were no questions): The official of the State Department in the United States said: It is a thorough and thoughtful statement- I point out, with some discomfiture, that he was referring to my statement- on the alliance and the treaty on which the alliance is based. We believe that it admirably reflects the conclusions drawn in the communique issued following the July meeting in Washington of the ANZUS council. When I saw Mr Wolfowitz, who as Assistant Secretary of State in the United States is responsible for this region, on 4 October in New York, in the processes associated with the United Nations, he made a similar comment. This is from the notes of the discussion: Wolfowitz said that he had read, and wished to compliment the Minister for, the statement on the ANZUS review. As far as the United States was concerned, it was a splendid statement. Who are we to believe? Are we to believe the Americans talking for themselves, or Andrew Peacock, who is worried about his former leader returning and claiming the chair from underneath him, or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard ), who has a more concrete case to take control of things? He is worried about our recent statements on South Africa. He was elusive in what he raised. Therefore, I presume he was referring to our statement that the African National Council and the South West African People's Organisation representatives could come to Australia and set up information offices. He sees this as a somewhat horrendous decision, something that will bring the system unstuck. Such is the febrile imagination of ultra-conservative people in our community. But the facts are that both organisations have already established information offices in the world. They are represented in the United Kingdom, Sweden, France, Belgium-the ANC only-the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, the United States and Canada, which has the ANC only. They are some of the many countries I could refer to. We share the concern of the Leader of the Opposition, when it is expressed in a more measured way, that there should be no activity by these representatives which in any way promotes or recommends violence. We will not tolerate that. That has been made a condition of any office being set up. It is a condition which is applicable in other countries in which such offices have been established. It is respected by them, and there have been no problems in respect of that matter. I move on to the matter of Grenada. Mr Peacock —How did you say you pronounce it? Mr HAYDEN —I am standing too close to the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has suggested that we should be in Grenada. He was less than precise in describing in what circumstances we should be there. However, his spokesman on foreign policy was quite explicit this morning on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation AM radio program. The spokesman for the Opposition, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), stated: I would think that most people would like to see the American and the Caribbean forces, armed forces, off Grenada just as soon as possible. We support that statement and we said that. Mr Peacock —You said they should not have been there in the first place. Mr HAYDEN —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for reminding me. That is another issue on which I will demolish him. The Opposition spokesman continued: Now following that obviously there needs to be a situation of stability and peace on the island. This is the punch line. This gives the Liberal Party away. Its spokesman said: That may require the assistance of Commonwealth presence. He sees combat troops in Grenada, going in to mop up, going in to quell the conflict, being engaged in actual conflict. That is the only interpretation that can be given to those words. Let me tell Opposition members a few facts about the situation in Grenada. At least 5,000-I repeat, at least 5,000-trained troops of the Grenadan armed forces doffed their uniforms, melted into the jungle and into the main course of civilian population. It is not an unreasonable expectation that at the right moment in their judgment, perhaps with a very lightly armed Commonwealth peace force-to which the Opposition recommends we should send Australians-they would attack. We have already seen the gruesome consequences of people uninhibited by decent standards with regard to a lightly armed peace force. We saw that quite recently in Lebanon. This situation is very messy and very unsettled. The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting-- Mr Peacock —The Prime Minister has lied. This man does not tell the truth. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has made a remark which I ask him to withdraw. Mr Peacock —The Prime Minister changed his stance and has not indicated why. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw. Mr Peacock —I withdraw. Mr HAYDEN —The Leader of the Opposition, exhausting his capacity for spontaneous and wide ranging use of his limited vocabulary, referred to me many times as a lightweight because of some of the comments which I formally presented on behalf of the Government yesterday in our statement. I remind the honourable member of what Mrs Thatcher, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, has said: . . . I think as a general rule we in the Western countries, the Western democracies, use our force to defend our own way of life, we do not use it to walk into other people's countries, independent sovereign territories. The Leader of the Opposition said that the issue of apprehension and fear is clear cut. I must say that I suspect the Americans have strong grounds for apprehension about the welfare of their nationals. I believe they should present a concrete case on that point to reassure the rest of us-their allies-who are concerned about this situation. Mrs Thatcher continued: Our Deputy High Commissioner saw the Governor-General in Grenada last Sunday. He communicated no call for help whatsoever, and as you know no call was made through us, nor indeed through the, I understand from a statement from the Palace, no call was made through the monarch and any call that he made was not known until after those invasion forces had gone into the territory. She continued: So if there's going to be a multi-national Commonwealth force in Grenada it must have clear terms of reference, it must have a clear command structure, it must be there for a clear purpose and the timing at which it comes out must be equally clear, otherwise we really shall be so stretched in using our scarce armed forces around the world and we shall get multi-national forces in many, many places without clear purpose . . . She criticises this out of hand. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to consider what other countries have said. Mr Genscher, the Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany, said: Developments since the Cabinet meeting have not brought any information which could justify making a different assessment subsequently . . . He also said: . . . we would have advised against intervention . . . This is what Germany had to say. Craxi of Italy spoke against it. The Netherlands criticised it. Our statement is a very carefully measured statement. It expresses our concern and the advice we would have given in those circumstances. The Opposition, however, wants to go forward in a gung ho style and throw itself and Australians into the jaws of conflict in a situation it does not comprehend. It is proposing a commitment to a military engagement in Grenada. That is the clear implication of the statement of the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs matters, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar). Let the Opposition come clean. Let it declare where it stands on these matters. If it intends to be critical of the Government's carefully measured statments on this matter, it is condemning overwhelmingly the industrialised countries of the world, the governments of which, as a matter of common sense, have almost exclusively expressed the same sort of concern that we have. We have done it with the greatest sadness because we are greatly concerned about the problems with which America has been confronted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable Minister's time has expired . Mr MACKELLAR(Warringah)(5.41) —We have just heard one of the most inept performances of any Foreign Minister in the history of this country. Every time the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) steps up to the despatch box he seeks to downgrade the argument and the debate by his frivolous approach. He did exactly that again today. It does no credit whatsoever to the Minister or to the Government which he purports to represent. Every one of us on both sides of the House listened with increasing desperation for some content in the Minister's approach, and we found none. Mr Deputy Speaker, we are debating today the consequences of the the leftward lurch in Australian foreign policy. This movement to the left is becoming characteristic of the decisions coming from the Government. At the same time the Government seeks to manufacture public opinion by a process of obscuring the facts from public scrutiny. There has been no lack of reassurances. There is no lack of overseas confidence in Australia, we are told. All our friends understand and support our positions, we are told. These positions, we are lead to believe, derive from the Government's independent assessment of the international facts. Let us look at those facts more closely. Let us consider Grenada. The Government was initially cautious and there can be no criticism of that. The circumstances of the action taken needed clarification . But whatever view the Government took of events, it apparently was not prepared to take seriously the role of Grenada's Governor-General, Sir Paul Scoon. No mention was made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the role of Sir Paul Scoon. He was under house arrest. He was the only man in a position of legitimate authority. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister had been assassinated. A strong contingent of Cuban troops was present on the island. Sir Paul's actions and statements since that time show that his concerns were very decisive in bringing his Caribbean Commonwealth colleagues to exercise their security treaty rights with the United States under the 1981 Treaty for the Organisation of East Caribbean States. The Foreign Minister made no mention of that. This is a regional security treaty and it is consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. Grenada is a member country of that treaty, and the view of the only legitimate voice in Grenada clearly was of paramount importance in determining the action against those who had usurped the Constitution and placed the Governor-General under house arrest. The action taken by the Commonwealth Caribbean nations was not against Grenada or the legitimate authority of Grenada; it was an action in support of the legitimate authority and against an assassin group backed by a contingent of Cubans. As is now being demonstrated, the action is one which enables the Constitution to function under the leadership of Sir Paul Scoon. This will allow an appeal within months to the full processes of democracy. For the Government to sustain its interpretation it has to be able to argue that the coup group-the assassins-were legitimately in position. Is that what the Minister for Foreign Affairs is arguing? Is that what the Government is arguing? The action has not invaded the rights of the people of Grenada. It has restored the rights to the people through the leadership of the Governor-General . I repeat that the action was not against Grenada, but against the murderers who installed themselves, because the Government would have us believe that the voice to speak for Grenada was that of the coup leaders-the assassins. On its performance here today this Government would have criticised Tanzania's role in the overthrow of Idi Amin. Even if the Government had decided on a different interpretation from that of New Zealand, and found support in the initial Canadian attitude, the fact is that there is now a great gap between Australia and her old Commonwealth friends , Canada, New Zealand and Britain. Yesterday the Foreign Minister made an historic decision to reject association with Commonwealth initiatives to restore conditions of a peaceful settlement to Grenada. He said: It does not contemplate Australian participation in such a force should it eventuate. Let us hope this weasel-wording will allow him to crawl out of the difficult situation in which he has found himself. The Canadians had reservation, but compare our response to Canada's which was: I indicated to the Secretary-General that Canada approved of his initiatives and that, if such a force is found to be useful and is constituted, that Canada would be prepared to participate and Canada would be prepared to be of assistance in consultation with other Commonwealth members, if the Secretary- General so desired. That, Mr Deputy Speaker, was the position put to the Canadian Parliament by Canada's Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Regan. The problem for Australian foreign policy is that the Minister and his Party have so many hang- ups that their actions end up giving more comfort to those who are opposed to Australian interests than to those who are our friends. As we are considering why we should have this approach to the Commonwealth initiative I will quote for the record from a speech on Commonwealth Day made by the Minister, when in Opposition, on 5 March 1981. He said: . . . I said that it was an anachronistic institution, a talk shop of dubious value to Australia. He has backed those words up now. He has set the Commonwealth aside. He has denigrated it in a way that has never before occurred in this Parliament. We find this leftward lurch is well illustrated in the way the Government has tried to implement the Australian Labor Party's resolution on Indo-China. The Foreign Minister feels that he should continue to give moral support to the Vietnamese as a way of inducing the left wing of the Party to stop pressing for economic aid to be given to Vietnam. Of course the whole policy has had to be put across in conditions which required the Government to cast doubts about the way the Association of South East Asian Nation countries were handling relations with Vietnam. As we remember, matters came to a head over the United Nations resolution, which Australia refused to co-sponsor. But the fat was in the fire before then, and I made efforts in this House to draw the Minister's attention to the developing concern in ASEAN. On 24 August, when I raised the concern of ASEAN in this House, the Minister reassured the House, affirming that in no way would Australia allow our friendly relationships with the ASEAN countries and China to be impaired. The House was left with the sense that the ASEAN countries would be sustained in relationships with Australia. In New York, the ASEAN concerns were renewed during the delegation's discussions on the UN resolution. Despite these concerns, widely reported in the Australian Press, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) issued a statement of reassurance to the people of Australia. It was similar to the one he gave today. The Prime Minister claimed that his Government's relations with member countries had in no way been diminished by Australia's refusal to co- sponsor a resolution. I emphasise that: Relations had in no way been diminished. It was a firm, categorical reassurance at the highest level. He went on: I am confident from reports that I have that, while there may be some elements of disappointment that Australia had not agreed to co-sponsor there is an understanding of our position. Well, that produced a very vigorous reaction in ASEAN. The Prime Minister was believing the Foreign Minister's press release, and it brought a swift reaction: ASEAN Foreign Ministers, within the space of two days, decided to postpone indefinitely Australia-ASEAN talks scheduled in Sydney for 24 October. I raised the issue again in the House. It is clear the Foreign Minister again discounted the strength of ASEAN views. He tried to liken the situation to a difference not unlike the differences which had occurred over trade and civil aviation questions, but he overlooked the fact that ASEAN views Vietnamese policy in Laos and Kampuchea as a security question. In the past Australia and ASEAN have been very keen to ensure that any differences there may have been over particular questions are quickly dealt with. There has not, however, been a breach in relations on a security matter, and when breaches occurred, the then government made major public efforts to get them remedied. That is not the mark of this Government. Even today we find reports cabled to Australian newspapers voicing concerns, such as that ASEAN Economic Ministers endorsed the position of the ASEAN Foreign Ministers. As recently as today we have the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, Dr Mochtar, quoted in a dispatch from Jakarta as saying that ASEAN did not need Australia as a mediator to solve the Kampuchean problem. Asked whether ASEAN Foreign Ministers might impose limited sanctions against Australia, Dr Mochtar replied: The possibility is not excluded. It is clear that Dr Mochtar is now very concerned to emphasise the continuing deep worries ASEAN has about our policy. Those remarks are a signal from a country which the Foreign Minister thought important for his position, when he quoted Dr Mochtar at great length on 18 October to fend off questions put in this House by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). It is all part of a pattern: Play it down; do not let public opinion focus on the matter; give reassurances in the Parliament; the Press Gallery will fall for it; nobody will listen to the Opposition. This treatment in the end establishes its own reputation. The Australian media and public opinion are now much more aware of the issues and are more sceptical of the Foreign Minister's debating and Press backgrounding techniques. But there are other issues which cause grave concern. The Foreign Minister gave prominence to a meeting with a self-styled Palestine Liberation Organisation representative and left unclear the direction of Australian policy on the Middle East. We now have the spectacle of the African National Congress being given permission to set up an office here, presumably to justify its car bombing of innocent civilians, when that occurs in South Africa. It seems that if one is a member of a Soviet backed organisation, even one specialising in terrorism, one has a great chance of recognition and support from this Government. Whose interests are being served by these so-called foreign policy initiatives? Are they in Australia's interests or are we really seeing the faction fight in the Labor Party being played out on the international stage? What we have is a Prime Minister shackled by both elected and non-elected elements of his Party, powerless to act in what he must know to be the best interest of this country. What we have is a Government signalling to the world its ideological support for the forces of the Left-whether they be represented by the Soviet Union, the Vietnamese, the Cubans or by guerrilla forces seeking change through bloodshed and violence. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(5.54) —We have just heard yet another effusion from the Opposition about the question of sending troops abroad-something with which it is very familiar. Its response to peacekeeping in the past has been too often-as it did in Vietnam-to send troops to sort out a problem and to get itself enmeshed in a situation of no particular interest or relevance to Australia and one which embroils us in conflicts which are not part of our business. I think much more heat than light has been generated on the Opposition benches about a subject on which it becomes increasingly clear that Opposition members are very ill-informed. I have the disadvantage perhaps from the Opposition's point of view that, as Australia's High Commissioner in the West Indies from 1980 to 1982, I have been to Grenada on half a dozen occasions, that I have met with Prime Minister Bishop on that number of occasions, with Unison Whiteman, the assassinated Foreign Minister, with Norris Bain and with Sir Paul Scoon the present Governor-General. I have the disadvantage that I know what I am talking about when I speak about the situation in Grenada. Crocodile tears are being shed by the Opposition about the events which resulted in the assassination of those men and indeed of Jacqueline Creft as well. It seems to me that what needs to be said very clearly is that we on this side of the House deplore those events. These were people who had very much the welfare of Grenada and Grenadans at heart. While Grenada may not have been a model of Australian democracy it was nevertheless governed very much in the interests of its people. So I think that needs to be clearly said at the outset of my remarks. The second thing I would like to mention is that those opposite made much of the possible involvement of the Commonwealth. What they did not mention was that next month there will be a Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in New Delhi to which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will go, to which quite possibly-unlike the last Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting run by Mr Fraser-the Prime Minister of Malaysia will also go, at which it is perfectly clear that these events will be discussed. Nothing in the Government's statement precludes there being a discussion of what may happen in bringing about a peaceful solution in Grenada. Indeed I read to the House a paragraph from the Government's statement: In view of the situation on the Island and as the Commonwealth Secretary General has so rightly noted, there is an urgent need to provide the people of Grenada with the earliest opportunity to determine their own future free of pressures and constraints of any kind. There is a Grenadian constitution and there are constitutional processes that could be followed. That is perfectly correct. The statement continues: In present circumstances efforts to restore constitutional government in Grenada appear to be the best available course of action in the search for stability, harmony and peace on the Island. Let us compare that with this empty matter of public importance that has been put forward from the Opposition benches, namely: . . . the failure to support peace initiatives in Grenada. If that is a failure to support peace initiatives in Grenada then I do not know what support would constitute. It is perfectly clear that what needs to be brought about in Grenada is a situation where elections can be held. I happen to believe that those elections, if freely and fairly held, would result in the return of a government of a very similar complexion to that which was removed by the assassination of the Prime Minister and three of his most important Ministers. I believe that the New Jewel Movement would prevail in those elections, providing a situation where free elections took place would be the best result. Some mention was made of the reaction of other countries to taking part in a peacekeeping force. It was said by the honourable member for Warringah that the Canadians would participate in such a force. That is absolutely not what the Canadians have in mind at all. The Canadians have said that they may be interested in some sort of Zimbabwe-type team; that is to say, a team to observe the elections or some sort of role of that kind. The Canadians are absolutely uninterested in providing troops to take part in a peacekeeping force. The same is true of Britain. When remarks are made in this Parliament about how the very proper stance-as I will demonstrate in a moment-which the Government has taken represents some sort of a lurch to the Left. I wonder whether it will also be argued that Mrs Thatcher has somehow succumbed to the blandishments of Tony Benn . Is that the reason for her taking a stance which is extremely similar to our own? As for that stance being one which is not supported by Australian public opinion, I would like to quote from a couple of recent editorials from newspapers which are not known to be unbalanced on these matters. First of all, the Age editorial of 29 October states: The guidelines for foreign excursions by Australian troops should be narrow indeed: we should be ready to consider marching under the United Nation's flag- an occurrence not likely these days in any part of the world, and we should be ready to listen carefully to requests from our own region-particularly from those smaller nations with whom we have historical ties and to whom we have continuing obligations. Apart from that the rule of thumb should be that Australia shouldn't be there. That editorial, which is headed 'Say ''no'', politely', is one which endorses the Government's position. Similarly, the Sydney Morning Herald under the heading 'Why Australia is right on Grenada' states: The Australian Government is also right to refuse to participate in any Commonwealth peace-keeping force sent to the country. Probably a Commonwealth force, in the proper sense, is not feasible anyway. But the suggestion of a Commonwealth force should be killed off as quickly as possible. Mr Jacobi —Another radical journal! Mr BILNEY —That is another radical journal, as the honourable member for Hawker has rightly interjected. That is Australian opinion backing the Government. That is the opinion of countries such as Canada and Britain endorsing the stance that we have taken. In the few minutes that remain to me I would like to say something about the Government's so-called failure to support peace initiatives. This is a Government which has done more to support peace initiatives and disarmament initiatives than any government in my memory. In the very short time that we have been in office we have done the following: We have appointed an Ambassador for Disarmament who recently made his first statement and a very good one-I commend it to the House-to the United Nations General Assembly. The Department of Foreign Affairs has been considerably strengthened to deal with disarmament matters. Discussions are now under way to set up a peace research institute, probably at the Australian National University. Moves are under way to bring in courses in peace studies in schools so that children do not learn just about wars. A process of dialogue with a very important peace movement has begun. Indeed, the first two issues of a disarmament newsletter have been published already. Support has been given to the United Nations to disseminate information on peace, disarmament and arms control issues. Just recently a voluntary contribution of $50,000 was announced to assist that particular peace initiative . The Australian Government now has undertaken a review of international disarmament agreements to which we are not a party, which the previous Government did not join. As a result, we have already ratified one agreement-the inhumane weapons convention, which the previous Government did not ratify-and we are reviewing others as well. The comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty is being pursued with great vigor not only as part of a bid to strengthen the Treaty on the Non-proliferaton of Nuclear Weapons but also as part of a move to discourage France. I could go on, but if that is a failure to support peace initivates, it is very much out of character with the excellent record of the Government in this area. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has been called a lightweight. I have seen Foreign Ministers come and I have seen them go. If ever I saw a heavyweight, it is the present Foreign Minister. I absolutely support his efforts. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Order! The time allocated for discussion of this matter of public importance has expired. [COGNATE BILL: TRANSFER OF PRISONERS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 19 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Leader of the House) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Transfer of Prisoners (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983, as they are related measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering both measures? There being no objection, it is so ordered. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(6.03) —The Bill before the House, which deals with the transfer of prisoners for the purpose of trial or for welfare purposes, springs, I suppose one could say, out of a fundamental principle of English and Australian law; that is, that crime is generally local in nature and is primarily the concern of the authorities of the place where it is committed. This proposition, which grew up in English law and which was accepted in our Federal system, is intelligible enough when applied to countries. For example, it is obvious that a murder by an Australian citizen of another citizen or of a foreigner whilst overseas should be tried in the country where the murder takes place. If an Australian citizen commits an offence of drug trafficking in Thailand, he must take his chances under Thai law, harsh though he may think it is and harsh though it may be by comparison with the law in Australia. But the principle becomes very much less intelligible in a Federal system. There is no Australian criminal code. Penal offences may be created by the Commonwealth only as an incident to the exercise of power given to the Commonwealth under the Constitution, such as Commonwealth powers over Federal Teritories or over Customs. The great majority of criminal actions are caught by State laws or State codes, which themselves are complemented or supported by the criminal law as it has been developed in the courts. I give the example of the principles in relation to what have been called common law misdemeanours. Let us look at some of the fundamental disadvantages of the Federal system. First of all, the Federal criminal laws, whilst they apply throughout the Commonwealth, have only the most limited operation. Next, State criminal laws as a general rule apply only within the boundaries of the State which made the law. Thirdly, an act which is a criminal offence in one State may be quite legal in another. For example, there are large numbers of regulations of conduct on which different views may be taken by different States, ranging from driving offences to offences relating to the possession of marihuana, to give but two instances. Fourthly, maximum penalties for the same criminal act may vary depending on the State in which the act is carried out. Fifthly, there may be different defences to the same crime. For example, in one State there may be no defence of diminished responsibility to murder. In an adjoining State that defence may exist, with the possibility, of course, of major differences in the outcome of a trial on the same set of facts. Lastly, and this is the main purpose of the Bill before the House, the present law prevents a prisoner being moved from one jurisdiction to another to stand trial until he has served his prison term in the first jurisdiction. It is worth one or two minutes to illustrate the bizarre results that can flow from a system which allows each State to provide separately for its own criminal code. That is what we have in the absence of a Commonwealth code or a common criminal code-a code that operates in precisely the same form throughout the Commonwealth. The bizarre consequences that can flow from the various State systems are illustrated by a case which went to the High Court in 1980. That was the case of Ward v. the Queen. The question that the Court had to determine was where the boundary of Victoria lay. Under an Act of the old imperial Parliament it was declared for the purposes of clarifying matters-although in the light of the exceedingly long judgment by His Honour Mr Justice Stephen it did not go a great distance to clarifying matters-that 'the whole Watercourse of the said River Murray, from its Source to the Eastern Boundary of the Colony of South Australia, is and shall be within the Territory of New South Wales'. One may ask: What does that matter in a criminal case? In this case it was all- important because the appellant, a man called Ward, shot and killed another man on the banks of the River Murray. The shooting took place on the Victorian side of the river. That is, there was no doubt that Ward fired his gun from the Victorian side. When he fired his gun he was at the top of a steep bank of the river, Reed was about 30 feet below, and he was fishing. Ward was tried before a judge and jury of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The jury found that when Reed was shot, both the dead man and the accused were in Victoria. Mr Ward appealed. The point of the appeal was that the dead man was not in Victoria; he was in New South Wales. If he was in New South Wales Ward's conviction for a crime committed in Victoria had to be overturned, although there was no doubt at all, and no appeal was raised, about the fact that Ward had fired the shot and killed Reed. I will not trouble the House with the very long and learned judgment of Mr Justice Stephen with whom the other members of the Court generally agreed, but for the purposes of determining this case, seven justices sat. The two reasons for the importance of the decision were, first of all, that if the act had not taken place in Victoria, Ward should have been acquitted and could be tried only in New South Wales and, secondly, the defences available in New South Wales were different from the defences available in Victoria. Let me refer briefly to what was said by Mr Justice Stephen when he pointed out: The applicant- that was Ward- now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court on the sole ground of misdirection as to the location of the boundary between Victoria and New South Wales. One might think that that is a rather bizarre ground on which to rest an appeal on a conviction of murder. Nevertheless, as I have said, it was the only ground. Mr Justice Stephen stated: Its location has especial relevance since the Solicitor-General for Victoria accepts that, for the purposes of this case, it is, to use the terminology adopted by Glanville Williams . . . the terminatory, as distinct from the initiatory, theory that will determine venue. Put differently, it is a matter of where one is shot, not where one is shot at from which will determine where the accused should be tried and what law should be applied. His Honour said: That is to say, it is not where the physical act of Ward was done but where that act took effect upon its victim. That is to say, where the victim got the bullet. His Honour, in a distinguished, lengthy, thoughtful and learned judgment traced the law. Mr Jacobi —Is this Stephen? Mr SPENDER —Mr Justice Stephen, 142 Commonwealth Law Reports at 308, in answer to the interjection from the honourable member for Hawker. The judge came to the conclusion that at the time the killing took place the man who was killed was in New South Wales. Therefore the appeal had to be allowed, in his view, and the judgment set aside and quashed so that Ward could then be dealt with only by a New South Wales judge and jury. Mr Justice Murphy pointed out in his judgment that a very practical consequence would follow from the success of the appeal. He said: If the appellant is correct, he would be liable to trial for murder in New South Wales. However the appeal is not a mere academic exercise; if he were tried in New South Wales it would be open to him to raise a defence of diminished responsibility which reduces the crime from murder to manslaughter. This defence is not available in Victoria. The appeal was upheld. I do not know what the result of the trial in New South Wales was but the defence of diminished responsibility would have been available to Ward in New South Wales. It was not available to him in Victoria. Is it not quite remarkable that in this country a case of murder and the question of whether or not a court was competent to try a case depended on an old imperial enactment about the location of the River Murray? Is it not astonishing that on the purely technical point that the dead man was a few yards inside New South Wales the result was that the decision was overturned and there was to be a new trial? The moral of that case is that the time is long overdue for a common criminal code throughout Australia, at the very least for important offences. The Transfer of Prisoners Bill seeks to overcome some of the limitations of the Federal system which operate to prevent speedy and fair administration of justice-fair not only to the accused but also fair in the public interest. An accused person should be brought to trial speedily. Otherwise, of course, if the law were allowed to stand as it presently is, a person who is charged with an offence in, say, the State of New South Wales and who has been a prisoner of the Commonwealth for a period of, say, five years, cannot be tried until he is released from prison. A great deal can happen while he is in prison. Witnesses may die or disappear, their memories may deteriorate, and documents and police records may be lost. So at the end of the day, the defendant is in a happy position; a good, strong case will simply vanish through the attrition of time. The Bill therefore seeks to overcome that deficiency. The public has an interest in guilty people being convicted, just as the public has an interest in ensuring that a person who is charged has a fair trial, but never let us forget the public interest in the conviction of guilty people. The Transfer of Prisoners Bill, as outlined in the explanatory memorandum, therefore seeks to state what is said is a general outline of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to permit the transfer within Australia for welfare purposes or trial of prisoners who have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment for offences against laws of the Commonwealth and the various Territories. There are two aspects to the Transfer of Prisoners Bill; first of all, there is the transfer of prisoners for trial. This is to be accomplished by a series of provisions that appear in clauses 8 to 13 of the Bill. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech said that not only could such transfers be made in effect at the instance of the Attorney-General but also that these provisions 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. I think that is a possible view of the legislation, but speaking as a practitioner I have never known of an accused person, a person who is accused on a serious criminal charge, who was particularly interested to rush to justice when the case against him was strong. Generally speaking, if one is in gaol and one knows that some charges are hanging over one's head I think one would be inclined to seek to defer those charges and hope that in the meantime problems may work in one's favour, memories may deteriorate and perhaps even some assistance could be given to the deterioration of memories. As I say, evidence may disappear. I do not think it is necessary to take the House in any detail through the provisions. It suffices to say that the Bill provides for applications for transfer to stand trial on a charge in respect of an offence against a law of a Commonwealth or a territory and also applications for transfer to stand trial on charges in respect of an offence against a law of a State. The application in each case is made in respect of Commonwealth prisoners. It is a curiosity of our Federal system that in order for this legislation to work and in order for it to have application to persons who are State prisoners-that is, persons who are in State gaols, having been convicted for violations of State laws-we have to have supporting legislation passed by all of the six States. Provision is made in the Bill for a hearing, the hearing of an application for transfer before a stipendiary magistrate and provision is made for grounds under which a stipendiary magistrate should refuse to grant the order. As well, an appeal provision permits an appeal to go to a superior court when either an order has been made by the magistrate that a prisoner should be transferred for trial or when an order has been refused. When the appeal is heard there is specific provision, it is an unusual provision but I believe a good one, that in reviewing the decision-it is called a review rather than an appeal but effectively it amounts to the same thing-the review shall be by way of a rehearing and evidence in addition to, or in substitution for, the evidence given in the proceeding resulting in that decision may be given with the review. So when the decision is being reviewed, the reviewing court has a fresh look at the whole of the evidence and can look at further evidence. That seems to me to be sensible and fair. The only question that I would ask which the Deputy Prime Minister may be able to help me on is this: Specific provision is made in clause 13 for representation where an application has been made for a transfer order. I presume that if an application were made and it were dismissed by reason of one of the grounds on which an application can be dismissed, such as that the application has not been made in good faith, an order for costs would be made in favour of the person who had successfully resisted the application that he be transferred. Perhaps that is picked up by State legislation, perhaps it is assumed that State legislation would give that power, but recalling that we are dealing with a criminal matter and recalling that in criminal cases ordinarily costs are not awarded to the successful defendant, it is something that I think the Government should direct its attention to. I pointed out that as well as applying to cases where it is thought to remove a prisoner from one jurisdiction to another, there is also provision for transfer on cases of welfare; for example, where it is in the welfare of the prisoner because he is in a part of the country which is quite a long distance away from the part of the country where his family may live. I think it is sensible and humane that those provisions should be enacted. To sum up, the Opposition supports the proposals. I understand that these proposals go back to the time of the previous Government and are a continuation of work done or commenced under the previous Government. The Bill illustrates the ongoing nature of law reform. I commend the Government for bringing it forward. One can only contrast the way in which the Government is able to deal with this kind of Bill, which is an important Bill, with its incomprehensible failure thus far to present to us even an exposure draft of a Bill for a national crimes commission. Whatever view one might have of a National Crimes Commission, all of us in this House believe that organised and sophisticated crime is a matter of immense national importance. Perhaps now that the seminar the Attorney-General, (Senator Gareth Evans) called back in June has been had and now that he has had three months or so to digest the learned dissertations of that seminar, we could see some action in the field of a National Crimes Commission. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(6.10) —in reply-I thank the Opposition for its support. In answer to the question raised by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) I must acknowledge that the Transfer of Prisoners Bill resolves the question of costs. I am of the opinion that the court will be in a position to order costs. We will have the matter checked. I thank the honourable member for that observation. Mr Spender —Could the Bill be amended in the Senate to clarify that? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —If needs be, yes. The other matters which were outside the Bill -the proposed National Crimes Commission Bill-is a matter of some detail and will have to be discussed with the States. I am assured that the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) has their consent. I expect that the honourable gentleman will see that Bill within the next 14 days. Mr Hodgman —People keep rolling people. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We are rolling ahead very well, yes. At this stage, I think we have adequately dealt with this measure. 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. Consideration resumed from 19 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: 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. Sitting suspended from 6.31 to 8 p.m. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I present the 206th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, relating to Finance Minute on Report 182-Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme-Chemists' Remuneration, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. DR THEOPHANOUS —The 206th report contains the Department of Finance minute on the Committee's 182nd report, which reviewed chemists' remuneration under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The Department of Finance Minute is the formal documentation of the Government's response to the Committee's recommendations as contained in the 182nd report which was tabled in the Parliament on 16 September 1980. In this inquiry the Committee examined and reported on the circumstances and reasons for a significant excess payment by the Department of Health to chemists in respect of their remuneration under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme between 1973 and 1980. The Committee also examined the concurrent excess payments made by the Department of Veterans' Affairs to chemists under the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The combined total of overpayments was estimated at about $253m. Public hearings on this matter were held during June and July 1980. Witnesses who presented submissions included Commonwealth departments and organisations, the Joint Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Arrangements, pharmacy and pharmacists organisations, consumers, chemists and health economists. The Committee found no criminal, malicious or mischievous intent which would have led to the errors that occurred. The findings of the inquiry went beyond the immediate question of errors and excess payments. During the inquiry there emerged several fundamental problems which might directly contribute to the possibility of similar problems occurring in the near future. Besides affecting the pharmacy sector, a number of matters had broader implications for other sections of the health industry. The principal areas covered by the PAC inquiry were the provision of independent economic advice to the Commonwealth Government on health matters, procedures for determining health fees and remuneration and the structure of the retail pharmacy industry. The PAC's major recommendations covered the following areas: Errors leading to overpayments; basis for remuneration of chemists; a bureau of health economics; and retail pharmacy in Australia. The Public Accounts Committee acknowledges the wide degree of acceptance of matters raised in the 182nd report. This response reflects the Committee's thorough investigation of the issues and the practical nature of its recommendations. The main policy revisions agreed to by Government, and stated in the Finance Minute, are as follows: The Department of Health's standards of practice for automatic data processing analysis, design, programming, testing, implementation and documentation have been revised and as a result improved ADP standards have been incorporated into the Department of Health's ADP project manual, which has now been reissued; the Department of Health's ADP manpower resources have been strengthened with the creation of 29 additional positions in the ADP branch; a separate internal audit branch has been established in the Department of Health; legislation has been amended so as to establish the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal, consisting of three members including a Deputy President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission-the Tribunal is currently conducting its fourth inquiry. A joint departmental liaison committee on repatriation pharmaceutical benefits has been established, with responsibility for providing formal communication and consultation between the Departments of Health and Veterans' Affairs. Although the delay in the finalisation of this response is regrettable, the Committee has been kept well informed of progress on the recommendations in the interim. Mr Deputy Speaker, this 206th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts is but one of a continuing number of Committee reports whose purpose within the public sector is to improve accountability, upgrade standards, promote efficiency, assess cost effectiveness and report on the Committee's deliberations on each issue to both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Committee therefore has a continuing and significant role within the life of the Parliament. I commend this report to the House. [COGNATE BILLS: COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES (REDEPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT) AMENDMENT BILL 1983 COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES (EMPLOYMENT PROVISIONS) REPEAL BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 20 October, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill, the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Amendment Bill 1983 and the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Repeal Bill 1983, as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the three measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(8.07) —The three Bills to be discussed in this cognate debate relate to the management of the Commonwealth Public Service. Shortly stated, the purpose of the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill, is to repeal the no work as directed no pay provisions in certain Commonwealth legislation; that is, the Public Service Act 1922, the Commonwealth Banks Act 1972, the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972, the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946, the Postal Services Act 1975 and the Telecommunications Act 1975. The no work as directed no pay provisions were inserted in each of these Acts in 1980 to enable the Commonwealth and its authorities to withhold pay from employees refusing to work as directed; in other words, refusing to work in accordance with proper instructions from their employer, the Government. The Government wants to abolish this procedure. The Bill will also recognise for superannuation purposes periods of absence by employees who were suspended under the no work as directed no pay provisions. That period of suspension will be treated as leave of absence without pay. In other words, the Bill will restore superannuation benefit entitlements to employees for a period in which they were previously suspended, which entitlements they may otherwise have lost. The Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Repeal Bill simply repeals legislation enacted in 1977 by the former Government to provide, where there had been a ministerial direction, for the direct suspension or dismissal of Commonwealth employees engaged in industrial action or the direct standing down of Commonwealth employees affected by industrial action. This legislation was seen by the former Government as being used only in extreme cases where the public interest demanded in an essential area of government activity, urgent action to assist in bringing about the resolution of a dispute. The Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill seeks to repeal sections of the principal Act inserted in 1981 to preclude the operation of any award made by the Public Service Arbitrator or the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which sought to modify or alter the impact of the Commonwealth Employees ( Redeployment and Retirement) Act. In other words, it was to ensure that arbiters could not override the term of a statute passed by this Parliament, to ensure that the intention of the Government and the Parliament was left in place. Mr Deputy Speaker, it will perhaps come as no surprise to you that the Opposition is opposed to all three Bills. We will accordingly vote against each of them. Before discussing each of these Bills let me make some general observations. In the industrial relations area generally in the last decade or so there have been significant changes in techniques used by unions in industrial disputes. The bargaining position, which was clearly in the hands of the employers in the last century, has progressively moved. On balance, employees in the work force are significantly advantaged today in negotiating with employers. Lest it be thought that I alone think that, let me quote what a nurses' union representative said in speaking on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program this morning. The representative was talking about the removal of the no strike provision from the union's constitution. That representative said that that proposal-that is, the removal of the no strike provision from the union's constitution-was being advanced to give the union a stronger negotiating base. That is the way in which these matters are seen by those in the industrial field. It is a matter of the position from which people can work in an industrial dispute to achieve their objective. That position ought not necessarily be accepted in the public interest. Further, with so much automation, key employees need only to be removed from particular facets of the work place today to bring effectively the business of an entrepreneur or public administration to a halt. We have seen many examples of that. No longer does the old adage 'one out, all out' have any force or effect. I think everybody in the community is very much aware of that today. All too often we see situations where employers, be they public or private employers , are denied income or productive effort while the great majority of those employed continue to draw their emoluments. In such circumstances few, if any, employers-I include government-can resist claims made no matter, in many cases, how outrageous the claim. Those in employment have been significantly advanced at the expense of those out of work. Increasingly we have seen in the areas of both public and private employment an unwillingness to abide by a conciliation and arbitration system. As a result the consequence has been disruption of the community and damage to the economy. The willingness of unions, particularly in the public sector-even unions that have traditionally not brought industrial action-to bring industrial action is of concern. My reference to the ABC program which took place today in which the nurses' representative was seeking to have withdrawn from the union's constitution the provision that members shall not strike is an indication of that. Less and less the strike is being seen as the weapon of last resort and, rather, the first resort. I shall later give some examples, particularly in the public sector area. It is the Opposition's view that in the area of Public Service the withdrawal of labour is not an industrial tactic legitimately open to public servants. Public servants are in a special situation because they are paid from general revenue or in the case of those employees of statutory authorities the revenue of a statutory authority is often obtained in a monopoly situation. Commonwealth employees are employed to serve the government of the day. If the Commonwealth cannot rely upon its servants to be available to work as directed community confidence in the operations of government will wane and relationships between permanent officers and those elected by the people, and the people themselves, will be seriously damaged. Many of the services provided by the Commonwealth reach right into the fabric of our society. For instance, communications-the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) was formerly sitting at the table-be they postal or telephonic, go to the very basis of our society. Yet we have seen many industrial disputes in that area where this legislation, which is being repealed, has been effective. Payment of social service benefits is equally a matter that goes right to some of the fundamentals of our society-the income assurance for the elderly and the needy. Yet we see all too often in industrial situations that those benefits that ought to be available are not available as a consequence of the industrial action taken. Transport by air is equally essential. Yet all too often it is disrupted. Each of these areas of government activity are essential for our national well-being. Yet all too easily strike and industrial action bring those services to a halt. The Government has a responsibility for setting an example in industrial relations. I accept that. If the Commonwealth is a pace-setter with its staff in the industrial relations area how can private employers resist unreasonable union demands and if governments do not maintain all powers at their disposal which are available to them to resist unreasonable demands. I see those as being the key general points applicable in relation to each of these pieces of legislation. Furthermore, I think it needs to be understood that private sector employees are involved in a privileged position as a result of their permanency, pay rates, hours, holiday arrangements and superannuation entitlements. There has been increasing public comment in that latter area. As a consequence, it is my view that they should not