Thursday, 8 December 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: El Salvador and Nicaragua To the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: In view of the increasing level of violence and the escalation of (officially admitted) US-sponsored covert and overt attacks against the people of Central America, particularly directed against Nicaragua, and noting the political solution proposed by the governments of France and Mexico to the civil war in El Salvador. Therefore we humbly request that the government of the Commonwealth of Australia: 1. Recognise the Democratic Revolutionary Front/Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FDR/FMLN) of El Salvador as a representative political force. 2. Support, in any way possible, the call of the FDR/FMLN for a ''direct dialogue [with the government junta] without previous conditions, based on establishing peace and social justice in El Salvador.'' 3. Support in the United Nations (and other international forums) the initiatives of the government of Nicaragua for ''direct negotiations with the United States government based on mutual respect and recognition of [the] right to self-determination'' to resolve the military conflict in the region. 4. Extend economic and humanitarian aid without strings to the governments of Nicaragua and Grenada for the purpose of economic and social reconstruction. 5. Place all possible pressure on the government of the United States to unconditionally withdraw all US military forces and facilities in the region, to end its support for anti-Nicaraguan forces in Honduras and Costa Rica, and to end all aid to the Salvadoran junta. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin,Dr Everingham,Mr Hand,Mr Hollis,Mr Kent,Ms McHugh,Mr Milton,Mr Saunderson,Mr Scott,Mr Staples,Mr Steedman and Dr Theophanous. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia showeth: 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 will 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 Baldwin,Mr Robert Brown,Mr Cadman,Mr Dobie,Mr Drummond,Ms Fatin,Mr Hawker,Mr Maher,Mr Mildren,Mr Scott and Mr Wells. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers and parents working in and for the interests of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout Australia, respectfully showeth that: 1. We deplore the unprincipled and self-interested attacks being orchestrated by minority sects and groups against the policies and person of the Commonwealth Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, the Hon. Senator Susan Ryan. 2. We fully support the Federal Government's actions in reducing funds for the wealthiest private schools, and in breaking the nexus between government and non -government schools costs. 3. We endorse the Federal Government's principled opposition to the provision of 'base grants' to all non-government schools, as a positive step towards fulfilling their commitment of primary obligation to Australia's government schools. 4. We call upon the Federal Government however to recognise that its failure to create an adequate general recurrent resource base for government schools through providing increased recurrent grants, will undermine its own Special Programmes and thus frustrate its own stated educational objectives of greater equity and participation. 5. We support the Federal Government's stated policy of entering into direct negotiations for joint agreement on these grants with State/Territory Governments, to ensure a planned programme of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin,Dr Klugman,Ms McHugh,Mr Scholes and Mr Staples. 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: We, as members of a school Parents' Club, object to legislation that calls for the payment of the Bank Debit Tax by a voluntary organisation working for the benefit of children in government schools. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that exemption from the payment of Bank Debit Tax will be granted to School Parents' Clubs in government schools And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew,Mr O'Neil and Mr Porter. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to RAAF Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Dr Harry Edwards. 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 we, the loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our strong opposition to any proposals to remove or undermine the importance of the place of God and/ or the Queen in our national life, and democratic institutions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Parliament assembled reaffirm our nation's total dependence on God the Creator in accordance with our Australian Constitution, which commences with the words ''Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God'', and the Standing Orders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives which prescribe that Parliament each day shall open with a special prayer to Almighty God and the Lord's Prayer. We also call on the Parliament assembled to re-affirm our genuine loyalty to our Head of State, the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II-'God save the Queen'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie and Mr Mountford. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (a) United States military and intelligence bases which continue to operate on Australian soil pose a threat to our safety; (b) The installations which transmit messages to and from nuclear armed submarines operate with little or no Australian supervision; (c) These bases make us extremely vulnerable to attack and a prime target in the event of war. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Australian Parliament will, as a matter of urgency, commence negotiations for removal of the bases in the interests of the Australian people. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows: That the Australian Cadet Corps has great value in the development of youth in the schools of Australia, That the reorganisation of the Australian Cadet Corps will disperse accumulated expertise and interest of those involved, and in some cases, negate the efforts of many people over many years. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will reconsider its decision, and that the Government will not reorganise the Australian Cadet Corps . And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows : That Bozlin Pty Ltd trading as John Bozic Automotive Services, have provided for many years good and reliable service to customers near Parliament House, and represent the only Automotive Service Station available in the Parliamentary triangle, convenient to visitors and persons working at, or near Parliament House. That the National Capital Development Commission has indicated its intention to close the access road between Coronation Drive and Kaye Place. That access has existed in one form or another between Kaye Place and Coronation Drive for most of the last fifty five years, and in the judgement of petitioners that access road is convenient, and represents no traffic hazard. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will ensure that the traffic link between Coronation Drive and Kaye Place is not closed. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: (1) That the Macedonian language be used by Government Departments in multi- lingual publications. (2) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language as a Higher School Certificate (HSC) subject in Secondary schools. (3) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language in tertiary institutions and that a course be introduced at Monash University in the Department of Slavic languages. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly request that Parliament take immediate action to implement the above measures. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and 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 Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a ''first strike'' attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important United States military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne. 3. Omega and other United States bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped, if we are to survive. Your petitioners pray that Members and the House assembled will close Omega. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, believing that certain forms of discrimination against women exist in this nation, humbly petition that your Honourable House will ratify the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. And we will always thus petition. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms McHugh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia showeth that proprietors and customers of small milk bars and mixed businesses are financially disadvantaged as a result of widespread price discrimination in the wholesale supply of food, confectionery, and beverages. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will- 1. Initiate a full and complete inquiry into all aspects of marketing in the grocery, confectionery, and soft drink industries. 2. Urgently review sections of the Trade Practices Act 1974 relating to price discrimination. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Mildren. 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. Re the deep and urgent concern being experienced as a result of the decision not to proceed with the Alice Springs-Darwin rail link, whereby employment security in the Iron Triangle cities of Port Pirie, Port Augusta, and Whyalla is adversely affected, and in some cases seriously threatened; and further, that the rail link is regarded as vital for Australia's defence security; and also that the tourist potential of Darwin and the Northern Territory in consequence is gravely hampered. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will readdress itself to the Alice Springs-Darwin railway project as a matter of paramount priority in the light of the manifest detrimental consequences to employment prospects in the Iron Triangle, the necessity for stabilising the State's economy, the significant requirement to add to national defence capability, and the express need to develop Northern Territory tourist opportunities. 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 assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a referendum rejected the introduction of territorial government or local government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to territorial or local government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of territorial or local government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. 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 and 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. We, the people who have signed this petition ask all parties, Labor, Liberal, Democrats and others, to stop the latest increase in taxes and the forever increases in taxes which hit all people of the country of Australia in all goods and consumer goods and we call for a referendum on taxes and interest rates. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Theophanous. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of local governments in Australia showeth: General revenue grants to local government under personal income tax sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2 per cent in 1983-84 over 1982-83. The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2 per cent. The increase in grants to State Governments over the same period was 11.8 per cent. Increased demands are being made on local government authorities to participate in Federal Government programs e.g. Community Employment Program. The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in general revenue grants to local government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to local government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew,Mr Braithwaite,Mr Drummond,Mr Hawker,Mr Newman,Mr Porter and Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The petition from parents representing the government schools in New South Wales respectively showeth: 1. They call on the Federal Government to re-affirm publicly that its primary obligation is to government schools. 2. They support the Federal Government's policy decisions which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government school costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent resource base which is adequate for government schools through the provision of increased recurrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State/ Territory governments which will ensure a planned programme of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin,Mr Dobie,Mr Fife,Mr Hollis,Mr Howard,Mrs Kelly and Mr Kerin. 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 petitions 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 Mr Cunningham,Mr Duffy,Mr Hawker and Mr Mildren. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain residents of the Divisions of Fadden and Oxley shows that: Concern is felt at the proposal of Australia Post to cease using Kalbar Post Office as a sorting/delivery office, and to transfer these services to Boonah Post Office. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will ensure that the current services offered by Kalbar Post Office be retained at Kalbar. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beddall. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain residents of the Divisions of Fadden and Oxley shows that: Concern is felt at the proposal of Australia Post to cease using Roadvale Post Office as a sorting/delivery office and to transfer these services to Boonah Post Office. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will ensure that the current services offered by the Roadvale Post Office be retained. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beddall. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Paterson's Curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Paterson's Curse. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Tasmania shows: (a) We are shocked and disappointed at the Federal Government's decision not to upgrade the Wynyard Airport. (b) This decision will inevitably lead to downgrading and closure of the Wynyard Airport. (c) Closure of Wynyard Airport will cause grave hardship and inconvenience to the people of the North West and West Coast regions of Tasmania. (d) We urge the Federal Government to immediately reverse this disastrous decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; Alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; Alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; Alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth that your petitioners are outraged and disturbed by the exportation of live animals for slaughter to overseas. 1. That, as a people of a democratic society, we urge the Australian Government to ban the export of live animals for slaughter overseas. 2. That the export of live horses to Japan for slaughter for human consumption be banned on the grounds that it is cruel and unnecessary. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. Petitions received. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House censures the Government for its failure to act on the advice of its Attorney-General and Solicitor-General with respect to a possible breach of section 79 (3) of the Crimes Act by the honourable member for Port Adelaide in the light of the report of Mr Justice Hope. The motion will be seconded by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). Mr SPEAKER —There is no need to specify a seconder in a notice of motion. Mr Dawkins-Mr Speaker, with your indulgence I say that it would be the Government's view to facilitate the bringing on of this motion later in the day. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the- (a) recent falls in interest rates; (b) prospects of further reductions in interest rates, and (c) success of the Government's First Home Owners Scheme; and (2) is of the opinion that together these facts have increased confidence and activity in both the building industry and the real estate market. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recognises the vital importance of the small business sector to the Australian economy; (2) notes that the Government has not implemented its pre-election promise to implement an Australian small business action program; and (3) calls on the Government as a matter of priority to declare 1984 the year of small business to enable greater recognition of the key role of small business to economic growth and the creation of jobs. Notices of Motion Notices of Motion Notices of Motion Notices of Motion Notices of Motion Mr SINCLAIR(New England) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) dissociates itself from the recent press statement by the honourable member for Macarthur falsely claiming that the Government is undertaking a new $10.3m capital works program at HMAS Albatross, Nowra, N.S.W.; (2) notes that 9 of the 10 items listed in the statement were either completed by the previous Government or cancelled by the present one; and (3) calls on the Minister for Defence to repudiate these false claims which have affected morale of Fleet Air Arm personnel in Nowra who have been so unfairly treated by the present Government under its anti-Fleet Air Arm policies . Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the Soviet Union's Nobel Prize winner and most distinguished nuclear physicist, Professor Andrei Sakharov- (a) has denounced nuclear weapons; (b) has called for the granting of human rights in the Soviet Union; (c) has condemned the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan; (d) called for a boycott of the Moscow Olympic Games; (e) was subsequently arrested and exiled, without a telephone or other contact with the outside world, in the close town of Gorky; and (f) is a sick man who has suffered a heart attack; and (2) calls on the Soviet authorities to release Professor Sakharov and permit him to leave the Soviet Union. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) thanks the Government for reversing its earlier sneaky decision to ban the Queen's Medal because it- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I will allow the honourable member to proceed, but I remind him that he knows that such terms are not usual in notices of motion and will be removed. I will allow him to proceed. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Do you want me to remove the word 'sneaky'? Mr SPEAKER —Yes. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I move: That this House- (1) thanks the Government for reversing its earlier decision to ban the Queen's Medal because it regards it as reminding people about Queen Elizabeth II, and is inconsistent with the planned Republic of Australia, and (2) expresses its concern that the Government did not announce at the same time it had abandoned plans to prevent Australians from being awarded the Victoria Cross which the Government also regards as inconsistent with its planned Republic of Australia. Mr GEAR(Tangney) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House congratulates the Independent Teachers Federation of Australia for its recognition of the fairness of the Government's education policy towards private schools and for its recognition of the misrepresentation of the Government's policy by lobby groups. Mr GROOM(Braddon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) notes that the recommendations contained in the draft report of the Industries Assistance Commission on the Dairy Industry would have a disastrous impact on Tasmanian dairy farmers and manufacturers, and (2) calls on the Government to give special attention to the views of the Tasmanian Dairy Industry before making final decisions on this important report. Mr Goodluck proceeding to give a notice of motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I thank the honourable member for Franklin for trying to lighten my day, but I must rule his notice of motion out of order on the ground of being frivolous. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the statement by the Prime Minister that he has received letters from within the Catholic hierarchy applauding his Government's education policy even though the 45 bishops who make up the highest Catholic authority in Australia, have publicly opposed these policies, and (2) calls on the Prime Minister to table those letters he claims to have received so that the House may judge the matter for itself. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its concern that Mr Justice Hope was precluded from considering criminal charges against the Member for Port Adelaide by the premature opinion of the Attorney-General; (2) dismisses the grounds of the Attorney-General's opinion of loss of office, political sanctions, uncertainty of law and lack of malicious motive as being superficial and political motivated; and (3) endorses Mr Justice Hope's conclusion that the honourable member for Port Adelaide transgressed section 79 of the Crimes Act relating to national security . Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the activities prior to the ALP Caucus vote on uranium mining on 7 November 1983, the cover-up which has occurred since, and the refusal of the Government to call on for debate General Business notice of motion No. 261 to refer these national scandals to the House of Representatives Privileges Committee. Mr SPEAKER —I will refer to some of the terminology used by the honourable member and advise him whether it is in order. Contingent Notice of Motion Mr REEVES(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, contingent upon General Business notice of motion No. 5 being called on for discussion, on the next day of sitting I shall move and the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) will second: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) the honourable Member for Denison was a Minister on 4 March 1983, and (b) alleged discussions between Mr Valeriy Ivanov and Mr David Combe occurred while the honourable Member for Denison was a Minister, and (2) requires the honourable Member for Denison to apologise to the House for presenting a notice of motion based on information he knows to be untrue and thereby deliberately misleading the House. Mr Hodgman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It was a direct quote from the transcript of the tape attached to the Hope Royal Commission report. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recognises that small business in Australia is being restricted and shackled by red tape, bureaucracy and Government interference, and (2) calls on the Government, as part of a year of small business in Australia, to implement a plan of action to eliminate all unnecessary restrictions and regulations inhibiting the growth and health of the small business sector. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) the recent publication of the formal indictment of the 4 members of the Workers' Defence Committee (KOR) in Warsaw, and (b) that the principal alleged offence of the defendants in their having worked for the establishment of parliamentary democracy in Poland, and (2) calls on the Polish authorities to abandon this persecution of four world- respected Polish leaders. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that since the election of a Labor Government- (a) inflation has decreased from 11.4% in the March quarter to 9.3% in the September quarter 1983; (b) interest rates have fallen from 16% to 13.5%; (c) employment has increased between February and October 1983 by 39700 (0.6%) in seasonally adjusted terms and by 75800 (1.2%) in non-seasonally adjusted terms; (d) consumer confidence has increased between March and October from 97.4 points on a scale used by a Melbourne University study to 106.4 points; and (e) manufacturing output has increased between February and September by 5.2% as measured by the ANZ Bank index of factory production, seasonally adjusted, and (2) congratulates the Government on its achievements in the economic sphere, and expresses its view that Labor is now entitled to be known as the party of sound economic management. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) rejects the attempt by the Government to destroy the oath of allegiance, and (2) calls on the Prime Minister to now publicly indicate his time table for the following radical republican proposals- (a) alteration of the oath of allegiance for members of Parliament; (b) replacement of the Australian flag; (c) banning of the Victoria Cross; (d) removal of portraits of The Queen- Mr Leo McLeay-Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is there not a necessity for notices of motion to have at least some small basis in fact? Mr HODGMAN —I have the facts; we can debate it now. Mr SPEAKER —Order! When the honourable member for Denison is elected Speaker he will be able to give rulings in the House. The requirement with notices of motion is that they be on matters on which a decision can be made by the House. In that sense the honourable member's notice of motion is in order. Mr HODGMAN — (d) removal of portraits of The Queen from public buildings throughout Australia, and (e) banning of Prayers at the commencement of each day's parliamentary sitting of the National Parliament. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House notes- (1) the misleading and dishonest notices of motion placed on the Notice Paper by the honourable member for Denison; and (2) that these notices of motion have no basis in fact. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the detrimental effect on pharmacists and their businesses of the introduction of Medicare and the withdrawal of private health fund agencies; and (2) calls on the Government to recognise the harmful consequences Medicare will have on the cash flow and profits of pharmacy business operations and the flow- on result of loss of jobs. Mr Chynoweth proceeding to give a notice of motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will realise that the notice of motion is out of order on the grounds of its being frivolous. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House notes that, despite the notice of motion given by the honourable member for Bennelong on 8 December 1983 relating to the Government's education funding policies, the Chairman of the N.S.W. Catholic Education Commission, Archbishop James Carroll, has welcomed the Government's initiatives. The motion is seconded by the honourable member for Grayndler. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the detrimental effect the Government's proposed Medicare categorisation system of private hospitals will have on Private Hospitals, and (2) calls on the Government to- (a) recognise this detrimental effect on the cash flow, profits and employment opportunities in private hospitals; and (b) take action to stop the necessity of many private hospitals having to close their doors. Mr Hand having given notice of a motion, it was later ruled out of order. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House expresses its grave concern at the rapidly increasing State charges imposed by the Victorian Government since its election 20 months ago where- (a) state taxes and charges have increased by 40 per cent; (b) hospital services have been reduced and charges increased by 62 per cent; and (c) average electricity and gas charges have risen by 24 per cent. Debate resumed from 7 December, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(10.24) —Telecom- munications interception, known in common parlance as phone tapping, is an extremely sensitive matter. The practice is currently regulated by the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. That Act empowers a judge to approve telephone interception by the Australian Federal Police in accordance with strict rules set out in the Act. The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1983, which is before the House , amends that Act. It does not, however, alter the present situation regarding the circumstances in which telecommunications can be intercepted. The provisions of that Act, whereby the interception of telecommunications is prohibited except where specially authorised in the interests of security or in connection with inquiries related to narcotics offences, remain as they were. The Bill before the House deals only with the question of what happens to material obtained as a result of a telephone interception. As the Bill now stands, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, if information so derived relates to the intended or completed commission of an offence against Australian law that would be punishable by more than three years in gaol, may pass it on to an officer of the State or Federal Police for investigation. It is a rule of statutory interpretation in our legal system that if an Act says that one can pass something on to X, that means one cannot pass it on to Y. In case anyone is faintly interested, the lawyers refer to this very sensible legal rule by the Latin maxim 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius'- to