have the same industrial muscle in industrial disputes as have less permanent employees in the private sector. The Government should accept responsibility for matters concerning its employees . The responsibility, in some cases, cannot be delegated to third parties such as industrial tribunals which are not responsible to the electorate, as is the case with these three Bills. The Government by using the powers available to it under the existing legislation could have speeded up the resolution of recent disputes in the private sector. Once threatened with automatic suspension, postal workers who placed bans on overtime would have quickly returned to performing their proper duties in the Australian Capital Territory. All that is required in such disputes is for the Government to demonstrate its determination not to cave in. I want to mention the recent disputes because they serve as a continuing reminder to everyone that notwithstanding the Government's claim that it is closer to the trade union movement and its indication that it was prepared to repeal this legislation-that indication was given very early in the piece to the trade unions; it was a commitment upon which they were relying and which the Government seeks to meet-we saw a situation in the national capital that for four weeks Canberra and Canberra people were severely disadvantaged by a mail strike. That strike hurt pensioners who were not able to get their cheques in some cases. It hurt people who were receiving superannuation entitlements from other States and were relying upon the mail. It stultified business operations in Canberra and it hampered government activity as well, although perhaps I should put some questions on the Notice Paper to find out the cost of all those extra couriers to government and to the Australian people as a result of the arrangements that needed to be put in place to ensure that government activity was not brought to a halt. The cost was very considerable. The strike went well beyond any reasonable period. I and the people of Canberra complained continually that there was a need for the Government in the national capital-the only place in Australia where the Commonwealth Government has total responsibility for industrial relations-to move resolutely to solve an industrial dispute. It was an absurd dispute-I think I heard that word come from the other side of the chamber-because the matters involved were really of very little moment. Most people could hardly remember what they were. Yet bans were put in place to ensure that mail did not reach the people of Canberra. Government Ministers seemed impotent-in fact they seemed unwilling-until pressed to comment on this very disastrous situation. Yet, at the same time, we saw that in relation to pilots-apparently they are somewhat different-the same Government was prepared to use threats of dismissals, stand-downs and the like and to talk very strongly about getting the matter resolved after two days. I do not know what provisions the Government was going to use for its stand-downs or dismissal arrangements, although an indication was given that it was not intending to use the legislation in relation to Commonwealth employees which it is seeking to repeal. In my view, if very early in the piece in relation to the Canberra mail strike the Government had been prepared to use the no work as directed-no pay provisions when the bans were first put in place, that may have very well brought the matter to a head very quickly and ensured settlement of this dispute . If the matter had gone on it may very well have been that the provisions in the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act could have been used and as was the case with other industrial disputes in the experience of the previous Government, I am sure that a resolution of that dispute would have been found very quickly. It is a fact that these sorts of industrial disputes, notwithstanding the Government's special relationship with the trade union movement-- Mr Spender —What special relationship? Mr RUDDOCK —The special relationship that the Government claims it has. Notwithstanding that special relationship, we know that industrial disputes are still going on in the Public Service. They are significant and they hurt the community at large. That point needs to be made over and over again because the repeal of the first two Bills I have mentioned-the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill and the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions ) Repeal Bill-will remove from the Government armoury very effective provisions to assist in the resolution of industrial disputes. I do not say that those provisions ought to be availed of all the time. The previous Government when it introduced this legislation saw it being used only in a situation of last resort. For some time the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Repeal Bill was not proclaimed. It was put aside and left, as it were, as a weapon in the Government's armoury that might be used in a very difficult industrial situation . The ability to stand down automatically employees who cannot be usefully employed, as a result of industrial action taken by other people will bring and has been shown to bring pressure on striking trade unionists to end their strikes as the cost of their action becomes more readily apparent. They will also be the subject of pressure from other trade unionists to cease industrial action. Indeed, it is only fair that the Government, as an employer, should not have to pay the wages of workers who cannot be gainfully employed as a result of industrial action by other workers. The effect of this legislation will be to ensure that the Government is in a position where it has to make significant payments unless it goes through a long and convoluted procedure to have people stood down by way of an approach to an industrial tribunal. I said that I would direct some comments to each particular Bill. The first is the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill 1983. The provisions in the Act which the Government is seeking to remove were inserted in 1980, following a New South Wales Supreme Court decision which found that the common law rights of employers to implement the no work as directed-no pay principle no longer applied in the area of Commonwealth employment. That case was referred to as Bennett's case and was addressed by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in his second reading speech. The Court ruled that the common law principle was overruled by the provisions of the Public Service Act and regulations. A former colleague of mine, Mr Viner, as the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, had this to say when introducing the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill in 1980: It is an established principle at common law that an employer has an obligation to pay wages to his employees so long as the employment relationship continues. On the other hand a right to wages at common law is contingent upon an employee obeying the lawful directions of his employers, and being ready, willing and available to perform all of his duties as directed. Therefore, where an employee does not fulfil those obligations the employer is not obliged to pay wages. The Government is firmly of the view that this basic contractual principle, commonly known as the no work as directed-no pay principle, should apply to Commonwealth employees. The Opposition is of the view that that should still be the case, and it is for this reason that it is resisting the repeal of this legislation. The pertinent provisions of the Acts currently enable the Public Service Board and the various authorities to declare that staff who fail to comply with an authorised direction relating to the performance of their duties are not to be paid salary, regardless of any award provisions to the contrary. The provisions in the 1980 Bill, as I have mentioned, were supported very much by the then Government, of which I was a member. A number of reasons were advanced for the introduction of that legislation and I will recapitulate those reasons for the benefit of honourable members. The first point, which I have already made, is that a right to wages at common law is contingent on an employee obeying a lawful direction of an employer and being ready, able and willing to perform all duties as directed. Secondly, the basic contractual principle, the no work as directed-no pay principle, should apply to Commonwealth employees. Thirdly, in recent times the nature of industrial action within the Public Service has changed. Employees have increasingly sought to escape the consequence of their actions while imposing inconvenience and hardship on others and by taking what they see as astute, selective industrial action in the form of work bans and limitations while expecting to remain on full pay and to enjoy all the privileges of employment in the Australian Public Service. Fourthly, it is not appropriate that the public should bear the cost of employing persons who are not prepared to provide the public services for which they are engaged. Finally, employees do not have an absolute right to wages. The rights are correlative to duties and the existence of an employee's right presupposes the fulfilment of the employee's duties and obligations. It should be understood that this legislation is being introduced but not with the support of the Government's own independent adviser, the Public Service Board. On page 57 of the Public Service Board's report for 1982-83, these comments are made in relation to no work as directed no pay: The availability of this provision in these limited circumstances has proved to be effective in the Board's view both as a deterrent and in resolving disputes. The Board considers the 'no work as directed-no pay' provisions should remain available to management and has expressed that view to the Government. That is the advice that the Government has received in this matter from its own independent advisers, and I think that needs to be understood. As to the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Repeal Bill, in case the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations makes the point, perhaps I should say that in this case he does have some support from his adviser, the Public Service Board. That will be revealed on the same page of its report. I want to indicate the nature of that legislation and the particular purposes for which the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act was first introduced in 1977. It was introduced in response to a number of industrial disputes in the Commonwealth Public Service area, and in particular the air traffic controllers strike, which was very disruptive, as honourable members will recall, and a disruptive postal dispute centered on the Redfern Mail Exchange, where employees were on strike over the 36 3/4 hour week for all postal employees. The then Government introduced the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act to enable the Commonwealth Government directly to suspend or dismiss Commonwealth employees who take industrial action which disrupts the provision of services to the community and to stand down without pay Commonwealth employees who cannot be usefully employed because of industrial action by other workers in the public and private sectors. The Act enabled the Government to act rapidly and decisively in an emergency without having to go through the procedures of applying to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for the insertion of a stand down clause in the relevant award, with all the delay that that might bring about and all the dislocation that it might permit to go on unabated. At the time of its introduction the Government said that it was its hope that it would not be necessary to use this legislation and that its provisions would be used only in the gravest circumstances. Thus, the Act was not proclaimed until 1979, when it was used in the Telecom Australia dispute. Lest it be thought that there were a significant number of cases in which this legislation was used, I inform honourable members that it was used in nine cases. Particulars were given by Mr Fife in answer to a question on 8 December 1982 in relation to each of the occasions on which this particular legislation was used. I think that in the period during which it was operating there would have been of the order of two or three strikes per year in which it was found necessary to use these particular provisions, although I recall that much of the disruption took place at one particular time. Honourable members will recall the disruption of government transport services by members of the Transport Workers Union of Australia in July and December of 1981. Honourable members will recall the rolling stoppages by some Canberra teachers in support of their pay claims. They will recall the bans, rolling stoppages and walkouts in support of increasing staffing levels by members of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association. Some of these industrial disputes caused very severe dislocation. Situations occurred where a mere 10 per cent of people at the most, perhaps even less, were causing the reputation of the 90 per cent of good public servants who were not involved in some of these strikes to be brought into disrepute. Many members, particularly in relation to the Department of Social Security, wanted to ensure that the service that they could offer to the community was still available, to ensure that pensioners were not disadvantaged. Yet some in particular positions were able to put pensioners' payments very much at risk and were causing great hardship and great difficulty. I do not think that any government can stand by in a situation in which its own employees, paid from the public purse, are able to hold a government at risk. I am not saying that this legislation should be used in all cases. I am not saying that the big stick ought to be held there at all times. I am not saying that one should not try to exhaust other avenues available to resolve these matters if possible. But I do say that government ought to have available in its armoury provisions that will assist in the resolution of a dispute at last resort. The Government, in putting to us its reasons for repealing this legislation, made the point that it did not consider it appropriate that the Government as an employer should have statutory powers of the type found in the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act which are not available to employers in the private sector. It may be thought that that point made by the Government was of some persuasive right. But let me make it very clear that the Opposition and the former Government were of the view that provisions such as those contained in the CE(EP) Act ought to be available, and more widely available, to other employers in the private sector. Legislation was introduced to give effect to that. There was no inconsistency on the part of the former Government or on the part of the Opposition in their support for provisions of that sort to be used in a situation of last resort, to be used in situations of the sort that I have dealt with at some length. Finally, I turn to the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Amendment Bill 1983. The Act that is being amended was brought in by the former Government to ensure that a satisfactory scheme of arrangement was in place for adequate redeployment and retirement of Commonwealth employees. There was significant demand in the Public Service from numbers of employees of the Commonwealth to be able to retire earlier than the usual age of 65 years. Special and advantageous provisions were being sought. But, of course, the Government, as an employer that had been in the situation where it had not been able to find ways of removing employees who were no longer of any value to the Service because their skills might have changed and there may not have been a task available in a particular area for them to fulfil, was put in the situation where the arrangements that should have been in place to enable public servants to be efficiently deployed in the Service were very much unavailable to the Government of the day to use. The Commonwealth enacted certain legislation to provide an effective means of assessing the needs of the Public Service and to provide for redeployment and retirement. The Public Service Arbitrator brought in an award which sought to overrule the provisions contained in the Government's own legislative scheme. As a result, Determination 503 which was brought in by the Public Service Arbitrator, made provision for extending those parts of the Act that provided for length of notice and for levels of pay in the event of a person being redeployed or his employment being terminated. It also provided for preference to be given to unionists in situations where redeployment was involved. The previous Government felt that those were matters about which government and not an outside body should make decisions. For those reasons the previous Government introduced this legislation. The Opposition is of the view that the legislation is still appropriate and that the Government should legislate in this area. It should make the appropriate arrangements for its own employees. It is not appropriate for matters to be taken out of the hands of the Government. It has important economic consequences. Decisions of the arbitral bodies can have an impact upon those who are able to be employed and those who are not. We believe that those are decisions that are more appropriate for the Government to take and not the arbitral bodies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(8.37) —The Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill and cognate Bills constitute an important part of the prices and incomes accord of this Government. They also honour an obligation of this Government to try to restore a degree of equity and reasonableness into industrial relations. If one had to make an observation about the previous Government in one area of its management it would be that its management of its own employees left a lot to be desired. These Bills set about to try to restore some degree of sanity into that framework. It seemed to be a matter of great concern amongst many people in the federal Public Service, members of the Australian Clerical Officers Association and the Australian Public Service Association, that they had somehow been singled out by the previous Government for some specialised treatment, treatment that a responsible employer would not have directed towards his or her employees. With that in mind, this Government, as part of its obligation to the Federal Public Service and as part of the structure of the prices and incomes accord, introduced these Bills. I believe they are very important because, as employees of the Government and as managers of our own employees we must set standards of conduct that our employees and the general community would regard as being fair and reasonable. Arising out of the National Economic Summit Conference in April this year we began to see the establishment of a degree of consensus with respect to both private sector employees and employers. We are seeking to extend that degree of consensus into the Federal Public Service arena. I believe these are very important matters. The other important issue that has to be addressed in this debate is that we, on this side of the chamber, have held for quite some time that the role of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is very important and central to the conduct of industrial relations in Australia. We believe that that Commission represents the appropriate arena into which employers and employees should take their disputes about matters arising in the work place. The thrust of this legislation, in fact, is to move these matters back into that arena. The previous Government tried, in a sense, to remove the capacity of employees, particularly ACOA and APSA members, to go to those tribunals. We believe that it is very important that they be able to do so. One piece of legislation which really produced a great deal of anger among Federal Public Service members was the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Bill. That Bill was introduced by the previous Government in 1977. That, of course, produced a great deal of anger amongst members. Industrial disputes within Telecom Australia were some of the most bitter and grevious that we have seen in Australia. In the Federal electorate of Stirling at the Telecom Balcatta exchange even Commonwealth police-or the Australian Federal Police as they are now known-were used to arrest members of the ACOA when they turned up at their work place. I believe that when that sort of thing happens within the conduct of a Government's operations that Government stands condemned because it has had to use police in an arena in which we would not believe that the use of police was the appropriate way to proceed. Clearly, when the previous Government had to use police to direct and control its employees it had a lot to learn in terms of setting standards as managers. The electorate, of course, learned. The previous Government was tossed out of office. But in the electorate of Stirling the issue in the Telecom Balcatta exchange is still a major one. The CE(EP) Act, as it was referred to, is a matter which still produces great bitterness. It caused great divisions between management and employees in Telecom. If that sort of move had been carried out by a private employer we would have wanted to react negatively by saying: 'It is about time you learnt some good industrial relations'. But unfortunately the previous Government seemed to think that that was the way to carry on. When a dispute reaches a stage where people are being stood down and forcibly removed from the work place by police one must wonder what is the thrust of industrial relations as far as the Government is concerned. Our view very clearly is that that is not the way to proceed in industrial relations. The way to proceed is to remove from the statute area such provisions which will add to industrial conflict. It is quite clear, as has been told to us by members of the ACOA and by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, as the peak council, that these sorts of pieces of legislation are the ones that damage good industrial relations. That is why we believe it is very important in this sort of debate to realise that provisions such as those contained in these Bills will do much to improve industrial relations within the Federal Public Service arena. I add one or two more comments. One of the things we are saying-this must be understood in the context of this discussion and by the wider community-is that, as I said earlier, we believe it ought to be possible for people to appeal to the appropriate industrial tribunals to settle industrial disputes. These Bills, in effect, allow Federal public servants access to those tribunals. We believe that that is the way in which industrial relations should be conducted. We believe that that is the way to ensure a degree of equity and fairness. We believe the Government, as a trendsetter in industrial relations and in setting the atmosphere for good industrial relations, should proceed in that way. That point needs to be understood in the context of debates such as this. It is not, as might be argued, a way of simply opening the gates for Federal public servants to behave in ways in which members of other unions might not behave. In fact, we are restoring equity between the Federal Public Service and its counterparts in private industry. We have seen that it is possible to build up good will and good faith with respect to private industry. The Summit, as I mentioned earlier, established that point. These Bills reflect the continuance of that. I have had many discussions with members of the ACOA and the APSA which indicated that these were very important items on their agenda. They recognise that in the context of wage movements in Australia at the moment it has not been possible to achieve rapid increases in wages and salaries. They recognise that they have lost their relativity. From the mid-1970s the relativity of APSA and ACOA members has declined in relation to the general community. But it needs to be understood that wages are only one of the factors in establishing good industrial relations . One of the other factors, of course, is what might be called the area of management prerogative. These Bills reflect that area. The Government, as a manager, is saying: 'We want to conduct our industrial relations in such a fair and equitable way that our employees and the general community will recognise that that is the way to behave'. I suggest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the House and to the community generally that these Bills represent an important move in industrial relations. I believe the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) deserves considerable credit for bringing them forward at such an early stage. They honour part of our prices and incomes accord. They reflect a view that we have that our employees are important and valuable. We ought to set a standard as managers. We ought to be seen to be behaving reasonably and equitably. I believe that these Bills indicate to our employees and to the community generally that this is the way to conduct industrial relations. In closing, I can only congratulate the Minister for his wisdom in bringing forward these Bills. I commend them to the House. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(8.45) —I also congratulate the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) for bringing the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill and cognate Bills forward, if only for the reason that it is somewhat novel for this side of the House to see the Government honouring election commitments. That having been said, it is refreshing to see it happen. To that extent I congratulate him, although I would wish it was for a somewhat better cause. In saying that, I do not wish to suggest that there is only one view on industrial matters; nor do I wish to suggest that there is only one view as to the shape of our society; nor do I wish to question the sincerity of those on the other side who express views contrary to those which are put by the Opposition and contrary to those which will be put by me. What we are seeing here is a major movement of the pendulum in favour of unrestrained misuse of union power. I say that not assuming that unions are necessarily going to misuse power, but assuming, as is the case, that what has happened here is that powers which were vested in the Government are to be taken away from the Government. The major justifications for that statement seem to be two. First, there is some kind of unfair comparison with the private sector, a comparison which is in itself quite invalid because the private sector employees are employed on a quite different basis to public sector employees; and, second, in removing the powers which the Government had under the legislation which is now under challenge we are going to be led to a greater conciliation, a greater consensus and greater equity. One can say only that experience does not suggest that that will be the case, that experience does not suggest that the absence of sanctions brings sweetness and light and that experience does not suggest that those with power in unions as in other areas of the community necessarily exercise their powers with restraint, sense or concern for those who may be affected by them. Turning to the particulars of the three Bills, the first I wish to refer to is the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill. This Bill proposes to withdraw from the Public Service Act the power to stand down workers or to declare workers are not to be paid a salary where they refuse or fail to comply with a direction given to them. This applies to the Public Service Act and to six major Commonwealth statutory corporations. I remind the House that the provision which is to be repealed is in these terms: Where an officer or employee refuses or fails to comply with a direction given by a person having authority to give the direction, being a direction with respect to work that he is performing or is to perform, the Board may declare that the officer or employee is not to be paid salary. That is to be found in section 32A (1) of the Public Service Act. Mr Deputy Speaker, the normal implications of a contract of employment are these: The employee must actually perform the duties asked of him to be entitled to his wage so long as those duties are within the scope of his contract of employment and are lawful. Is it not perfectly fair that one should do the work for which one is to be paid? Is it not perfectly fair that if one fails or refuses to do that work, having been directed by a person in authority to do the work, one should not be paid? Are we really so far down the road to the land of Alice in Wonderland that we as a nation support the proposition that if one does not do work, refuses to do work, or fails to do work, one is to be paid? Would any member of this House suggest that if he said that he would not do his work as a member of parliament for a stipulated period he should be paid? I find the proposition quite incomprehensible. It has only to be stated to be rejected. Yet we are told-in fact it is proposed-that that power is to be excised from the Act. An attempt was made by the Minister in his second reading speech on the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill to justify what was proposed by reference to the private sector. The Minister said: It is therefore clear that in the private sector, the ability of employers to apply the no work as directed no pay principle is constrained by the terms of applicable awards. A number of things can be said about that statement. In the first place, it sometimes is constrained; it sometimes is not constrained. In the second place, frequently there may be no applicable awards. In the third place, the conditions of employment and the conditions relating to termination of employment in the private sector are quite different from those applying in the public sector. To draw a comparison with private sector is both irrelevant and misleading. In exercising powers under the present provisions-I speak of the provisions that are in the Act-it is perfectly plain that the person exercising the powers must act in good faith. A pre-condition for the exercise of the power is that the condition must exist-that is that an employee has refused or failed to comply with a lawful direction to do some work which is within the scope of his employment, not work which is beyond the scope of his employment. What remedies are proposed? We are told by the Minister in the second reading speech on the Commonwealth Employee (Redeployment and Retirement) Amendment Bill that he proposes: . . . to indicate to the ACTU and public sector unions, that this action is being taken by the Government in the interests of developing more harmonious relations in the Commonwealth employment sector. Consequently the Government would expect Commonwealth employees and their unions to reciprocate by seeking to resolve their claims or grievances through the established machinery, including access to the arbitral authorities. What sanctions are there if that course is not followed? What sanctions are there if the unions decline to co-operate? What incentives are there to co- operate if a union believes that it has industrial muscle which it can exercise for the benefit of its members? Does not one come back to the principal question and is it not this: Why should anyone be paid if he refuses or fails to do the work for which he is paid? It is an Alice in Wonderland situation if that is the kind of society that this Government envisages. Is it any wonder that our international reputation as employees, as workers, and our international reputation in the field of industrial relations are so poor? Perhaps it is worse than is justified. But when these kinds of measures are proposed without anything save fond hope that what is proposed in substitution will work, and when we have strikes around the country at different times, not simply in the public sector but elsewhere, and when those overseas judge us as a nation-they do not segment us-is it any wonder that we are judged as we are judged? What evidence of abuse is there of the provisions which are complained of? The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), when he was Opposition spokesman for industrial relations, spoke upon the introduction of the amendments which are now to be excised and, if I recall correctly, he created a fantasy of possibilities for the misuse of these provisions. Where is the evidence of that? What is said about that in the Minister's second reading speech? Nothing at all. What mention is made in the Minister's second reading speech of the public interest, of the interest of the average Australian, of the men and women who may be affected by unjustified action or of the cost to the taxpayer of paying people for doing work when they are not doing the work? What is said of that? Nothing. The public interest counts for nothing. It is simply an agreement between the Government and the unions. I turn to the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Repeal Bill. It is proposed to repeal the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act 1977. May I remind the House of the purposes of that Act as stated by the then Minister for Industrial Relations in his speech to the House on 18 August 1977. He stated: The purpose of the Bill I am introducing to the House today is to enable Commonwealth Government employing authorities, in the public interest to suspend from duty, or in appropriate circumstances dismiss, government employees who take industrial action which disrupts the provisions of services to the Australian community; and stand down, without pay, government employees who cannot be usefully employed as a result of industrial action taken by fellow government employees or by workers in private industry, or who are engaged on functions the performance of which is seriously disrupted. The feature that distinguishes government employees is their responsibility for providing the wide range of services essential to the well-being of a modern day community. That is the distinguishing feature. The Minister further said: If government employees do not fulfil, or are not able to because of the actions of others to fulfil, these responsibilities the effect reaches into the very fabric of our society. Is that not certainly the case? Does anybody deny that? Is it not profoundly a matter of the public interest that government departments, and their employees, serve the public? That is, after all, the sole justification for the existence of government departments. That is the sole justification for the employment of staff by those departments just as it is the sole justification for the existence of this House. What dreadful evidence do we have of misuse of these powers? Obviously powers under the existing legislation should be resorted to only in compelling circumstances, but must governments always seek to move to one side their industrial relations responsibilities? Is it not the case that governments sometimes must act decisively and without delay-and without the delay which is entailed by recourse to arbitral tribunals? If governments act harshly, unfairly and for groundless reasons, will they not be judged by the electorate, and is that not the sanction? But no, those provisions are also to go. I should have thought that the provisions which are presently in the Act and the reasons for them are eminently justifiable, but they are to go. We are to be launched, as it were, into the arms of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and associated tribunals. Again, in this Bill, the Government places considerable reliance on powers which it is said are not available to employers in the private sector. Once again we have a justification which is as irrelevant as it is misleading. Employees in the private sector would, in circumstances where, for example, no work was available to them, one might think, very quickly be stood down. Is that not a very invalid comparison therefore for the Government to have made here? Lastly, I should like to go to the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill. The Minister in his second reading speech on this Bill, said: The . . . Act provides a framework for the redemployment and retirement of Commonwealth employees on the grounds of excess numbers, physical or mental incapacity, inefficiency or loss of essential qualifications. What is so wrong with that? Would honourable members not think those were eminently sound reasons for the redeployment or retirement of Commonwealth employees? Honourable members should remember that, when that Act was introduced , the then Minister said: It is essential in relation to matters as fundamental as the efficient and economical use of staff in the Public Service that the Parliament should lay down and be seen to lay down the rules and regulations appertaining thereto, and not some other body. Is that not fundamentally correct? Must we always push on to the shoulders of some other authority decisions in this very hard field of industrial relations? Are we not elected to take responsibility? Honourable members should remember that it is not a case of our lacking constitutional power when we deal with our own employers. I should like the House to recall the reasons why the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is cast in the terms in which it is. It is because there is an absence of Commonwealth powers to deal, for the most part, directly in industrial disputes. But the Commonwealth does not lack that power when dealing with its own employees. Here we have the power and we have the fundamental responsibility of deciding what should be the shape of our Public Service, how it should be structured, how it should be run, what we expect of public servants , how they should perform and how they should be measured by us. Are we to pass this down the line to some other body for the simple reason that we have done it in the past and for the simple reason that we lack the power in other areas when we do not lack the power here? We should accept the responsibility and be judged on how we exercise our responsibilities. As I said at the outset these three Bills will have a significant impact on the boundaries of the powers between unions and the Government and between unions and the employers. This is a movement which greatly increases the powers of those unions, which may be exercised to the public disregard and which may be exercised without any control over those powers. This Government must answer for these measures if they are in fact put into effect. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(9.05) —The House is considering important amendments to various Public Service employment provisions set forth in a number of Acts that the Parliament has previously passed. I am delighted to make a small contribution to this debate tonight because for many years, 17 years in all, I was a Commonwealth public servant. I was active in the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, being a branch counsellor within the Attorney-General's Department for that important Public Service union. I have also worked in private practice as a solicitor. I know how hard the average public servant works. I know of their diligence and concern for their jobs. I know that the average public servant is honest, impartial and serves and advises governments of either political persuasion, both in war and in peace. The debt that the Parliament, the various ministries and the nation owe to Commonwealth public servants, past and present, can never be really appreciated. In my experience, many men and women make their livelihood in the Public Service. Their whole working lives are spent in the Public Service. They have no goodwill to sell when they leave. They do not have the benefits that employees in private companies have-the perquisites of company cars and so forth. Nevertheless, they work hard, often at monotonous or frustrating tasks. They fulfil an enormous range of tasks and a variety of jobs. They give advice and are known to be loyal and are trusted. Tonight I have been disappointed with the Opposition's attitude to the amendments the Government foreshadowed during the election and which it is now legislating for in the House tonight. Legislation introduced by the Opposition when in government, which is largely being repealed, resulted in confrontation. There is no evidence that it ever settled any dispute one day earlier than the dispute would have been settled under the pre-existing law. I am sorry that the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) was so much opposed to the Government's legislation. I reject the notion mentioned by the honourable member for North Sydney that special privileges are being given to Commonwealth public servants. The powers that previously existed under the various Public Service Acts could have been used by the government of the day in any industrial dispute . The Fraser Government, nevertheless, chose to give the employer, be it the Public Service Board, Telecom or any other government instrumentality, greater powers, more autocratic powers, and more disturbing powers than were possessed by any private employer. I think it ill becomes the honourable member for North Sydney to say that one cannot compare private employers with the Public Service. I reject this notion completely. People in the Public Service work hard. In many cases they are paid comparable wages and their conditions are much the same. In fact, just outside my electorate in the Parramatta River is Cockatoo Dock where all of the 2,000- odd employees receive their salaries from a private firm and all the funds are for shipbuilding for the Royal Australian Navy. All the payments to these people come out of the public purse. I was disappointed with the comments of the honourable member for North Sydney, particularly his rash and hasty statements about our international reputation for industrial relations. That reputation comes about because half of the industrial disputes in this nation until recently were demarcation disputes caused by the fact that we have too many registered unions. It is a tragedy that a nation like Australia has such an enormous range of unions when a country like West Germany, with a much larger population, has a mere handful of unions. The honourable member for North Sydney talked about Alice in Wonderland situations under the previous Government. The situation was more like Gulliver's Travels, with the colossus of the Public Service Board or Telecom or other authorities dragging unions about and throwing them out. Perhaps they were more like Ned Kelly, bailing unions up with no argument, no conciliation, no consideration and no justice. I will touch briefly on the Bills. The most controversial of all is the Bill to repeal the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act, which was introduced in 1977 to stand down Commomwealth employees summarily and to give Telecom powers which were not available to any other employer in the nation. This Act produced nothing but bitterness and frustration amongst employees and its repeal will certainly improve, in my opinion, employer-employee relationships. The previous Government, for policy reasons, allowed the Public Service to run down. That is history. In my opinion, it caused great frustration amongst public servants, many of whom became ashamed that their departments could not cope. Indeed, the Government found that there was fraud, including medical fraud, inefficiency and delay in well known departments. Even the bottom of the harbour cases and all the scandal that came out of the Costigan report showed how the Public Service was allowed to get into disarray and to deteriorate. The second piece of legislation we are debating tonight is the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill. This Bill repeals the no work as directed no pay provisions in the Public Service Act. This legislation also will be well received by public servants and will restore them to the position they were in before the Fraser Government came to power. The third piece of legislation under consideration is an amendment to the Commonwealth Employees ( Redeployment and Retirement) Act, which restores the pre-1981 jurisdiction of the Public Service Arbitrator. It has always been said that public servants have security and that that is the reason why they are deemed to accept lower wages than employees in private enterprise. It is my belief that, with the repeal of this piece of legislation, public servants may again believe they have some security of tenure. Although they have no stake in the firm and no goodwill, as it were, this legislation will create harmony within the Public Service. It will recognise that public servants should be employed on the same basis as any other group of employees and that they should be entitled to a fair hearing. It recognises that disputes are not always caused by one side and that sometimes an employer can be at fault. I believe these legislative amendments will be well received in the Public Service and that some of the esteem and self-respect of public servants will be revived. I commend the legislation to the House. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(9.14) —I have listened with some interest to the points made in speeches by Government members in this debate. One of the things Government members have either forgotten or ignored in the course of this debate, when claiming that the provisions of industrial relations legislation should apply equally to government and private employees, is that that could be done only if conditions of employment were the same for government and private employees. Conditions of employment are clearly not the same. Different conditions of employment apply for government employees, conditions which do not apply for people who work in private enterprise. In the course of this debate and other considerations of the conditions of employment for government workers, that should never be forgotten. I must remind the House that one of the main conditions of employment within the Public Service is that of permanency. In other words, it is almost impossible to sack or dismiss a government employee. Added to that, the conditions, the facilities and, in particular, the superannuation of government employees are vastly superior to those of private employees. It is all very well to say that we shall give the workers for the Government, the public servants, better conditions, better pay, better superannuation, better retirement benefits and so on, but if those conditions apply to their employment they must also have responsibilities, and the responsibilities of government employees are to provide services to the public. In America and in some other countries it is a condition of employment within government service that workers must sign a contract that they cannot go on strike, they cannot engage in industrial disputation; and, in return for that, they are provided with the conditions and facilities that we have here in Australia. But in Australia it seems that what the Public Service and the unions representing public servants want is permanency of employment and better wages and conditions and, at the same time, to have the rights of industrial disputation possessed by workers in private enterprise who do not enjoy those conditions and facilities. The time has come for the public servants and their unions to decide whether they want industrial relations rights or permanency and other improved wages and conditions, because in my opinion common sense dictates that they cannot have both. I should be quite happy to see public servants have the same industrial relations conditions as workers in private enterprise if they were prepared to forgo their right to permanency of employment and to forgo their vastly superior superannuation and their vastly superior wages and conditions. But I have heard no such offer coming from the public servants or from their unions. The original legislation was introduced by the government of the time for very specific reasons and because it was urgently needed. We well recall before 1977 some of the disruption that had been caused to the public by industrial disputation by air traffic controllers, by workers in the Australian Postal Commission and so on, where those workers were quite prepared to hold the public to ransom, the public who were paying their wages, in order to blackmail for better wages and conditions. At no time did those workers give consideration to the responsibilities that they had to provide services to the public. That was not a factor that was even considered at any stage by the unions or by the workers themselves. It was because of that that the government of the day was forced, in order to protect the public, to bring in these particular provisions. It is noticeable that since this legislation was introduced in 1977 and again in 1980, there has been very little industrial disputation in major areas of communication. I refer to Telecom Australia, the Postal Commission, the air traffic controllers and others who are involved in those vital industries. Perhaps it will be said that the economic conditions of the time have not allowed for such heavy industrial disputation. We might take the view that it is because this legislation exists-because those workers can be stood down and because they can be denied their pay if they refuse to carry out their lawful instructions-that the unions and the workers within the Public Service have had cause to rethink the repercussions that might fall on them if they try to hold the public to ransom. It worries me greatly that the Government, in repealing this legislation, appears to be using the Public Service as a springboard for what might be much heavier, stronger and more persistent industrial disputation within the Public Service. I do not know whether that is what the Government has in mind. I do not know what consideration the Government has given to the likelihood of more persistent industrial disputation within the Public Service, but it is certain that if the Government takes away one of the available weapons in order to maintain services to the public, there will be a greater level of industrial disputation. I cannot understand how the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) can argue that by taking away some of the weaponry available to him he will avoid industrial disputation. I will be interested to hear the comments that he might give to let the House know how he intends to help industrial peace within the Public Service. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have to oppose these Bills. I thought they were introduced by the Government at the time for very good, valid and sensible reasons to try to protect the public, who contribute money to pay for the service and conditions of public servants. I thought public servants had an obligation to provide the service for which they were employed. In view of their failure to provide the service for which they were employed the Government at the time had no option but to introduce these provisions. I must oppose the repeal of this legislation. I hope that under a future Liberal-National Party Government, should the circumstances warrant it, we will again have no compunction whatever in introducing this or similar types of legislation that would give adequate protection to the public to provide the services for which the public has no option but to provide money. Mr Ruddock —It might be rejected in the Senate. Mr BURR —Yes, indeed. I agree with my colleague. If the Australian Democrats support us, this legislation will be rejected in the Senate. Without this legislation and without the determination of government to use the legislation the public will be exposed to industrial disputation by the growing militancy of unions within the Public Service. This is the only legislation provided to protect the public against the growing militancy of public servants. The Government is stripping itself of the only provisions designed to give any form of discipline to the Public Service unions. I oppose these Bills to repeal this legislation. I know I have the support of the Liberal and National parties in this chamber. I hope that when the legislation arrives in the Senate the Democrats will support the Opposition parties and that we will keep these provisions on the statute books. Without these provisions the Government will simply expose the public to unrestrained militancy by public servants. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(9.24) —Although I have insufficient time to deal at length with the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill I shall express my strong support for it. The 1982 industrial relations platform of the Australian Labor Party committed the Government to repeal the provisions in the Public Service Act and other relevant Acts concerning no work as directed no pay provisions. The Labor Party opposed this legislation when it was first introduced for the following reasons: Firstly, it removed the right of recourse to arbitration, especially the right of appeal; and secondly, the provisions placed public employers in a superior position to private employers. The existence of this kind of legislation has acted against the development of improved employer-employee relations in the Pubic Service. If Commonwealth employers find it necessary to seek to take staff off pay in dispute situations, it is preferable that such authority be in an appropriate award or determination of an arbitral tribunal. This provides an opportunity for the views of all parties to be considered and is a far more acceptable process than the unilateral exercise by management of the no work as directed no pay provisions which provides no right of appeal nor avenue of redress other than under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act of 1977. The Australian Council of Trade Unions and the various Public Service staff organisations support the repeal of the no work as directed no pay provisions. It is consistent with the policy of the Australian Labor Party that there be equivalent treatment of public and private sector employees. I commend this Bill to the House. In speaking in support of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Amendment Bill 1983, I point out that the original Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act was brought in by the previous Government in a spirit of vindictiveness. The Act provided for the direct suspension or dismissal or Commonwealth employees involved in industrial action without those employees having any opportunity to refer to the employing authority. It was a piece of despicable legislation and was indicative of the confrontationist attitude of the previous Liberal-National Party Government to industrial relations. The fact that the Fraser Government was prepared to take such a confrontationist attitude to public servants is difficult to comprehend except in the context of the fact that it had no understanding of how to conduct proper industrial relations procedures. The previous comments of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) and the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) make it very clear that they have no understanding of some of the intolerable working conditions which can provoke public servants into a stop work or a go slow situation. Arbitration is the only way to deal with such problems. Dismissal only involves an enlargement of the original dispute. I fully support the Government's view that the restoration of the pre-1981 jurisdiction would be consistent with the general approach of the Australian Labor Party on improved industrial relations in the Commonwealth sector. The matters which would be restored to the jurisdiction of the tribunals are entirely appropriate for determination by them, particularly for the purposes of settling disputes if they arise over those matters. The fact that an arbitral award, Determination No. 509 of 1977, already applies to this area is of significance. Full restoration of this jurisdiction is the proper course. Without the removal of the restriction imposed in 1981, it is not possible for registered organisations, through the process of conciliation or arbitration, to have the provisions of an award or determination in relation to these issues either made or varied. The opportunity for the Public Service Board and other relevant bodies to argue that the tribunal should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction in appropriate cases would, of course, be available if the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal were fully restored. I commend this Bill to the House, particularly as it represents another of the promises made during our election campaign which we intend to honour. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(9.29) —If ever the people of Australia needed proof, other than the previous eight months, that this is not a Government for all Australians or that this is a Government that is not prepared to take strong hard decisions against the actions of militant trade unions which go on their merry way to the great disadvantage of a great many people in Australia, these Bills introduced by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) are sufficient proof. I will take the three Bills one by one. First, the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Repeal Bill 1983 is introduced by the Federal Government to repeal the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act. It was introduced by the previous Government in 1977 in response to a number of industrial disputes in the Commonwealth public service area. Of course, everybody will recall the air traffic controller strike and the disruptive postal strike centred around the Redfern mail exchange of some years ago. Both strikes caused a great deal of suffering to a great number of people, many of whom were least able to cope with that sort of suffering. The Act which this Government seeks to repeal enabled the Federal Government to directly suspend or dismiss Commonwealth employees who take industrial action which disrupts the provision of services to the community, as well as empowering the Commonwealth to stand down without pay Commonwealth employees who cannot be usefully employed because of industrial action by other workers in the public or private sectors. At the time of the introduction of this legislation the Liberal -National Party coalition Government said that it would be its hope that it would not be necessary to use the legislation except in the most rare and extreme cases. The criterion to be judged is the amount of inconvenience caused to society and, again, those least able to cope with that inconvenience. I believe that since the Act was not proclaimed until 1979 when it was used in the Telecom Australia dispute, it was a responsible use of those powers by the previous Government. The previous Government believed that Commonwealth employees have considerable privileges in terms of security of tenure and superannuation and must realise that those privileges carry with them considerable responsibilities. The previous Government also believed that it had a responsibility to Australian taxpayers to protect them against unnecessary financial loss through industrial disputation. I certainly concur with those sentiments as I believe that government employees are specifically responsible for providing many of the most vital services essential to the well being of the community, including such things as postal services, communications, aviation and social security. There is a whole list of them, all of which affect the daily lives of most citizens of this country. The people involved in the provision of those services have a peculiar, distinctive responsibility and they have, on past occasions, shown an irresponsibility and disregard for the rights of the majority of Australians and have abused their privileged position. I turn now to the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill 1983 which was presented by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations this evening. This Bill has been brought in by the Minister to repeal the no work as directed-no pay provisions of the Public Service Act and other Acts dealing with six Commonwealth statutory authorities, namely: The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Australian Postal Commission, the Australian Telecommunications Commission, the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, the Commonwealth Teaching Service and Overseas Telecommunications Commission. The provisions in the Acts which the Government is seeking to remove were inserted in 1980 following a New South Wales Supreme Court decision which found that the common law rights of employers to implement the no work as directed no pay principal no longer applied in the area of Commonwealth employment. The Court, in actual fact, ruled that the common law principle was overruled by provisions of the Public Service Act and regulation. The pertinent provisions of the Acts currently enable the Public Service Board and the various authorities to declare that staff who fail to comply with an authorised direction relating to the performance of their duties are not to be paid a salary, regardless of any award provisions to the contrary. I believe that to repeal these provisions is a retrograde step and ought not to be undertaken by this Parliament. I base that judgment on the following points: First, a right to a wage as a common law is contingent upon an employee obeying lawful directions of the employer and being willing and able to perform all duties as required. Secondly, this basic contractual principle of no work as directed no pay should apply to Commonwealth employees. I do not believe that Commonwealth employees are exempt from this common law principle. I do not believe that they can be elevated to a higher plateau and be above the common law. In recent times the nature of industrial action within the Public Service has changed, as a great many Australians would know to their disadvantage. Employees have increasingly sought to escape the consequences of their action while imposing hardship and inconvenience on others by taking what they see as selective industrial action in the form of work bans and limitations while expecting to remain on full pay and to enjoy all the privileges of employment in the Australian Public Service. Those who know the privileges that go with such employment would deeply resent the abuse of such privileges. That is particularly so in the case of those many hundreds of thousands who have no employment and who would happily, for the sake of being employed by the Public Service, adhere to common law principles. Regrettably, many of those who already have employment within the Public Service see themselves as above those principles. The Third Bill being debated this evening is the Commonwealth Employees ( Redeployment and Retirement) Amendment Bill 1983. The Federal Government has brought in a Bill to restore the jurisdiction of the Public Service Arbitrator and the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission over the redeployment and termination of employment of Commonwealth employees. The jurisdiction of the Public Service Arbitrator over redeployment and retirement matters was removed in March 1981 by the previous Liberal-National Party coalition Government following the disallowance by the Parliament of a determination of the Arbitration Commission which extended existing provisions relating to length of notice and levels of pay to be provided in the event of redeployment or termination. This Act was brought in because it was essential, in relation to matters as fundamental as the efficient and economical use of staff in the Public Service, that the Parliament should lay down and be seen to lay down the rules and regulations appertaining thereto, and not some other body. The previous Government also made the point that there was a real distinction between matters relating to the engagement and termination of staff, which are the prerogative of management, and determinations in relation to traditional areas such as wages , salaries, annual leave and hours of duty, all of which are properly matters for arbitration. With regard to that piece of legislation, I would say that the justification used for overriding industrial tribunals in the Act, namely the protection of vital services essential to the well-being of the community, is not available in this case. In conclusion, having examined those three Bills presented by the Minister, I see a number of dangers in them. In summary, I see it as being a pay-off in some respects to the Government's stronger supporters, namely the trade union movement. It is part of the ongoing National Economic Summit Conference and the so-called wages accord pretence-a pretence of harmony. There is no harmony; rather, this Government is giving the unions what they wish for. In doing so, it is placing a great many Australians in a disadvantaged position. I would certainly echo the call of my colleagues who spoke previously for these provisions to be opposed in the Senate. It will remain for the Australian Democrats to join with the coalition Opposition in disallowing these Bills. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(9.40) — in reply-I remind the House in winding up this second reading debate that the Bills which are now before the House in this cognate debate have been brought in as an important step to improve industrial relations in the Commonwealth sector of employment-industrial relations which, when we came into office, were in a very bad and bitter state after seven years of the previous Government, seven years in which that Government had taken many steps which had been of an authoritarian nature and which had diminished the rights of public servants and Commonwealth employees generally to undertake their democratic rights in respect of their position as employees. These Bills seek to redress the damage that was caused to industrial relations in the Commonwealth area by those actions. I shall just make some general points in regard to the attitude of the Opposition in this debate. We are not-I think this has been quite misunderstood by at least a couple of speakers on the other side-removing the right of the Commonwealth employing authorities to enforce the no work as directed no pay provision or to stand down employees in an industrial dispute. The right of the Commonwealth employing authorities to take those kinds of actions against employees in a dispute remains, but not simply by managerial decree. If the Commonwealth employing authorities wish to take action of this kind they will have to go to an industrial tribunal-to the Public Service Arbitrator or to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission-and obtain an order to that effect. That is the difference. We are simply taking away the right of the public sector employers in the Commonwealth area to make that decision on their own initiative. We believe it is quite wrong for management to have the right, as it does under the present law, to order no work as directed no pay or to suspend or even dismiss an employee under the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act. We do not see that as being an appropriate right for Commonwealth employing authorities. We certainly do not see it as improving industrial relations. There is no doubt that the impact of the use of those provisions has worsened industrial disputation, provoked industrial disputation and caused more time lost. This authoritarian right, particularly in regard to the CE(EP) Act, has been criticised by the International Labor Organisation. All we are saying is that in a dispute in which employees are in the wrong, are placing bans or limitations upon work of one kind or another, if the Commonwealth authorities believe it is appropriate that some action be taken against the employees they can do so by going to the arbitral authorities and obtaining an order for no work as directed no pay or for stand-down provisions. They will have that right but it can only be applied in that way. We believe that that is the appropriate way in which to do it. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) said time and again during his speech, and by way of interjection later, that the CE(EP) Act, for instance, was only to be used as a last resort. If we are to use it as a last resort, what is the point of having it? The whole argument for it fails if it is to be used by managerial decree rather than by going to an arbitration tribunal and getting the dispute before the dispute settling body where the rights and wrongs can be considered. Only if there is clearly no right on the employees' part should this power be given to the Commonwealth employing authority. If its use by management is to be immediate regardless of other procedures that may be taken it has no defence. We would simply be applying a sledge hammer kind of principle in a way which would be totally unfair when other procedures had not been exhausted. I believe there is a total misconception on the part of several speakers on the other side about what exactly is involved in the legislation now before the House. Also clear from this debate is the Opposition's bizarre concept of industrial relations. Opposition members think good industrial relations exist when the work force is so cowed that workers simply would not undertake any industrial action at all. No one on this side is saying that industrial action is a great thing-not at all; but we are saying that simply preventing industrial disputation by way of bans or limitations by authoritative measures does not necessarily create good industrial relations. There may be a terrible situation in a certain workplace, with low productivity, terrible staff morale nad so on. It does not make for good industrial relations simply to cow the work force into a state of surrender. We want a co-operative situation in which the work force works co-operatively with the employing authorities. That is what this legislation is designed to achieve. Mr Ruddock —It will not achieve it. Mr WILLIS —It will certainly achieve it. The Opposition's concept of industrial relations is that the management is always right. It does not matter about the rights or wrongs of the dispute; that just does not come into the argument. No members of the Opposition talked about the rights or wrongs of the matter; they simply said that industrial action has to be stopped and therefore almost any measure is justified. The honourable member for Dundas said that in the recent Australian Capital Territory postal dispute the Government should have rushed in and used the CE(EP) Act and the no work as directed no pay provisions. Later on he said we should have used them as a last resort, which counteracted his argument. Here was a case where in fact the Commonwealth employing authority, the Australian Postal Commission, admitted that it was in the wrong and apologised to the union. I am not therefore defending the actions taken by the union after that but Australia Post was clearly at fault. It acknowledged that to the union and apologised for its action. If one is to consider industrial relations procedures one has to bear in mind that it is not always the union that is at fault. Management can be at fault, too; there are two sides. The whole point of what we are saying is that an industrial dispute should be brought before the appropriate arbitral tribunal to have the rights and wrongs of the matter considered. If the union is in the wrong and it is appropriate that some no work as directed no pay or stand-down measure should be applied, that can then be ordered. That is the appropriate way in which to go about it. The approach of the Opposition demonstrates its total incapacity to understand the nature of industrial relations. It shows why, in the period it was in government, it brought industrial relations in the Commonwealth sector-indeed, in the nation as a whole but in particular in the Commonwealth sector-into the abysmally low state it was in until this Government came to office. That is undoubtedly the situation. With the removal of the no work as directed no pay provision and the CE(EP) Act the Commonwealth will have to justify to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission why it should be able to exercise those stand-down or no work as directed no pay provisions. That, as I have said, is thoroughly appropriate as that is what private employers in large part have to do now. There has been some discussion in this debate about the comparative rights of public sector and private employers. It has been argued by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) that this is an irrelevant argument, that there is no point in arguing about the rights and wrongs of private employers and public sector employers having these powers because public sector employees are in a privileged position. But in bringing in no work as directed no pay provisions in 1980 the then Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Viner, justified that action on the basis that this was a right that private employers had which the Commonwealth now did not have, as a result of a court case. He said it was totally wrong that the Commonwealth did not have that right and therefore to match private employers the Government should be able to bring in legislation to give that managerial right in the Commonwealth sector to order no work as directed no pay. But of course in the same year, in the Gapes case, as I mentioned in my second reading speech, it became quite clear that many private employers simply do not have the common law right to order no work as directed no pay. They simply do not have that right because the courts have found that, where a set of award conditions applies, at least in some cases-it would seem to be in a substantial number of cases although the exact degree seems to be unclear-the private employer simply does not have that right. So it is simply not the case, therefore, that giving the public sector the right to order no work as directed no pay puts them in an equivalent position with private employers. It simply does not do that, at least in many cases and, as I say, it is not entirely clear at this stage just how far that limitation on private sector employers goes. But we would argue that in any case it is inappropriate, that, be it public or private, what should happen is that the case should go to the Arbitration Commission, or whatever the tribunal is, and then if it is appropriate in the view of that authority established to settle industrial disputes that such orders be made they can be made. I would like to make a couple of other quick general points before I deal with the CE(EP) Act. During this debate it was said by the Opposition that Public Service strikes are unacceptable. I have partly gone to that point. I simply make the further point that of course, there have been and will be in the future strikes in the Public Service. They existed in the past with the CE(EP) Act and with the no work as directed no pay provision. In fact, those provisions provoked further strikes and bans or limitations. The resolution of those disputes in the end depends upon the tribunals. They are not resolved by the use of draconian legislation. Another point that has come out of this debate is that, according to the Opposition and particularly the honourable member for Dundas, responsibility for disputes settlement should not be delegated to third parties such as tribunals which are not responsible to the people. What an amazing argument that was. He said that we really should not be in a position of saying: 'We have an arbitration commission to settle industrial disputes but we should not send disputes there because it is not responsible to the people. We are the ones who are responsible to the people and therefore, we will settle our own industrial disputes and to hell with all the arbitral authorities'. What an extraordinary argument. The former Government established a whole array of arbitral procedures through the Public Service Arbitration Act and then denied the right of that authority to settle an industrial dispute. That was what the honourable member argued. It was a ridiculous and absurd argument which has absolutely nothing whatever going for it. If one establishes the Public Service Arbitrator, or in the case of some sections of Commonwealth employment the Arbitration Commission, and if there are disputes in those areas, surely one should send them to those dispute settling authorities which this Parliament has created for that purpose. One should not simply say 'We will do this ourselves' and disregard the whole dispute settling procedures we have established. It was also said by the honourable member for Dundas that the use of automatic suspension would bring employees back to work. Of course, it does not follow that that would happen, as I have already indicated. In the case of, for instance, the social security dispute in 1981 the reverse was the case. We had, after the use of the CE(EP) Act, rather than settlement of the dispute, a great exacerbation of the dispute. I think the arguments pursued by the Opposition were extraordinary and greatly lacking in any merit. The honourable member for Dundas also said that the CE(EP) Act should be available as a last resort measure. As I have already mentioned, if it is to be used as a last resort there is simply no point in having it because one could go to the Arbitration Commission or the other appropriate tribunal and get such an order. It is not a matter of simply using it straight off, as he apparently sees it now. In regard to the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act amendment the honourable member for Dundas said that the Government should not allow the tribunal to override that Act. The fact is that the CE (RR) Act originally allowed awards and determinations to override the Act. As that Act was brought into this Parliament, there was provision for it to be overridden by arbitral tribunals. This was consistent with the arrangements under the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the Public Service Arbitration Act which have long existed and which still operate. The Fraser Government was not prepared to abide by an arbitrated decision. It told the unions in respect of the dispute over the CE (RR) Act that they should go to arbitration. They went to arbitration. They got a result which the then Government did not like and that Government said: 'You have no right to override our legislation'. That Government then brought in an amendment which we are now repealing preventing the Commission from having any jurisdiction in this area. This action was totally lacking in any merit. It was an appalling action by the previous Government which overrode its own version of what was appropriate behaviour in telling unions to go to arbitration. When the unions did that and got a result the Government did not like it amended the Act to prevent that decision of the Commission being applied. We are now repealing that provision so that the Commission can have jurisdiction in that area and so that disputes which result from the operation of the CE (RR) Act can be arbitrated by the Commission. We believe that is appropriate. Finally, I remind the House that the CE (EP) Act has, indeed, been criticised by the International Labour Organisation. I spelt out the details in my second reading speech. I will not go through them again. I think it is appropriate to remind the House once again that this was draconian legislation which was, in fact, criticised by the International Labour Organisation, a thoroughly respectable body. It deplored this kind of action being taken and particularly the fact that there were no rights of appeal to employees affected by orders made under that Act. I remind the House that the importance of these Bills is that they will improve industrial relations in the public sector. The legislation as it now exists operates to worsen industrial relations in the Commonwealth sector. The operations of these measures have in themselves created disputes rather than resolved disputes. We will improve industrial relations in the public sector considerably by these amendments. I strongly recommend them to the House. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr RUDDOCK —Yes. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis ) in his reply suggested that I had said that in the area of public sector activity there was no role for arbitration or arbitral tribunals. While I have sent my notes to Hansard, my recollection is that I qualified that reference by specific mention of the circumstances contained in each of these Bills. Certainly it was not my intention to suggest that there was no role for arbitral tribunals in the public sector area generally. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Morrison, W. L.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Carlton, J. J. MacKellar, M. J. R.Coleman, W. P. McVeigh, D. T.Connolly, D. M. Macphee, I. M.Cowan, D. B. Moore, J. C.Drummond, P. H. O'Keefe, F. L.Edwards, Harry Porter, J. R.Fisher, P. S. Rocher, A. C.Goodluck, B. J. Ruddock, P. M.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Street, A. A.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Fry, K. L. Fife, W. C.Brown, Robert Tuckey, C. W.Darling, E. E. Newman, K. E.Kent, L. Cameron, IanMountford, J. G. Millar, P. C.Brown, John Shipton, R. F. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Willis) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 20 October, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Morrison, W. L.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Carlton, J. J. MacKellar, M. J. R.Coleman, W. P. McVeigh, D. T.Connolly, D. M. Macphee, I. M.Cowan, D. B. Moore, J. C.Drummond, P. H. O'Keefe, F. L.Edwards, Harry Porter, J. R.Fisher, P. S. Rocher, A. C.Goodluck, B. J. Ruddock, P. M.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Street, A. A.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Fry, K. L. Fife, W. C.Brown, Robert Tuckey, C. W.Darling, E. E. Newman, K. E.Kent, L. Cameron, IanMountford, J. G. Millar, P. C.Brown, John Shipton, R. F. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Willis) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 20 October, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Morrison, W. L.Edwards, Rondald, Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. Wells D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Ewen, (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Carlton, J. J. MacKellar, M. J. R.Coleman, W. P. McVeigh, D. T.Connolly, D. M. Macphee, I. M.Cowan, D. B. Moore, J. C.Drummond, P. H. O'Keefe, F. L.Edwards, Harry Porter, J. R.Fisher, P. S. Rocher, A. C.Goodluck, B. J. Ruddock, P. M.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawke, D. P. M. Street, A. A.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Fry, K. L. Fife, W. C.Brown, Robert Tuckey, C. W.Darling, E. E. Newman, K. E.Kent, L. Cameron, IanMountford, J. G. Millar, P. C.Brown, John Shipton, R. F. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Willis) read a third time. House adjourned at 10.24 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Morris to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Inter-State Commission Act 1975. Mr John Brown to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Bounty (Room Air Conditioners) Act 1983. Mr Cohen to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. Mr Beazley to present a Bill for an Act to increase the number of senators, and for related purposes. Mr Beazley to present a Bill for an Act relating to representation in the Parliament, Parliamentary elections and related matters. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 1 November 1983: Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 227, 228 Dairy Produce Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 226 Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 2124, 225 Public Service Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 219 Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances-1983- No. 39-Real Property (Amendment) No. 41-Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Amendment) No. 53-Casino Control Regulations-No. 21-(Motor Traffic Ordinance) Telecommunications Act-Australian Telecommunications Commission-By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts)-Amendment No. 39 Telecommunications (General)-Amendment No. 39 The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 52 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: When does the Government intend to carry out its review of statutory marketing authorities under Commonwealth control and when will it publicise its promised definition of the role and function of these authorities. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The honourable member has sought information on the implementation of Labor's election promises. The matter he has identified involves development and consultation within the Government and with other agencies and with relevant industries. I can assure him that the matter raised is being or will be considered in an orderly fashion and that a decision will be announced at the appropriate time. Question No. 55 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Has he yet established the special drought section within his Department. (2) If so, (a) what is the make-up of the section, (b) how many officers are attached to it and (c) how does the work being performed differ from that under the previous arrangements. (3) If the section has not been established, when will it be established and what will officers in this section do in times when there is no drought. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The honourable member has sought information on the implementation of Labor's election promises. The matter he has identified involves development and consultation within the Government and with other agencies and with relevant industries. I can assure him that the matter raised is being or will be considered in an orderly fashion and that a decision will be announced at the appropriate time. Question No. 59 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: When does he envisage that a single national meat inspection service for Australia, as promised in the election campaign, will be in place. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The concept of a single national meat inspection service has been the subject of debate for many years and was endorsed by the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry last year. It is the stated policy of this Government that such a service should be established. Following discussions between officials of the Department of Primary Industry and the States and the Northern Territory, the Department of Primary Industry distributed in April this year a discussion paper to all States and the Northern Territory, as well as relevant industry and employee organisations. Since then further discussions have been held with most States and the Northern Territory. Also the Victorian Government has recently indicated it is prepared to enter into negotiations with the Commonwealth on the subject of a single meat inspection service. I hope that this recent development along with arrangements in place in South Australia and the establishment of a single service arrangement in New South Wales from 1 July this year, will accelerate the establishment of a single national service. In examining the full implications of the single service concept, it should be noted that of the 2,450 full time meat inspectors in Australia at 1 July 1983, 80 per cent were employed by the Commonwealth's Export Inspection Service. Should Victoria agree to transfer its service the figure would rise to 92 per cent. As the establishment of a single national inspection service is dependent upon the agreement of the States and Northern Territory I am unable to put a specific date on when such a service will be fully in place on a national basis. However I believe that the decisive initiatives taken to date and action that is in train will enhance the possibility of quickly arriving at a solution with a majority of the States and the Northern Territory. However I note that the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries is reported to have recently said that the Queensland Government still does not support the single national inspection service concept. I understand that approximately one quarter of Queensland's State meat inspectors are located at export registered works and in general are taking their place on the meat chain beside Commonwealth inspectors and doing the same level of inspection. This work could be undertaken solely by Commonwealth inspectors, and industry consequently saved the double fee. The Queensland Government must therefore shoulder the full responsibility for the extra cost being incurred by industry. Question No. 65 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: Does the Government's policy on wool promotion which states that Labor recognises the urgent need for changes to the way promotion is funded mean that the wool grower is going to be asked to make a greater contribution to promotion funding. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The honourable member has sought information on Labor's attitude to existing Commonwealth expenditures. The matter he has raised involves development and consultation within the Government and with other agencies and with relevant industries. I can assure him that the matter raised is being considered in an orderly fashion and that a decision will be announced at the appropriate time. Question No. 66 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: Will the Government continue the previous Government's policy of placing funding for wool promotion on a three-yearly basis. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The honourable member has sought information on Labor's attitude to existing Commonwealth expenditures. The matter he has raised involves development and consultation within the Government and with other agencies and with relevant industries. I can assure him that the matter raised is being considered in an orderly fashion and that a decision will be announced at the appropriate time. Question No. 68 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Did the Government undertake to maintain tax averaging and income equalisation deposits in its election campaign. (2) If so, will these facilities for farmers be maintained as under previous arrangements. (3) If not, how will they be changed. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The honourable member has sought information on income tax averaging and income equalisation deposits. The Government's decision on these matters was announced in the Parliament by the Treasurer on 19 May 1983. Question No. 79 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Did the Government undertake during the 1983 election campaign to promote and support skills training in agriculture. (2) If so, what action is proposed. (3) Will the Government implement, with the States, young farmer establishment schemes similar to that which is currently being operated by the Queensland Government. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The honourable member has sought information on the implementation of Labor's election promises. The matter he has identified involves development and consultation within the Government and with other agencies and with relevant industries. I can assure him that the matter raised is being or will be considered in an orderly fashion and that a decision will be announced at the appropriate time. Question No. 191 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 19 May 1983 : (1) Will the Government continue the existing policy of providing subsidies on superphosphate and nitrogenous fetilisers; if so, will it apply to fertiliser from overseas. (2) Will he ensure that, in order to contain costs of superphosphate, the cheapest means of transport is used from Christmas Island, so that Australian farmers are not disadvantaged by the high freight costs that currently apply through the use of wholly Australian manned ships. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The honourable member has sought information on the Labor's attitude to existing Commonwealth expenditures. The matter he has raised involves development and consultation within the Government and with other agencies and with relevant industries. I can assure him that the matter raised is being or will be considered in an orderly fashion and that a decision will be announced at the appropriate time. Question No. 194 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 19 May 1983 : (1) Is it a fact that Australian agriculture suffers severely from a shortage of water for plant and feed growth. (2) Has the Government abandoned the previous Government's national water resources program, which would have provided $640m; if so, what is the Government's alternative. (3) Is the Government to delay decisions on this vital matter until after consideration of the report 'A Perspective on Australia's Water Needs to the Year 2000'; if so, how long is it going to be before the nation has a national water resources program. (4) Is he attracted to the Bradfield scheme, in Queensland, which was part of the previous Government's program; if so, will he press for the continuation of this scheme by the Government. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The honourable member has sought information on Labor's attitude to existing Commonwealth expenditures. The matter he has raised involves development and consultation within the Government and with other agencies and with relevant industries. I can assure him that the matter raised is being or will be considered in an orderly fashion and that a decision will be announced at the appropriate time. Question No. 288 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Defence Support, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: Will he provide details of contracts let by his Department in each State in 1982-83. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In answering the question the following considerations apply: (1) the details do not apply to contracts under the public tender threshold value, currently $10,000. As there is no consolidated record it is not administratively feasible to provide details of purchases below that figure. These are undertaken through local purchase action at the point of need. (2) the details relate to contracts awarded to firms resident in the particular States listed. (3) where contracts have been awarded to the head office of a national based company located in one State and the requirement is produced by a subsidiary in another State, the contract is recorded against the State in which the head office is located. Details are as follows: No. contracts Value State issued Sm New South Wales 1,061 100 Victoria 1,687 276.8 Queensland 177 37.8 South Australia 274 22.1 Western Australia 207 9.2 Australian Capital Territory 56 5.7 Northern Territory 24 1.5 Tasmania 48 0.9 Question No. 316 Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy , upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) Further to my repeated questions relating to the demarcation of the South Australia, Victorian, New South Wales boundary on the River Murray, in view of his reply to my Question No. 133 (Hansard, 23 August 1983, page 101), does his answer give effect to the following, that (a) the River Murray Commission and the three States accept the view implicit in my earlier question in particular No. 3291 (Hansard, 13 October 1981 page 3179), (b) is the boundary across the River Murray, that is the eastern boundary of South Australia, to be drawn as a continuation of the existing New South Wales/South Australian border to the point where it intersects with the southern bank of the watercourse of the River Murray which as determined in Ward's case, constitutes the northern boundary of Victoria, (c) the boundary across the Murray at this point is therefore a South Australian/New South Wales boundary. Thereafter to the west of that line, the whole watercourse of the River Murray is within South Australia, with the South Australian/Victorian boundary following the southern bank of the River Murray for approximately 11 kilometres, until it reaches the lateral or north/south boundary between Victoria and South Australia, and (d) it follows that if a jurisdictional issue such as that in Ward's case were to arise in this area, it would be an issue between South Australia and Victoria. (2) Will he request the respective State Ministers to confirm the above alignments. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a), (b), (c) and (d) The River Murray Waters Agreement includes provisions for the distribution of waters and, for the purposes of administering those provisions, the River Murray Commission has adopted as the eastern boundary of the State of South Australia a line across the river at the South Australian/New South Wales border. For practical purposes, the adopted line is of little significance as the point of measurement of waters entering South Australia is some 30 kilometres upstream . The attitude of the three States as to the position of the boundary for matters other than the administration of the River Murray Waters Agreement is one for their resolution and I do not propose to comment on the legal and other matters raised by this or the previous questions. They are primarily the concern of the States themselves. (2) No. I am satisfied that for purposes relating to the Commonwealth's interests under the River Murray Waters Agreement such action is not necessary at the present time. In other respects the question remains primarily the concern of the States involved. Question No. 319 Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) Further to the Attorney-General's predecessor's answer to my Question No. 4702 ( Hansard, 8 December 1982, page 3217), is he able to say, in the light of the McCabe Lafranchi report, whether there appear to be gaps in the Companies Act which lend themselves to tax abuse. (2) What progress has been made towards inserting in the Companies Act the important and productive provision set out in the Second Directive 68/151 on Co- ordination of Safeguards of the Council of the European Communities, which has been implemented recently and which has the force of law in the United Kingdom. (3) Is it a fact that the implementation of the undermentioned provisions would be critically important if the Companies Act is to play an important role in the battle against tax avoidance; 6 (minimum capital); 7 (non-cash consideration); 10 (non-cash consideration-valuing assets); 11 (promoters); 15 (payment of dividends); 17 (serious loss of capital); 25 (authorisation of new share issues) ; 27 (non-cash consideration); 29 (pre-emptive rights to new shares issues) and 35 (maintenance of capital). (4) Will the Attorney-General consider the matters referred to in parts (5) to (13) of this question as the basis for possible amendment to the Act. (5) Does section 81 of the Companies Act apply to a contract made by a person as agent or trustee for a company which the person wrongly believes to be incorporated; if so, why. (6) Does sub-section 81 (11) apply to contracts within sub-section (1) which are not ratified; if so, is the effect of sub-section 81 (11) to exclude quasi- contractual remedies as well as contractual remedies. (7) Does sub-section 81 (2) permit a company to ratify a contract notwithstanding that the parties to the contract have previously withdrawn from it or cancelled it. (8) Bearing in mind sub-section 72 (1) can a class rights provision in a company memorandum be altered under sub-sections 125 (2), 126 (2) or 127 (2). (9) If a company can alter a class rights clause in a memorandum, how can this be done, that is, by special or ordinary resolution. (10) Once the class content has been obtained for a variation of rights contained in the (a) memorandum and (b) articles, does the company in general meeting then have to pass a resolution to alter the memorandum or the articles; if so, which sections of the Act require this to be done and what type of resolution, that is special or ordinary, is required to alter the (i) memorandum and (ii) articles. (11) Why does sub-section 453 (1) and sub-section 453 (2) not contain a provision similar to sub-paragraph 230 (1) (a) (iv). (12) With respect to sections 33 to 37, why does the Act not include a requirement for all companies to raise and maintain a prescribed minimum nominal and paid-up capital. (13) Has action been taken to remedy the defects in section 117 referred to in parts (12) to (16) of Question No. 3212 to the former Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Hansard, 18 November 1981 page 3173); if not, why not and will urgent action now be taken. (14) If the provisions referred to in parts (5) to (13) remain as structured will they constitute an open invitation to the corporate manipulator to make transactions to the detriment of a company and its creditors. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) I am unaware of any conclusions in the McCabe-Lafranchi report which would indicate a need for any specific amendments of the Companies Act 1981; (2) and (3) I expect that these provisions (which were the subject of Question No. 2866, (Hansard, 16 February 1982, pages 109-112) will be considered by the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee, which will be operative from 1 January 1984, in the context of an examination of the theory and legitimate use of the corporate form; (4)-(12) and (14) It would be inappropriate to provide in this answer legal opinions on the questions raised in these parts of the question. I assure the honourable member however that the possible need for amendments arising out of the questions will be considered by my Department. Where appropriate, matters will be referred to the Ministerial Council on Companies and Securities or to the proposed Companies and Securities Law Review Committee. (13) Yes. The exposure draft of the Companies and Securities Legislation ( Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1983 contained (in clause 23) proposed amendments to section 117 which would remedy the defects referred to by the honourable member in parts (12) to (16) of Question No. 3213. This exposure draft was made available to the public on 1 December 1982. These proposed amendments have now been included in clause 49 of the Companies and Securities Legislation ( Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1983. Question No. 328 Mr Burr asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice , on 23 August 1983: (1) Has the Government provided grants for five separate studies into employee participation. (2) If so, do the studies include the effects of employee equity participation. (3) If not, will the Government undertake a study of employee equity participation and its effect on worker participation in industry and implications on industrial relations. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Details are contained in my news release 56/83 of 20 April 1983. (2) No. (3) Employee equity participation is only one of a number of possible approaches to employee participation. Past research indicates that financial participation schemes do not necessarily achieve the basic objective of effective and meaningful employee involvement in organisational decision making. However, where schemes such as equity participation are carefully integrated with other forms of participation, they can make an important contribution. Consideration will be given to undertaking further research in this area in the context of an overall research program relating to industrial and economic democracy. In this regard the Government is influenced strongly by the advice of the National Labour Consultative Council Committee on Employee Participation. Question No. 332 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: Will he undertake a prompt program of down-grading military and military supportive aid including transport, roads and communications under military direction, or with restricted access for journalists, civilians and minority groups until Australia's aid target of 0.7 per cent of GNP is reached, giving priority to constructive co-operative projects which benefit disadvantaged communities and avoiding all untied grants to military dictatorships including Indonesia and the Philippines; if not, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The main objective of Australia's development assistance program is to make a real contribution to the economic growth and social advancement of developing countries recognising that the value of aid to development is in assisting the recipient to become more self reliant. The aid program already gives priority to constructive co-operative projects which benefit disadvantaged communities in developing countries. For example, official aid given through non-government organisations is largely directed to help at the grass roots level in recipient countries. Also many of the bilateral projects supported in the aid program, such as primary health care or village water supply projects, are directed towards assisting the poor and deprived. The balance in the aid program between grass roots assitance and development directed toward promoting broader based growth at a regional or national level is an important issue and is included in the terms of reference for the high level committee, chaired by Sir Gordon Jackson, which I have established to review Australia's overseas aid program and report on its future form and direction. The Government endorses the United Nations target of providing 0.7 per cent of GNP as ODA. While it will endeavour to meet the target as quickly as possible, the Government must take into account not only the needs of developing countries , but also Australia's own economic circumstances and capacity to assist. Apart from budgetary support assistance given to Papua New Guinea, no untied grants are given to developing countries through Australia's aid program. PNG is the only country to which we provide direct financial assistance, reflecting the special relationship between the two countries. Bilateral aid directed to other recipients is provided predominantly in the form of goods and services obtained in Australia. Military aid and military supportive aid is provided to developing countries through the defence co-operation program which is the responsibility of the Minister for Defence. A small proportion of this aid is counted as official development assistance (ODA) where the activities undertaken assist economic and social development and are therefore classified by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD as ODA. In 1982-83 an amount of $7.2m was spent on defence co-operation activities which qualified as ODA and this represents approximately 1 per cent of the total ODA for 1982-893. The kinds of activity undertaken include mapping, malaria control studies and assistance with rural water supplies. Question No. 346 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Treasurer, 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 Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Records held by the various agencies within the Treasurer's portfolio produce the following analysis: No. of claims No. No. No. not out- Year Male Female accepted accepted standing 1978 2 1 3 . . . . 1979 . . 6 6 . . . . 1980 1 26 26 1 . . 1981 7 129 133 1 2 1982 8 189 151 7 39 1983 (up to 31 August) 1 99 58 2 40 Total 19 450 377 11 81 The claims were submitted in respect of the following activities: Keyboard 335 Clerical 90 Cleaning 6 Telling 18 Lifting 6 Kitchen work 10 Other 4 469 Question No. 374 Mr Goodluck asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Is the wireless station at the lighthouse on Deal Island, in the Kent Group , Tasmania, using a callsign indicating it to be a Victorian Station, that is, a callsign from the '3' (Victorian) group, instead of the '7' group allotted for Tasmania; if so, why. (2) Did his Department issue a callsign to Deal Island lighthouse wireless station which implies to the world in general that Deal Island is part of Victoria; if so, why. (3) Will he end this apparent affront to Tasmanian sovereignty over Deal Island . Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Yes. This licence was first issued on 1 September 1926 to the then Department of Commerce as part of that Department's Victorian lighthouse network with the callsign VJM, licence number 11. In 1940, the callsign was changed to VL3GS. In 1943, the licence was transferred to the Department of Supply and Shipping. Responsibility for the licence subsequently passed to the Departments of Defence (1944), Shipping and Fuel (1950) and Shipping and Transport (1954). In 1954, the Postmaster-General's Department raised with the Department of Shipping and Transport the question of the '3' callsign allocation. That Department requested that the callsign remain in the Victorian series as Deal Island is located between Flinders Island and the Victorian coastline. In 1978, the station at Deal Island became the responsibility of the Department of Transport. This Department, as with its predecessors, had no Tasmanian Office and therefore, relied on its Central Office or Victorian/Tasmanian Regional Office for the conduct of business in that State. Consequently, the Department of Transport, Victorian/Tasmanian Regional Office, continued to renew this licence through the Victorian Office of the Department of Communications. (3) Immediately I was made aware of this situation, I requested my Department to arrange for this station to come under the responsibility of the Tasmanian Office of my Department and for it to be allocated the callsign VL7DI. Question No. 375 Dr Everingham asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) What steps has the Government taken to implement the top priority recommendation of the International Energy Agency to research, develop and demonstrate energy conservation. (2) What investigation has been made of the costs and benefits of tax concessions for home insulation, and what results have been reported. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) This question is identical to one asked last year of my counterpart in the previous Government who provided a reply in House of Representatives Hansard, 14 and 15 December 1982, pages 3582-3583 (PQ 4825). Except for the following I have no further information to add to the earlier reply: The figures given for NERDD program expenditure on energy conservation projects have been revised as shown in the following table: NERDD PROGRAM-ENERGY CONSERVATION PROJECTS, 1978-1982(a) Other Industrial energy Total energy conserva- energy Year of conserva- tion conserva- commitment tion projects tion $ $ $ 1978 81,476 1,255,068 1,336,544 1979 790,906 2,432,916 3,223,822 1980 434,819 3,166,601 3,610,420 1981(b) 693,231 2,457,707 3,150,938 1982 1,118,868 1,535,849 2,654,717 Total 3,119,300 10,857,141 13,976,441 (a) Figures are as at 1 March 1983, and include approximately $600,000 of passive solar projects recently reclassified and now included in the energy conservation program. Figures for 1983 are not yet available. (b) Figures include $324,000 committed to a special series of industry demonstration projects. Question No. 402 Mr Wells asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: (1) Are Australian servicemen, whose only overseas service was in the occupation forces in Japan, classified as ex-servicemen for pension purposes. (2) Is the Minister able to say whether these Australian servicemen were exposed to a variety of hazards, especially in the case of those arriving in Hiroshima very shortly after the dropping of the atomic bomb. (3) Will the Minister be taking steps to improve the conditions of these Australian servicemen; if so, what steps are proposed. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) All Australian serviceman whose only overseas service was in the occupation forces in Japan are eligible to receive a disability pension in respect of conditions related to their service. However, service in Japan after the cessation of hostilities is not considered to be service in a theatre of war for service pension purposes, as there was no longer any danger from enemy forces. Thus, those Australian servicemen whose sole service was in Japan are ineligible for service pension. Others, however, may qualify for service pension because of earlier or subsequent theatre of war service. (2) I have assumed that the hazards referred to are those associated with atomic radiation. Scientific evidence suggests that by the time the first of the Australian component of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force (BCOF) arrived in Japan, some six months after the atomic bombs were dropped, the radiation would have decayed to a negligible level because of fires that engulfed the hypocentres and heavy precipitation in the immediate post-bombing period. A number of studies conducted in this field indicate that there was a negligible level of radiation remaining at both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki sites after a very short period, a matter of days to weeks. A study was conducted in 1975 on 18 Australian prisoners of war, who were in close vicinity to the atomic explosion at Nagasaki, to determine whether any had suffered or were suffering from the effects of exposure to radiation. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not monitored for their radiation potential. However, the estimated combined neutron and gamma dose, at the centre of the prisoner of war area of the camp, has been given as approximately 55 rads. The study revealed that, apart from some chromosomal damage, which had been repaired naturally, none of the ex-POWs had suffered disabilities attributable to contact with radiation. I also refer the honourable gentleman to the reply to Question No. 5288, Hansard, 21 April 1980, pages 2042-3. (3) In view of the findings of medical studies in this field, the conditions under which benefits are provided to these servicemen, seem to be adequate. I emphasise that they are eligible for disability pensions if they meet the requirements of the Repatriation Act. If any of these ex-servicemen considers he is suffering from a disability related to service he should lodge a claim with my Department. Free treatment is prescribed for any accepted disability. Question No. 433 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Transport, 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 Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a)-(e) (i) Payments received by the Queensland Government from programs administered by my Department for the period 1 July 1972 to 31 August 1983 have all been in the form of special purpose grants and are detailed below. Payments made over period 1 July 1972 to Purpose of grant 31 August 1983 $m Payments under Road Grants Acts 1,133.41 Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program 35.43 Beef Cattle Roads 9.97 Barkley Highway Maintenance . 03 Road Safety Improvements .44 Road Safety Practices .31 Urban Public Transport 64.11 Railway Mainline Upgrading 20.30 Transport Planning and Research 7.19 Total 1,271.19 (ii) Details are not readily available of the amounts the Queensland Government has returned or refused. It is considered that the resources required to ascertain this information cannot be justified. Question No. 438 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, 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 John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No grants, subsidies, special grants, dollar for dollar contributions or other contributions have been partly or totally received, returned or refused by the Queensland Government since the creation of the Sport, Recreation and Tourism portfolio on 11 March 1983. Question No. 446 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, 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 Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (i) Between 1973-74 and 1975-76 the Commonwealth provided general revenue assistance for local governing bodies. In 1976, under the Local Government ( Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act the revenue assistance scheme was developed into a revenue sharing program. Both of these revenue assistance schemes provided for Commonwealth funds to be passed to the States for payment to local authorities. The table provides details of the funds allocated to Queensland in each year since the untied grants scheme came into operation. Financial year Amount $ 1974-75 8,954,000 1975-76 13,808,000 1976-77 24,222,000 1977-78 27,875,000 1978-79 30,252,000 1979-80 37,387,000 1980-81 50,714,000 1981-82 59,158,000 1982-83 71,571,000 1983-84 77,447,000 Source: Budget Paper No. 7 (ii) None of these funds have been refused or returned by the Queensland Government. Question No. 448 Mr Spender asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: (1) What are the rules and procedures adopted by the Taxation Office in respect of the acquisition of rental accommodation for use by that office. (2) Has the Taxation Office entered into an agreement, or does it intend to enter into an agreement, to lease 14,000 square metres of the B.T. Building in Hunter Street, Sydney, at a rate of $317 per square metre; if so, (a) what alternative areas were sought and (b) how does this figure compare with the average office rental accommodation in Sydney and the outer suburbs of Sydney. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The rules and procedures adopted by the Australian Taxation Office in respect of the acquisition of rental accommodation are the same as those for all civil departments, that is a need must be established and justified, and an item must be introduced into the Department of Administrative Services forward estimates and draft leasing program, which is subject to approval by Government in the Budget context. (2) The Department of Administrative Services, is currently finalising the details of a lease over 15,793 square metres of space for the Australian Taxation Office at 7-13 Hunter Street, Sydney, approval for which was given by the then Minister for Administrative Services on 24 November 1982. The rate is still to be finalised but will not be less than $320 per square metre. (a) The Chief Property Officer for New South Wales undertook a wide ranging and intensive investigation of properties available which would meet the requirements of the Australian Taxation Office. At the time of approving the lease no alternative suitable or acceptable areas were available or likely to become available in time for the Australian Taxation Office to comply with the requirement of the lessor of its current accommodation to vacate the premises by 30 September 1984. (b) It is higher than the average for office rental accommodation in Sydney and the outer suburbs of Sydney. However, such a comparison is questionable as the market rental for a particular building has little relevance to average rentals which reflect a range of standards, locational advantages and lease sizes. In this instance, the rental rate reflects to a large extent the lack of accommodation in Sydney of the size required to satisfy the Australian Taxation Office's needs and the vigorous competion for such premises. The rate was supported by the Commonwealth Valuer as being reasonable at the time of commitment. Question No. 450 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 6 September 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 Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Repetitive Strain Injury Number of Number Number Sex of Type or claims settled outstanding claimant work performed 1978 2 2 . . Female Typing duties, matching 1979 1 1 . . Female Clerical 1980 3 2 1 Female Steno-secretarial typing/telex, typing 1981 2 2 . . Female Clerical, typing 1982 6 5 1 Female Steno-secretarial Clerical, typing, filing 1983 10 4 6 Female (9) male (1) Word-processing, steno-secretarial, typing, clerical report-writing AUSTRALIAN TRADE UNION TRAINING AUTHORITY No claims received to date. Question No. 454 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 6 September 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 Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Number of claims 1978-9 . . 1979-80 1 1980-1 2 1981-2 2 1982-3 10 Claims Claims settled outstanding 1978-9 . . . . 1979-80 1 . . 1980-1 2 . . 1981-2 . . 2 1982-3 3 7 Sex of claimants: 14 females, 1 male. Type of work performed: keyboard work (typing and data processing) and writing. Question No. 503 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 13 September 1983: (1) What is the present position with the introduction of AM stereo radio in Australia. (2) Is it necessary by law for his Department to be involved in its introduction; if so, which specific sections of which Act require this intervention; if not, (a) is the Department involved, (b) why and (c) how is it involved. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Tests of alternative systems for AM stereo are being conducted by my Department in association with the broadcasting industry. (2) Yes. Section 111C (1) of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 charges me with the determination of standards for technical equipment for broadcasting and television services. It is in the public interest that proper standards are investigated and developed for AM stereo, which has a potential for interference to users of the radio spectrum. Question No. 511 Mr Staples asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 14 September 1983: (1) Is he able to say what is the extent of the foot and mouth disease outbreak raging throughout the Indonesian island of Java. (2) Has the foot and mouth disease vaccine supplied by the Australian Government been produced by a synthetic genetic engineering process, or by traditional methods using whole virus. (3) Is there a commercial genetically-engineered foot and mouth disease virus available for use now. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Clinical foot and mouth disease has reappeared in Java for the first time since 1979. First reports of the disease on 20 July localised the outbreak in a central east district of Java. The Indonesian authorities have since reported that the disease has spread throughout central and western Java and is now widespread on the island. (2) Vaccine provided by the Australian Government is an inactivated vaccine produced overseas in the conventional manner from live virus. (3) There is no commercial genetically engineered vaccine for foot and mouth disease available at this time. There are no recent reports of progress with FMD vaccine by the new technologies and it could still be several years before effective vaccines produced by those techniques will be available. Question No. 516 Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 14 September 1983: (1) When will the (a) Flora of Australia, (b) Australian Plant Name Index, (c) 'Zoological Catalogue of Australia' and (d) Australian Biogeographic Information System programs currently being conducted by the Australian Biological Resources Study be completed. (2) What amount has (a) already been spent and (b) been allocated for 1983-84, on each of these programs. (3) Are additional programs under consideration: if so, what are they. (4) With which groups (a) will the Bureau of Flora and Fauna be participating with respect to the fauna of Australia project and (b) has the BFF been co- operating on these additional programs. (5) will any of the costs be shared by the States. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The Flora of Australia, a 50 volume work, currently produced at the rate of approximately two volumes per year, will be completed by the 2010. (b) The Australian Plant Name Index, will be completed and issued (in microfiche form) by 1986. (c) The 'Zoological Catalogue of Australia' is a multi-volume publication. Volumes dealing with the vertebrates (mammals, birds, reptiles, frogs and fish) will be complete by 1986. Volumes dealing with invertebrate animals will be published progressively from 1984, and the series is expected to be completed by the year 2000. (d) The Australian Biogeographic Information System (ABIS), is a data-base system designed to incorporate information on the distribution of plant and animal species, from the specimen collections in museums and herbaria from all States and mainland Territories. Data for all vertebrate animal collections held by Australian museums should be available through this system by 1990. Data entry on plant species is proceeding at a slower rate, but a new strategy to link data acquisition with the production of the Flora of Australia will accelerate this process. Data entry for the Australian flora is unlikely to be complete before the year 2000. (2) These projects are elements in the three main programs of the Australian Biological Resources Study (Flora, Fauna and Biogeography). Expenditure on these programs can be divided into (a) grants and contracts to institutions in the States and Territories for gap-filling research work, and preparation of material for the publication projects, and (b) computing, preparation and publication costs. (Computing costs include machine acquisition, divided equally among the programs, and recurrent charges, mainly for CSIRONET). Not all of the expenditure under grants and contracts is for immediate use by the projects referred to in part (1) of this question. In many cases research projects are funded to clarify taxonomic and distributional problems, so that the publications will be as accurate and informative as possible. The expenditure is detailed in the following table: Computing, preparation Grants and and publication contracts costs Flora program (including Flora of Australia, Australian Plant Name Index)- Expenditure to 30 June 1983 1,395,520 132,700 83-84 allocation 280,345 50, 000 Fauna program (including 'Zoological Cataloque of Australia')- Expenditure to 30 June 1983 1,387,011 60,900 83-84 allocation 330,190 33,000 Biogeography program (including vegetation mapping and bioclimatology study)- Expenditure to 30 June 1983 539,977 38,300 83-84 allocation 87,725 10,000 Australian Biogeographic Information System- Expenditure to 30 June 1983 742,265 83-84 allocation 140,740 Note: ABIS computer expenditure cannot be separated from the Biogeography program's total expenditure (3) Additional programs to those mentioned in part (1) of this question are not under consideration at this stage, but there are existing projects on (a) vegetation mapping, (b) correlation of environmental variables with the ABIS data, and (c) the preparation of distribution atlases for selected groups of flora and fauna. (4) (a) It is expected the Bureau of Flora and Fauna will cooperate with all Australian museums, appropriate university departments and relevant divisions of CSIRO on the Fauna of Australia project. (b) The Bureau of Flora and Fauna is cooperating with a number of state institutions and universities in the vegetation mapping and distribution atlas projects and with CSIRO on the environmental correlation of ABIS data project. (5) As all major programs are undertaken largely by staff within state and territory institutions a substantial contribution to the ABRS is made by States and Territories. Question No. 521 Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 14 September 1983: What funds have been provided by the Commonwealth for the South West Tasmania World Heritage Area for 1983-84. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The 1983-84 Budget includes $27m for payments for Tasmania under assistance arrangements arising from termination of the Gordon-below-Franklin Dam. This includes the provision of $1.118m for care and maintenance work in South West Tasmania, particularly rehabilitation works in the Gordon River area. In addition the Government has offered the Tasmanian Government $5m for the development of tourist facilities in the region. Up to $2m of this amount is available in 1983-84. Proposals for the future managment of the World Heritage Area are being prepared for the consideration of the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments. The proposals will include the question of funds that the Commonwealth will provide for management purposes. However, on 31 August the Prime Minister offered financial assistance for essential management requirements in the World Heritage Area for the interim period before longer term arrangements can be settled, with the level of resources and the basis on which costs might be met by the respective governments to be determined following discussions between officials of the two governments. Question No. 522 Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 14 September 1983: (1) What amount has been allocated from the Ausstralian National Parks and Wildlife Service financial vote for World Heritage Areas other than South West Tasmania. (2) Are there any proposals before the Government for nomination to the World Heritage List. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In 1983-84 $1,560,000 has been allocated for operational expenditure and $2 ,000,065 for capital expenditure in respect of Kakadu National Park. (2) Currently there are no outstanding proposals submitted by the States or Territories to the Government for nomination to the World Heritage List. Question No. 523 Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 14 September 1983. (1) Does the allocation of $8,908,000 to the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service during 1983-84 include funds for the preparation of a management plan for the World Heritage Area in South West Tasmania; if so, how long will it take to prepare a draft plan. (2) When does the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service expect to take control of the area. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The allocation of $8,908,000 to the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service for 1983-84 does not specifically include funds for the preparation of a management plan for the World Heritage Area in South West Tasmania. (2) management arrangements for the World Heritage Area are currently the subject of negotiation between the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments. Question No. 524 Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 14 September 1983: (1) Which companies have contracts for surveillance of the Great Barrier Reef region. (2) How often are surveillance flights carried out along the reef and what is their cost per hour. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The contract for surveillance of the Great Barrier Reef region is held by Air Search Pty Ltd using a dedicated Nomad Searchmaster 'L' aircraft. (2) The GBR region is covered by aerial radar and visual search each week in five sectors generally on the basis of flying five days in seven. The cost of this surveillance consists of a daily standing charge of $870.18 with an hourly flying rate of $617.89. Average hours flown per day are 3.85. Question No. 525 Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 14 September 1983: Is he able to say (a) whether contributions to the World Wildlife Fund are tax deductible and (b) what are the projects within Australia on which the World Wildlife Fund will spend 80 per cent of its funds collected in Australia. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Contributions to the World Wildlife Fund Australia are tax deductible. (b) The World Wildlife Fund Australia, in its conservation program 1983, sets out the following projects on which it will spend at least 80 per cent of its funds collected in Australia: Conservation of the bilby Conservation of the Huon pine Determination of the ranges and status of Australia's rarest birds A survey of Brisbane's wildlife A study of the grey swiftlet in north-east Queensland Conservation of Australia's rare and endangered bats A study of Australia's vulnerable plants Herdsman Lake (Western Australia) nature study centre National rainforest study Forest management for the survival of Leadbeater's possum Status, distribution and conservation of the yellow-rumped pardalote in Western Australia Establishment of a captive colony of numbats The Australian grayling A network of conservation reserves for Western Queensland, Part 2 An investigation into the numbers of the freckled duck An investigation into the sticknest rats of Australia Propagation of threatened Australian plants in Victorian reserves Conservation of the purple-crowned wren in northern Australia Transportation of koalas to new habitats Ensuring the survival of the plains-wanderer Saving the eastern barred bandicoot. Question No. 526 Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 14 September 1983: (1) What are the (a) demonstration projects, (b) national community based projects and (c) public education programs to be funded from the Australian Environment Council Fund during 1983-84. (2) How many of these projects will be carried out in rural, as distinct from urban, environments. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The 1983-84 funding program for the Australian Environment Council does not contain any projects which could be specifically defined as demonstration projects, national community based projects or public education programs. However the AEC is involved in a variety of other ways, in public education activities relating to the urban and the rural environment. (2) Not applicable, refer (1). Question No. 527 Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 14 September 1983: (1) What studies have been proposed for funding from the Australian Environment Council Fund. (2) Which of these studies were nominated by (a) the Commonwealth and (b) the States and what amount has been allocated to each study. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Projects recommended by the Australian Environment Council for funding in 1983-84 are: $ 1. Noise Propagation Constants and Verification of Prediction Methods 3,000 2. Secretariat Printing and Support Expenses 7,000 3. Muffler Fitters Education Program 1,500 4. Attendance of Non-government Members at Chemicals Review Sub-Committee meetings 5,950 5. Abatement of Noise from Competitive Motor Sports 5,800 6. Transfer of the United States On-Scene Spill Model- Version 7 (OSSM 7) to Australia 4,000 7. Australian Environment and Conservation Data Base Feasibility Study 12,000 8. Workshop on the Methodology of Hazard Assessment of Industrial Chemicals 4,000 9. Case Studies of Cost/ Benefit Analysis 7,000 10. Development of a Bioassay Procedure for Assessing the Toxicity of Complex Effluents 12,000 11. Method for Assessing the Noise of a Carbage Compactor 3,000 12. Recycling Statistics 9,500 13. Control of Noise from Truck Mounted Refrigeration Units 8,000 14. The Effects of Government Procurement Policy on Paper Recycling in Australia 10,000 15. Noise Control for in-service trucks and bases* 7,250 Total 100,000 * Subject to agreement by the Australian Transport Advisory Council to joint funding. (2) (a) and (b) Projects 6, 12 and 14 were nominated by the Commonwealth. Study 9 was nominated jointly by the Commonwealth and South Australia. Studies 1, 11 and 13 were nominated by New South Wales. Funds for project 2 are to cover the costs of producing the AEC Newsletter ( published quarterly), purchasing or printing of documents required by the AEC or its committees and the printing of AEC reports. The remaining studies were nominated by sub-committees of the Australian Environment Council. Question No. 528 Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 14 September 1983: (1) To what extent will the three-year national air quality data program involve State co-operation. (2) Have the States agreed to a set of national standards. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The National Air Quality Data Program is being implemented in co-operation with State governments who are consulted through the mechanism of the Australian Environment Council (AEC). The Council has endorsed an Indicative National Air Quality Monitoring Network. Responsible authorities in a number of States contribute air quality data for collection and analysis by the National Air Quality Data Centre established in my Department. The data centre is being progressively developed. Under the National Air Quality Data Program the Commonwealth will provide air quality monitoring and data processing equipment to State authorities on long-term loan to facilitate the collection and transmission to the data centre of nationally uniform air quality data. (2) The Australian Environment Council, in co-operation with the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH and MRC), is currently revising national air pollution emission standards and standardised methods for monitoring air quality, which were published in 1979 and 1977 respectively. It is expected that the revised standards will be referred to the councils for adoption in due course. Question No. 529 Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 14 September 1983: Which voluntary conservation organisations will share the $640,000 provided in the 1983-84 Budget and what amount will each organisation receive. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No decision has yet been made on which organisations will share the Budget appropriation. A public announcement on the allocation of the $640,000 will be made in due course. Question No. 548 Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 21 September 1983: (1) Is it the intention of the Government to establish a dangerous goods ordinance for the Australian Capital Territory; if so, have drafting instructions for the ordinance been completed. (2) By what date is it anticipated that (a) a draft ordinance will be submitted to the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly and (b) the ordinance will be proclaimed. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes; drafting instructions have been completed. (2) (a) It is expected that the draft ordinance will be referred to the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly by the end of 1983. (b) The ordinance should be proclaimed in early 1984. Question No. 551 Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth affairs, upon notice, on 21 September 1983: (1) Is it the intention of the Government to amend the Apprenticeship Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory; if so, have drafting instructions been completed. (2) By what date is it anticipated that (a) a draft amendment will be submitted to the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly and (b) the amendment will be proclaimed. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes; drafting instructions are well advanced. (2) (a) Before the end of 1983, (b) early in 1984. Question No. 570 Dr Klugman asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 4 October 1983: (1) Does his Department place advertisements for Commonwealth Government departments in the National Times. (2) Has his attention been drawn to the National Time's claim for readership decreasing from 518,000 at 7-13 November 1982 to 290,000 at 16-22 September 1983 . (3) Has his Department received a corresponding reduction in charges for advertising. (4) Is he able to say what has been the audited average weekly circulation of the National Times for each quarter since 1979; if so, what are the details. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Advertisements for Commonwealth Government Departments which appear in the National Times are arranged by the Australian Government Advertising Service ( AGAS). (2) AGAS has advised my Department that it is not aware of any National Times claim for a readership of 518,000 at 7-13 November 1982. Newspaper readership data used as reference by AGAS is that contained in the Survey of Readership of Daily and Sunday papers, prepared and published by the Roy Morgan Research Centre. That survey indicates that the average weekly readership of the National Times for the period April 1981 to March 1982 was 341,000 and for the period April 1982 to March 1983 was 290,000. (3) No. In fact, the rates that AGAS is charged by the National Times have increased by 27 percent between March 1982 and March 1983. (4) No quarterly figures of audited average weekly circulation of the National Times are available to me. However, available data indicates that the average weekly circulation for the National Times since 1979 is as follows: Circu- Date lation Source of data 30 September 1979 102,642 Auditor's Certificate 30 September 1980 103,704 Auditor's Certificate 30 September 1981 97,685 Auditor's Certificate 30 September 1982 90,020 Audit Bureau of Circulations 31 March 1983 91 288 Audit Bureau of Circulations 22 September 1983 96,167 Publishers' Claim Circulation Question No. 12 Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: Are any estimates available of the cost of a pensioner dental scheme based on an 85 per cent fee for eligible pensioners, run on similar lines to the pensioner medical scheme. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. A best estimate of the cost of a pensioner dental scheme has been made. If a pensioner dental scheme had operated in 1982-83, the estimated benefit cost would have been approximately $100m excluding eligible Veterans' Affairs pensioners and dependants catered for under the local dental officer scheme. This estimate is based (a) on very limited data derived in part from the 1982-83 cost of the local dental officer scheme applicable to eligible Veterans' Affairs pensioners and dependants; (b) on assumptions that the utilisation of services and costs for the local dental officer scheme (discounted to allow for known age variations) would apply to all eligible pensioners and dependants; and (c) on the assumption that 'eligible pensioners and dependants' were the numbers of persons estimated to be eligible for fringe benefits covered by pensioner health benefits and health benefits cards in 1982-83, 'approximately 2 .4 million pensioners and dependants'. The estimate does not cover persons covered by health care cards. Question No. 83 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Has he established the National Drought Consultative Committee as promised during the 1983 election campaign. (2) If so, who makes up the Committee. (3) If it has not yet been established, what progress has been made towards its establishment and when is it expected to be operational. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) At its last meeting in Port Moresby on 1 August 1983 the Australian Agricultural Council agreed to the establishment of a National Drought Consultative Committee to comprise representatives of each of the members of Standing Committee on Agriculture (SCA) and a representative of the National Farmers Federation. (3) Steps are currently being taken to finalise the membership of the Committee and to make arrangements for its inaugural meeting. Question No. 87 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: Did he undertake to use taxation measures to promote agricultural resource conservation; if so, how will this be done. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As part of the Government's consideration of the overall problem of land degradation, I have asked the Bureau of Agricultural Economics (BAE) to undertake a general review of the effectiveness of taxation concessions versus rebates to individual landholders for soil conservation work. The BAE is also preparing a paper which will expand the existing data base and examine the broader aspects of soil conservation from an economic viewpoint. The Government will give consideration to the use of taxation measures to promote agricultural resource conservation in the context of finalising the details of its national soil conservation program which was announced in the 1983-84 Budget. The program is currently being developed in co-operation with the States and details will be finalised when I complete discussions with the States on the administration of the Program. Question No. 92 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Has he carried out the Government's election promise to utilise a range of tax rebates to encourage producers to protect themselves against drought. (2) If so, what it the nature of the tax rebates. (3) If not, (a) why not and (b) what is the nature of the tax rebates that he has in mind. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) At its last meeting in Port Moresby on 1 August 1983 the Australian Agricultural Council agreed to the establishment of a National Drought Consultative Committee (NDCC) to comprise members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and a representative of the National Farmers Federation . Steps are being taken to establish the Committee which will, as part of its function, investigate alternative means of encouraging primary producers to protect themselves against drought. The Government will review its drought assistance measures, including the use of tax rebates, after the NDCC has had an opportunity to complete its examination of the issue. Question No. 317 Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: Further to the former Treasurer's answer to my question No. 2022 parts (11) to (13) (Hansard, 13 October 1981, page 1934), can the Attorney-General say what action has been taken in relation to bank nominee companies which hold shares in their own holding company, thereby enabling the banks to act in the same fashion as if they were dealing in their own shares. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The matter raised in Question No. 2022 was drawn to the attention of the other parties to the formal agreement concerning companies and securities in 1981. It was not considered appropriate for legislative amendment at that stage. Bank nominee companies and any other companies holding shares in their own holding company as trustee have a duty to use their voting power in the interests of the beneficiaries. Question No. 338 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Prime Minister, 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 Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: A. DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIME MINISTER AND CABINET 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Number of claims lodged Nil Nil 2 Nil 12 Number of claims accepted . . . . 2 . . 9 Number of claims outstanding . . . . Nil . . 3 Sex of claimant . . . . Female . . 11 female 1 male Type of work . . . . Typing . . 11 typing 1 clerical B. PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD Number of claims lodged Nil Nil Nil Nil 1 Number of claims accepted . . . . . . . . Nil Number of claims outstanding . . . . . . . . 1 Sex of claimant . . . . . . . . Female Type of work . . . . . . . . Typing C. AUSTRALIAN AUDIT OFFICE Number of claims lodged Nil Nil Nil Nil 1 Number of claims accepted . . . . . . . . Nil Number of claims outstanding . . . . Nil . . 3 Sex of claimant . . . . . . . . Female Type of work . . . . . . . . Tea Attendant D. The Office of National Assessments, the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Australian Science and Technology Council received no claims in the period. Question No. 364 Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 23 August 1983 : (1) How many 'Dial-it Information Services' pocket reference cards were (a) purchased and (b) distributed by Telecom Australia and (c) what was the total cost of (i) purchase and (ii) distribution of the cards. (2) How many pocket reference cards were distributed in Western Australia alone and at what cost were they (a) purchased and (b) distributed. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice received from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) (a) 760,000, (b) 716,000, (c) (i) $18,200, (ii) $22,800. (2) 306,000, (a) $7,328, (b) $9,180. Question No. 385 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) What instructions in the use of fluoride solutions are given (a) to dental therapy trainees and (b) by dental therapists to selected parents. (2) What supervision of mouth rinsing practices of children is recommended in these instructions. (3) Are the use of (a) fluoridated dentifrice, (b) topical fluoride gel or (c) fluoride rinsing (i) used, (ii) recommended or (iii) warned against in (A) districts with water fluoridation and (B) patients with dental fluorosis in such districts. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1 (a) While the Commonwealth has no responsibility for matters concerning the use of fluoride solutions by States for the control of dental caries, the following information is provided. Instructions which are given to dental therapist trainees include the criteria for use of this preventive treatment, type and strength of the solutions used, technique of application and advice that solutions should not be swallowed. A solution which is frequently used for topical application contains 1.23 per cent of fluoride, and is used at intervals of six to twelve months. The use of fluoride solutions in school dental services is generally limited to children in non-fluoride areas, or to patients with high level of dental caries. Mouth rinsing programs using fluoride solutions are practised to a limited extent in New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia. Instructions for such programs include the selection of children, the quantity and type of the fluoride solution to be used, the period and frequency of rinsing, and it is emphasised that the solution is not to be swallowed. Sodium fluoride solutions of 0.2 per cent are normally used and the rinsing may be repeated up to six times in the year. The volume of fluoride solution used on each occasion is limited to 10 mls. 1 (b) In cases where children have a high level of dental caries, dental therapists may suggest that a child receive topical fluoride treatment, or in those States which use fluoride mouth rinse programs, dental therapists may suggest that a child be included in a mouth rinse program at school. Dental therapists do not recommend the home use of fluoride mouth rinses except in Western Australia where selected parents are informed that fluoride rinses can be purchased at pharmacies and should be used strictly in accordance with the instructions given on the label. (2) Mouth rinsing with fluoride solutions at school is carried out under the supervision of either staff of the school dental service, a teacher or a teacher 's aide. The general control of such programs is a matter for dentists of the school dental services. 3 (a) The use of a fluoride dentifrice is recommended in fluoridated and non- fluoridated areas. (b) Topical fluoride gels are used and recommended by the school dental services in Victoria, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. Fluoride gels are not warned against. However, most States prefer to use a fluoride solution. As indicated above (3 (a)) topical fluoride treatment is used primarily in areas where the water is deficient in fluoride, or for children with a high level of dental caries. (c) While rinsing with fluoride solutions is recognised as an effective method for the control of dental caries its use has not been recommended in the majority of State and Territorial school dental services. Fluoride rinsing is recommended as an accepted procedure in the school situation in New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia but currently is not widely applied. Recommendation concerning the use of fluoride rinses at home has been covered in paragraph 1 (b) above. The procedure of rinsing with fluoride solutions is not warned against as long as it is subject to adequate supervision and control. The following comments concerning dental fluorosis apply to each of the paragraphs (3) (a), (b) and (c) above. Dental fluorosis is a manifestation of a high systemic fluoride intake during the period of tooth formation and does not change the approach to the use of fluoride dentifrices, topical fluoride gels or solutions, or fluoride rinsing, but suggests consideration of the present systemic intake of fluoride. Fluorosis of aesthetic significance is uncommon in Australia. Children with dental fluorosis generally have a low level of dental caries so that topical fluoride application or mouth rinsing with fluoride solutions is not appropriate. Question No. 393 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: (1) Is it a fact that urinal drain bags used by both male and female sufferers of bladder conditions have to be paid for by the sufferers themselves and that the normal price for a satisfactory unit is $81. (2) Can he say whether a cheaper unreliable model is available at $61 which has a life expectancy of only two to three weeks. (3) If the position is as stated and considering that a single pension is approximately $82 per week, which means that a pensioner has to pay the equivalent of one week's pension for a urinal drain bag, is he prepared to provide some financial relief to the sufferers of this condition. (4) Is he able to say whether part of the component of the cost of the urinal drain bags is comprised of import and sales tax duties; if so, will he take steps to have these levels lowered as a means of providing help to victims of this condition. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (4) A range of aids for incontinence, including drainage bags, is available free of charge to eligible persons under the Federal Government's Program of Aids for Disabled People-PADP-which falls within my portfolio. Incontinence aids may be prescribed under PADP by a registered medical practitioner for persons who require them for a disability of a permanent or indefinite duration (generally this will be for the prescribing medical practitioner to determine) and who are ineligible to receive such aids under any other Government funded program e.g. the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, programs for disabled veterans, or existing State programs under which certain aids may be obtained from public hospitals. I have arranged for a copy of the PADP guidelines to be put forward to the member's electorate office. Question No. 394 Mr Wells asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: (1) Are payments to foster parents in Queensland of the secondary allowance grant for the continuation of education for grades 11 and 12 means tested; if so , will the Minister consider lifting the means test in order to encourage foster parents to perform this service to the community. (2) Is the handicapped children's allowance means tested, except where the child is severely handicapped; if so, will the Minister consider removing this means test entirely. (3) Is it a fact that the National Foster Parent's Association does not receive any funding for a national annual meeting; if so, does the Minister recognise that these meetings would provide valuable opportunities for an exchange of information among foster parents. (4) Will the Minister consider negotiating with relevant State Ministers to make funding available for a national annual meeting of foster parents. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The allowance referred to is the responsibility of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs who has advised that all payments to parents under the secondary allowances scheme are subject to an income test, since the scheme is designed specifically to help families on low incomes to keep their children at school for the final two secondary years. Foster parents as well as natural parents may receive this assistance provided their financial circumstances justify it. In Queensland foster parents caring for secondary school children receive at least $47.50 per week from State authorities for each such child. Payment of further assistance for educational purposes through the Secondary Allowances Scheme depends on financial need and it is not intended to waive the usual family income test in these cases. (2) Yes. I am currently considering all aspects of the provisions under which handicapped child's allowance is payable. (3) Yes. (4) While the Government appreciates the work of the National Foster Parent's Association at this stage it is not proposed to provide special funding to this organisation. Question No. 401 Mr Wells asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: (1) What concessions are currently available to pensioners who need a telephone as part of their personal safety and as a security in the case of unexpected attacks of illness. (2) Is he able to state how many pensioners are in this situation. (3) Will the scope of the concessions be increased in the future. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Holders of Pensioner Health Benefit cards are generally eligible for a concession which allows a reduction of over one-third in telephone rental. The concession is available for one telephone only. Provision for the concession is made in Telecom's Tariff Determination but the cost is borne by the Department of Social Security. In addition the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service-CRS-will meet the cost of installation of an exchange line and any telephone aid where they are considered to be an important part of a rehabilitation program for a client accepted by the Service. The CRS will pay these costs as a once only payment and will not meet any rental charges. (2) Statistics on the number of pensioners who may need a telephone as part of their personal safety and as a security in case of unexpected attacks of illness are not available, however at 30 June 1983 there were 705,742 pensioners receiving telephone rental concessions from the Department of Social Security. (3) Any consideration of increasing the scope of concessions would need to be in the context of the Government's overall Social Security program. Question No. 404 Mr Porter asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: (1) Did he request a report to be prepared urgently by his Department on 18 April 1983 concerning reports of high mortality rates of Aborigines on Queensland reserves; if so, has he received this report and will he table it in the House. (2) Did the Department of Health have any input into the preparation of this report; if so, what are the details. (3) Has he acted on the report; if so, what are the details; if not, why not. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The report was prepared for me by my Department. I do not intend to publish it, but would be prepared to provide a copy for the honourable member's information. (2) No. (3) I am extremely concerned about the status of Aboriginal health on reserves which, despite the publicly-discussed shortcomings of the reports published in the Medical Journal of Australia, is similar to the situation outlined in the 1979 Report: 'Aboriginal Health' by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs . Short-term measures, however, are not likely to achieve the substantial and continuing improvements we seek in this field. The former Queensland Minister for Health was left in no doubt as to the Government's commitment to Aboriginal control of and involvement in health care services, a policy shared by the former Government. Aboriginal Medical Services, as demonstrated by several recent funding decisions, are being encouraged to expand at a rate to match their growing capacities. I have expressed to the Queensland Minister for Health my concern at recent reports that Queensland Department of Health staff have been refused entry to Aboriginal reserves. Question No. 417 Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: (1) Will the Government exercise its constitutional powers and take steps to improve the inadequate and inefficient methods of the current co-operative system of framing and enforcing companies and securities laws; if so, when. (2) Has the Attorney-General's attention been drawn to the need for special legislation to allow small businesses to be freed from many of the onerous obligations in the current companies legislation. (3) Is the Government of the view that many of the existing problems could be overcome if unlimited liability companies were more frequently used for small businesses rather than the conventional limited liability companies; if so, what action will the Government take in this area. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) In accordance with the Australian Labor Party's Business Regulation Policy, the Government considers that the present co-operative scheme should be retained while it demonstrates progress in the achievement of its aims. However, in the longer term, the Government would prefer to move to a national system of companies and securities legislation administered by the national Parliament. (2) and (3) It is widely recognised that there is a need for an in-depth examination of the theory and legitimate use of the corporate form and of the relationship between limited liability and public disclosure. In particular there is a need to examine whether it is appropriate that in these matters small businesses should be subject to the same requirements as apply to large enterprises. I discussed these matters in an address to a seminar in Melbourne on 30 August 1983 on 'Abuse of Limited Liability' organised by Monash University. In the United Kingdom a consultative document was issued on this matter in 1981 by the Board of Trade. Included in that document were proposals formulated by the eminent authority on company law, Professor L C B Gower. In Australia the proposed Companies and Securities Law Review Committee will be operative from 1 January 1984 and will be suitably constituted to conduct inquiries of this kind. I expect that early appropriate references will be issued to the Committee by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. Question No. 437 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, 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 Hurford —The answer to honourable member's question is as follows: Total Commonwealth funds for housing purposes received, returned or refused by the Queensland Government over the period 1972-73 to 1982-83 are as follows: (a) included in answers to (c), (d) and (e) below (b) nil. (c)- Special purpose grants Received Refused $ $ States Grants (Dwellings for Aged Pensioners) Act 1969 2,580,794 . . States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974 5,960,000 . . States Grants (Housing ) Act 1971 5,073,500 . . Crisis Accommodation for Families Program 895,000 . . Commonwealth-State housing agreement- Pensioner grants 21,482,000 . . Aboriginal grants 25,754,000 . . Compensation for rehousing residents of Cribb Island, as part of re-development of Brisbane airport 1,500,000 . . (d) Dollar for dollar contributions Commonwealth-State housing agreement- United grants 29,079,000 . . United loans 75,885,000 . . Mortgage and rent relief scheme- grants . . 3,110,000 (e) Other contributions Commonwealth-State housing agreement- loans 188,427,000 . . Housing Assistance Act 1973- loans 350,000 . . Commonwealth-State housing agreement (servicemen)- loans 48,069,000 . . National Welfare Fund Act 1943- Contribution to rental housing losses following claims by Queensland under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement Act 1945-grants 3,192,711 . . In the period 1 July 1983 to 30 August 1983 the Queensland Government has received a further $2,690,000 in loans and $4,282,000 in grants under the 1981 Commonwealth-State housing agreement. In addition $211,750 has been paid as an interest subsidy under the States Grants (Housing) Act 1971. Question No. 377 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a report by Nicholas Ashford of the Washington Times, in the Australian, 19 August 1983, page 4, to the effect that (a) United States negotiators have used SALT arguments in conflict with the Intermediate Nuclear Force arguments and (b) British NATO missiles are independent of the US forces. (2) Will he press the superpowers to submit differences, which have pushed the world closer to bankruptcy, starvation and oblivion for over 30 years, to international tribunals including the International Court of Justice if prompt agreement is not reached and ratified along the lines of the McCloy-Zorin agreement as a minimum before 1984. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) I agree that even after 22 years the McCloy-Zorin principles provide one of the most clear and concise outlines for general and complete disarmament ever enunciated. I note that a principal element of the McCloy-Zorin principles-or, to give them their full title, the US-Soviet Joint Statement of Agreed Principles-tabled in the United Nations on 20 September 1961 is reliance on the United Nations for provision of much of the machinery required to implement a program of complete and general disarmament, peace keeping forces and creation of an international disarmament organisation within the framework of the UN to control disarmament and overseas inspection. The Government fully supports the concept of achieving progress on the vital issues of peace and disarmament through strengthening existing international machinery, including the United Nations. It believes, however, that a greater degree of co-operation between states than is currently evident will be required before there can be meaningful progress. The Government has made clear on a number of occasions that it will make every effort in the United Nations and elsewhere to increase trust and confidence between and among states. Question No. 513 Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 14 September 1983: (1) Which States have accepted the draft national conservation strategy for Australia. (2) When will the Interim Consultative Committee for the strategy be established. (3) What will be (a) the staffing and costs; (b) the terms of reference for the Committee, and (c) its membership. (4) Can the Committee be established before all States and the Northern Territory accept the strategy. (5) What relationship will the Committee have with the Australian Environment Council and the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) All States and the Northern Territory are at present considering the document 'A National Conservation Strategy for Australia proposed by a Conference held in Canberra June 1983'. (2) The Interim Consultative Committee is expected to be established as soon as possible. (3) (a) The Interim Consultative Committee will be supported by a small secretariat within the Department of Home Affairs and Environment and the costs will mainly relate to meetings of the Committee. (b) The terms of reference are at present being developed. (c) The Interim Consultative Committee will involve the participation of government, industry, research, educational and community interests. (4) Yes. (5) There will be close liaison between the Committee and the Australian Environment Council and the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers. Question No. 517 Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 14 September 1983: (1) Is the Government considering relocating the office of the supervising scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region from Bondi, New South Wales to Darwin, Northern Territory; if so, what costs would be incurred in the transfer. (2) What are the advantages and disadvantages of having the office of the supervising scientist located outside the Northern Territory. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) The decision to base the supervising scientist and his policy and administration staff in Sydney was made in 1979 having regard to the operational advantages and cost effectiveness that Sydney offered over a Northern Territory location. It would be premature to reassess these advantages and disadvantages at this time as the future role and mode of operation of the supervising scientist will depend on the outcome of the Government's review of its uranium policy. Question No. 538 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 15 September 1983: Is part of the Victorian allocation for road construction under the Australian bicentennial road development program being used to construct a tramline; if so, (a) why and (b) what other public transport schemes are receiving finance from the ABRD program. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Section 4 (3) of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development (ABRD) Trust Fund Act 1982 provides that monies available to a State for urban public arterial roads may be expended on urban public transport capital projects provided that the Minister for Transport is satisfied that any such project (i) would, if undertaken, result in the reduction of the traffic on, or the wear and tear affecting, urban arterial roads in the State, and (ii) is a project that that State regards as one that should be given priority. The Victorian Minister of Transport proposed that Stages 2 and 3 of the East Preston tram extension be funded from the ABRD trust fund. I considered that the project was consistent with the requirements of the ABRD Trust Fund Act. Accordingly, I approved this project for funding from the ABRD trust fund on 19 July 1983. (b) Details of this and other urban public transport projects currently approved for funding under the ABRD program are as follows: Commonwealth funding Date State Project $000's approved Queensland Kingston-Beenleigh rail electrification 9,087 8 February 1983 Queensland Contribution to Petrie-Caboolture rail electrification 15,125 2 March 1983 Queensland Car/bus passenger interchanges at Mt Gravatt (Garden City), Windsor (Northey Street), and Toowong 707 8 February 1983 Queensland Car/rail passenger interchanges at Yeronga, East Ipswich and Toombul 553 8 February 1983 Victoria Extension of East Preston tramline to Bundoora 13,400 19 July 1983 Victoria Tram pasenger interchange at Domain Road, St Kilda 770 19 July 1983 Victoria Car/rail passenger interchange in Croydon 200 19 July 1983 Question No. 555 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 21 September 1983: (1) Is it a fact that enormous damage is being done to pasture in parts of Tasmania by the root feeding cockchafer. (2) Is he able to say what investigations are being carried out by the Tasmanian Department of Agriculture aimed at controlling this problem. (3) Is he able to say whether the South Australian Waite Agricultural Research Institute is assisting in the feasibility of developing biological controls and insect disease cultures. (4) Does the Government intend to assist in these efforts to combat this very serious problem; if so, what assistance; if not, why not. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware that the subterranean insect pest known as the pasture cockchafer has been a problem in the northern midlands areas of Tasmania for the past 20 years or more. I understand that in recent years this insect has caused damage to approximately 20,000 hectares of pasture. (2) I am advised that the Tasmanian Department of Agriculture has in progress a long term program concerning the control of the pest. It has been found that the use of pesticides is not economically feasible on this subterranean insect. Therefore, the control program places priority on developing pasture management techniques which will provide fodder to replace that lost by insect damage, and on the development of pasture species which can tolerate the insect. In addition , a biological control program using nematodes is being developed in collaboration with the CSIRO. (3) Yes I understand that an insect pathologist from the Waite Agricultural Research Institute is undertaking research in the evaluation of alternative agents for the biological control program. (4) Responsibility for pest control rests with individual land holders and State authorities. In this particular case, the Commonwealth is providing assistance through the research work of CSIRO. Question No. 561 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 22 September 1983: (1) What is the status of a request by the Darwin television station NTD-8 for a special microwave rate. (2) Has he intervened to help achieve a compromise between Telecom Australia and the station. (3) If a compromise has been reached, (a) when and (b) what are the details of the concessional rate for microwave transmission. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) Agreement was reached between Telecom and NTD-8 on 7 September 1983 for the use of television relay facilities for a period of 12 months from 1 October 1983 . (2) No, other than to seek information from the parties. (3) (a) See answer to (1) above. (b) The agreement negotiated with NTD-8 was based on Telecom's standard commercial rates. Such commercial agreements are confidential to the parties concerned.