say one thing is to exclude the alternative. Obviously then, since the present Act says that the Commissioner of the Federal Police can pass the information on to a police officer, it means that he cannot pass it on to someone else who is not a police officer. Equally obviously, judges are not police officers. Consequently, the Act as it now stands prohibits the passing on of information obtained from telephone interceptions to the inquiry currently being carried on by Mr Justice Cross in New South Wales. This amendment is designed to deal with that situation and only with that situation. It authorises the passing on of information derived from telephone interceptions to the inquiry now being conducted by Mr Justice Cross, according to the strict criteria laid down in the Bill. It does not go further and authorise the passing on of such information to judicial inquiries generally or to any other bodies at all. For that to happen it would be necessary for this Parliament to pass another amendment. The reason that this amendment is drawn so narrowly and is confined to a one-off set of circumstances is precisely the fact with which I began, namely, that phone tapping is a sensitive matter. Indeed it is a technology fraught with danger to the civil liberties of citizens. If in a particular case it is necessary to facilitate the dissemination of information, it should be done with extreme care. That is why this amendment does not try to draw up ground rules for future cases but confines itself to the present one. If in the future another exceptional situation like this one arises, the Parliament will have to consider whether to act as we have done in this situation. It would not do for a parliament of fallible men and women to try to envisage too precisely all the possible situations in which information which has such potential to infringe the liberties of citizens can safely be conveyed from one party to the other. This amendment is the product of very careful examination in the committees of the Government party and as well incorporates further amendments representing the substance of contributions made by various opposition parties in another place. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(10.28) —This Bill reminds us of the controversy which surrounded the early release scheme in New South Wales and the transfer of information from the Australian Federal Police to the New South Wales Police Commissioner about that matter. The Opposition raised that subject here with a great deal of determination, as you would remember, Mr Speaker, and the upshot of that was the resignation of a New South Wales Minister of the Crown. That is how effective the information has been in promoting at least some recognition in New South Wales of some parliamentary propriety. However, the factors that emerged from the transfer of the information at that earlier time did not give credit to this Government. One remembers the task which the previous Special Minister of State had, at the behest of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), to transfer that information to the relevant Minister in New South Wales. It would seem from the ensuing controversy and the subsequent late resignation of the New South Wales Minister that in fact there was some delinquency in making sure that all the information was available to the New South Wales Government. Whilst it was apparently in the hands of the New South Wales Police Commissioner, it appeared from subsequent argument that the Ministers, especially the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Wran, and Mr Jackson, were not made aware of all the detail in the particular tapes. The unofficial inquiry, not the judicial inquiry at the time, brought out the fact that the Police Commissioner of New South Wales had the decision to make as to what was relevant and what was not relevant information to put before the unofficial inquiry by police officers. The initial decision for Mr Jackson to continue in office was made on the basis of an internal inquiry's report which did not consider the full information that was contained on those tapes. So it is with some satisfaction that the Opposition supports the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill, knowing that there is now an official sanction to the transfer of information. It is hoped that this information will be accepted at the inquiry, that it will constitute a basis for decision making and that the inquiry will come to some conclusion as to the evidence which is then tendered by individuals before Mr Justice Cross. The Opposition contends that the Federal Police Commissioner's capacity to decide what is relevant information to put before the Attorney-General for his decision as to transfer of that information is an oversight and a responsibility that ought to remain with the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and not the Police Commissioner. This Bill sanctions the Attorney-General taking responsibility for the transfer of that information. It ought to be the Attorney -General's decision as to what information is transferred if he takes responsibility for its transfer. In this regard it seems that the matter of what is relevant is a subject for the Attorney-General himself otherwise he would be taking responsibility for a decision as to the choice of information which is not his own. He ought, for his own protection and for the responsibility of government, to have the final say as to what is transferred. Again I say that the formalisation of this transfer seems to be a very much better position than the one which was adopted previously when the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) was deputed to transfer information and it apparently got lost in the system. The New South Wales Premier, Mr Wran, denied that he had seen the relevant information. A Minister, who was subsequently sacked or had to resign, denied that he had seen the information. A police commissioner did not put all that information before an internal inquiry because he believed it would jeopardise further drug inquiries. We had a most unsatisfactory position where a Minister was dragged out of office as information was in a sense oozing from the system. This is not desirable. This Bill is supported but on the basis that the Opposition does not agree that the Attorney-General should be presented with telephone tapes which have been vetted by the Commissioner of Police. Therefore, we have in this Bill a divided responsibility which we ought not to have. The Opposition opposes that aspect of the legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Howe) read a third time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —by leave-I move: That this House- Noting that, in 1967, an overwhelming majority of the people of Australia voted to amend the Constitution so that this Parliament would have the power to legislate for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to the people of any race for whom it was deemed necessary to make special laws; Noting also that the change to the Constitution was made to enable the national parliament to discharge a national responsibility to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of Australia; and Bearing in mind that the Senate unanimously adopted the following resolution on 20 February 1975: 'That the Senate accepts the fact that the idigenous people of Australia, now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, were in possession of this entire nation prior to the 1788 First Fleet landing at Botany Bay, urges the Australian Government to admit prior ownership by the said indigenous people, and introduce legislation to compensate the people now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders for the dispossession of their land; (1) Acknowledges that (a) the people whose descendants are now known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of Australia were the prior occupiers and original owners of Australia and had occupied the territory of Australia for many thousands of years in accordance with an Aboriginal system of laws which determined the relationship of Aboriginal responsibility for and to the land to which they belonged: (b) from the time of arrival of representatives of King George III of England, and the subsequent conquest of the land and the subjugation of the Aboriginal people, no settlement was concluded between those representatives and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; (c) as a result of the colonization of the land by Great Britain the rights of the original owners and prior occupiers were totally disregarded; (d) since the arrival of European settlers in Australia, the original inhabitants have been dispersed and dispossessed with the result that their descendants are, as a group, the most disadvantaged in Australian society; (e) this disadvantage persists, despite measures taken by State, Territory and Australian governments, and by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people themselves, so that further measures by Australian society as a whole, and by the Parliament of the Commonwealth in particular, will be required to ensure real equality and advancement for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. (2) Considers, therefore, that the special measures which must be taken include action in the following main areas: (a) the development of effective processes of consultation with Aboriginal people in order that the Aboriginal people may assert control of all aspects of their lives, having regard to the National Aboriginal Conference's responsibility to represent and present the views of Aborigial and Islander people throughout Australia; (b) the recognition by this Parliament of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's rights to land, in accordance with the following five basic principles: (i) Aboriginal land to be held under inalienable freehold title; (ii) protection of Aboriginal sites; (iii) Aboriginal control in relation to mining on Aboriginal land; (iv) access to mining royalty equivalents; and (v) compensation for lost land to be negotiated. (c) the continuation and acceleration of programs designed to ensure Aboriginal equality of opportunity in fields including health, education, housing, employmet and welfare; (d) the development of programs by all appropriate means to enable Aboriginal people to take part in economic activities for their own advantage; (e) the promotion and protection of Aboriginal cultural identity, in ways considered appropriate by Aboriginals, including measures designed to: (i) codify in writing Aboriginal languages, and assist in recording oral history; (ii) preserve and protect Aboriginal sites and objects; (iii) restore to Aboriginal people sacred objects relevant to their history, tradition and culture; (iv) enhance the development of traditional or contemporary art forms; and (v) provide interpreter services. (f) restoration of the rights of Aboriginal families to raise and protect their own children by means of uniform laws and procedures in respect of child custody , fostering and adopting; (g) respect for, and in appropriate circumstances, the application of, Aboriginal customary law and related practices as part of the law of Australia; and (h) the development of improved community relations between Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal Australians, which requires a growing understanding on both sides by means of: (i) public education programs; and (ii) fostering the study of Aboriginal history, language, anthropology and archaeology in Australian schools and institutions of learning. (3) It is therefore of the view that (a) the Australian people will be truly free and united only when the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of this nation are free of the distress, the poverty and the alienation that has been their lot; and (b) the Bicentennial year of 1988 provides an immediate focus point towards which all Australians can work together to achieve the objectives set out in this resolution. This motion seeks to provide the Parliament and the nation with a set of principles which will guide the attitudes of the majority of Australians to Aboriginal Australians and of them to us. In doing so, it will provide the foundations for policies that governments can apply in the future. What has happened in this country between black and white has often been ignoble and we have only recently begun to admit to ourselves that the widely accepted version of our national beginnings, of white men bringing the benefits of civilization to benighted heathens, is rather less than the whole truth. Even more so, the comfortable assumption that the Aborigines accepted, perhaps even welcomed, this civilizing mission without putting up a real fight is a view of the past which no longer stands up to examination. The bicentennial year of 1988 provides a focus for us to think seriously about our national beginnings. It provides an opportunity for this Parliament and our people not merely to contemplate our achievements as a nation but also to come to terms with our own history. The origins of Australia as the Western nation we know today are seen by indigenous people here as the end of the Dreaming, not the birth of the nation. For those who had been the custodians of this land for so long it was the beginning of dispossession, disease and death; in short, of the destruction of Aboriginal society. We expect Aboriginal people to forget the past and not be bitter, but they do not forget the past, of course, because for them the past is always present. To be able to remember a time immemorial sounds to us an irony and we either do not believe it or try to dismiss it. But the Aboriginal people dare not forget the past or allow their children to forget it, for people who have survived a holocaust will teach their children the hard lessons of that survival. Now we are concerned that they might not be inclined to join in our bicentennial celebrations in 1988 and we entertain, even with some resentment, the thought that we could stand, therefore, to be embarrassed in the eyes of the world. We would, of course, feel it most unreasonable of them not to come to the party when we have, for so long, allowed them to see only the worst of us. The European vision of Australia's future had no place in it for the Aboriginal people for their values and their traditions, so we have allowed them to have a small share of the wealth of their own country and so few rights and privileges. It is now clear that we must make some amends, we must allow them some redress, albeit at some cost to the rest of us and with some sacrifice. We must understand the past, which we cannot change, in order to build the future. But we must not repeat the hypocrisy. We must not make only cosmetic changes merely for the sake of the bicentennial celebrations. The principles of reconciliation can and must be clearly established by 1988. Effective reconciliation between pre- and post-colonial Australia can be expected, if we begin now, to take until the end of the century, but it will bring real benefits for the nation as a whole. There is no better time to begin than now. Ten years ago, the Whitlam Labor Government began its work with a strong commitment to Aboriginal people. That Government laid the foundations for much progress to be made. The former Government followed those trends, although I must say that we in this Government came to office with a concern that our predecessors had allowed conservative State governments to slow the momentum of that earlier progress, and to that extent the constitutional prerogatives of this Parliament were eroded. Nevertheless, much has been accomplished over the last decade. The grosser excesses of discrimination have been removed at least from Commonwealth and some State statute books. Aboriginal people are now more visible and vocal than ever before. Their children have reasonable access to most schools and we now see more Aboriginal graduates coming from the various tertiary institutions. We now face a challenge to go on to ensure that Aboriginal people enjoy real justice and equality. I need only remind the House of the recent tragic and distressing events at Roebourne in Western Australia and Redfern in Sydney, to point out how far we have yet to go. Race riots have become, unfortunately, part of the permanent social disharmony of other nations. This Government is determined that that will not develop here. We must all acknowledge that there exist in some parts of Australia living conditions and ghetto attitudes which will enable racial tensions and confrontation, even to the point of physical confrontation, to flourish. Everyone must ensure that that path is not followed, because to do so threatens our sense of ourselves as Australians. The kind of future we can glimpse from these incidents must not grow into a common-place part of life. All must act to prevent that, and this Government will give the lead. This Government therefore looks to achieve further progress for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people through the two principles of consultation and self-determination, that is, with the involvement of the Aboriginal people in the whole process. Acting on this principle, we have enlarged the resources available to the National Aboriginal Conference and given it the means to speak to the Government as the national voice of Aboriginal interests. We have supported a range of other bodies with specialist roles in Aboriginal land rights, health, education, broadcasting, child care and adoption , legal aid, art and culture. All our policies, each of our programs and projects, have been and will continue to be fashioned in discussions with Aboriginal people and their organisations at national and community levels. In an arrangement which is probably unique in government, the NAC has complete and regular access to me and to my Department, which functions as a resource for Aboriginal people. A member of the NAC is attached to my private office as liaison officer. On the great issues of policy, I expect the NAC to advise me and I expect to be guided by that advice in the action I take or recommend to the Government. I recognise that, for an organisation which was for so long overlooked or disregarded by former governments, the new role of the NAC is placing some strains on the existing mechanism. NAC members are all committed to accepting this new leadership role on behalf of their people. The motion before the House identifies the major areas of policy we have pursued and will pursue. The first is land rights. The motion sets down five principles which will guide us in this important matter. I repeat them here as they appear in the motion before the House: (i) Aboriginal land to be held under inalienable freehold title: (ii) protection of Aboriginal sites; (iii) Aboriginal control in relation to mining on Aboriginal land; (iv) access to mining royalty equivalents; (v) compensation for lost land to be negotiated. I have already established a group of legal advisers, instructed by the NAC and land councils. They are now preparing draft legislation for consideration by the NAC. It is not my intention to bring a package of national land rights legislation to this Parliament without the approval of the NAC and the support of Aboriginal people. As a separate exercise, and ahead of national land rights legislation, the same group is working on a law to protect sacred sites and objects throughout Australia. This work has the highest priority for Aboriginal people. We should note the significance of this, for a people still suffering significant material deprivation. Funds available to my portfolio for Aboriginal programs were increased this year by 27 per cent. In a time of financial difficulty, this decision illustrates more directly than anything else, our commitment to advance Aboriginal interests. We have supported increased programs in housing, health, education and training, legal aid and community works. We have supported the Aboriginal Development Commission in its functions. My colleague the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) recently announced a significant increase in funds for Aboriginal housing as part of grants to the States for welfare housing. These funds will be available to the States on the basis that they will consult with Aborigines through the National Aboriginal Conference and the Aboriginal Development Commission as to the allocation of particular priorities. The Government believes that it is profoundly important to maintain and preserve Aboriginal culture. My colleague the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) and I strongly support the Aboriginal Arts Board and endorse the determination expressed by the new Chairman that Aborigines themselves will determine the Board's future and the role it plays in revitalising Aboriginal art and culture. We have supported Aboriginal legal aid services with large increases in funds-more than 20 per cent over last year in many cases. We have encouraged the services to mount test cases to establish the rights of Aboriginal citizens before the law. My colleague the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has announced a major review of the Human Rights Commission Act and the Racial Discrimination Act to give these statutes more teeth. We shall pursue this initiative vigorously. Aboriginal people still remember with pain and anguish the deliberate policy of State governments in removing children from their parents in the vain hope that this forced separation would accelerate assimilation. This has led to continuing Aboriginal concern about child welfare and custody laws. We have asked State authorities likewise to act on their concerns. If satisfactory results are not obtained, legislation may be brought to this Parliament. We are developing a range of programs and projects to provide employment for Aborigines, especially the young just out of school. My Department has a special allocation of $7m under the community employment program for unemployed Aboriginal people. We are actively working to place Aborigines in training positions and I thank honourable members of all parties whose personal co-operation has meant that currently 52 young Aborigines are now receiving training in their electorate offices. This number represents a significant increase over a year ago. In education my colleague the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) has recently announced new proposals to get Aboriginal children into school and to encourage them to receive training and skills so that they can live useful lives in their own community or in the wider Australian society. We are committed to the National Aboriginal Education Committee target of 1,000 Aboriginal teachers by 1990. We have acted to step up the programs we inherited and to initiate new ones. Our main efforts will be concentrated in the areas set out in the resolution, for these are the things Aborigines themselves most want. We shall act on several fronts at the same time, believing that there are many aspects of Aboriginal life which are unsatisfactory and urgently need attention. The resources needed will be considerable, but should not be thought of as beyond the means of an affluent society such as Australia. What is needed is a planned, co-ordinated and phased attack on each aspect of Aboriginal disadvantage. But, as I have already said, we need to effect a true reconciliation between Aboriginal and white Australians. In doing so, we need to remind ourselves of the many very basic diferences between Aboriginal culture and our own as the dominant influence in contemporary Australia. Aboriginal culture is the oldest culture known to mankind. In Australia, at a time when our European forebears still lived in caves, art and dance, song and ceremony, language and religion, had become an integral of this great ancient culture. The Aboriginal inheritance, still preserved in spite of so much disdain, neglect, and destruction, can now enrich and enhance all our lives. Nowhere is this more spectacularly apparent than in the heritage of Aboriginal rock art. This unique and outstanding collection, located all over the continent, surpasses in quality, quantity and antiquity anything else of its kind. On the other hand, contemporary Aboriginal art is undoubtedly the most distinctively Australian cultural item that is produced by modern Australians. ( Extension of time granted) Aboriginal art, then, depicts to us the great lessons of a powerful culture. Aboriginal language and song bring us immensely subtle experiences of people at harmony with nature. Aboriginal dance relives these things for the delight and enlightenment of all who watch and listen. Aborignal music brings us all into a closer understanding of the sounds, the voices, of the Australian landscape. This is our national heritage and the hallmark of Australian culture. We are all the richer for its preservation. Most of all, however, the quickening of interest amongst Aboriginal people themselves, their proud reassertion of their own cultural integrity, give us grounds for great hope for the future. This renaissance in Aboriginal art and culture, and a new-found and world-wide respect for it, provide the proof of the survival of Aboriginal values, from which all can learn a great deal. Aboriginal people have always had different concepts of guilt and innocence, crime and punishment. They have often settled disputes by consensus, recognising that there can be collective responsibility for misdemeanour. However, it is only recently, through such bodies as the Australian Law Reform Commission, that we have been prepared to see the value of Aboriginal attitudes towards the exercise of authority and responsibility. As legislators, we, especially, can learn much that can guide us to better laws, to a better view of the law, in these Aboriginal perceptions. Where the law still discriminates against Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and denies them the most basic human rights we must change the law. Much of that has now been accomplished in strictly legal terms, although much still needs to be done about the way the law is administered. We must also now reassess many of our attitudes towards Aboriginal customary laws reflecting all aspects of Aboriginal life; towards how Aboriginal religion governs the concept of family and people as an integral part of the land, the sea, the sky and the universe. Our own religious heritage and the Judaeo-Christian ethic has prepared us little for an understanding of Aboriginal religion. But we must now discard all notions of superiority and adopt a truly ecumenical approach if we are to espouse the principles of religious freedom. We have always taken an ethnocentric view of Aboriginal religion, once believing that, because Aborigines had no churches, they had no religion at all. One area of widespread misunderstanding on the part of non-Aboriginal Australians is over the Aboriginal attitude towards sacred sites and their religious significance. This is all too often misunderstood by non-Aborigines. For example, one continually hears complaints that, whenever any development is proposed, the Aborigines suddenly find a new sacred site. In normal circumstances, a sacred site would be secret and so would never be revealed. The Aboriginal people have begun to disclose them only because such sites are now under threat. The principle of religious freedom embodies the right to worship and, if we do not ensure adequate protection for Aboriginal sacred sites in the future, we will be making a mockery of religious freedom in this country by denying it to Aboriginal people. The High Court of Australia recently reaffirmed this right on the broadest base. Honourable members will recall that the Court's ruling pertained to religious beliefs which many might consider to be far less orthodox than those of the Aboriginal people and far more recently introduced here. The wider Aboriginal concept of land is also something which we other Australians have appreciated all too little. How often have Aboriginal people said 'the land is my mother' and yet how few of us have heard or understood? To restore to Aboriginal people a proper form of land rights throughout Australia is not only possible but a necessity. In fact, it is the solemn duty of this Parliament. It is, of course, not so hard to make this restoration where the white frontier has not entirely overtaken the Aboriginal people. It is not so easy but by no means impossible to act in areas where the white frontier has overrun them. The Aboriginal people did not merely flee before the white frontier. They could not prevail against disease and the determination of white society to impose its own values and technology. So they became refugees in their own country, settled and resettled as the white man saw fit. This generation of non-Aboriginal Australians may ask why they should be the ones to right the wrongs of our forebears. The answer is that, until this great issue is settled and these legacies of the past are redressed, Australians-all of us-can never be truly free, never live in harmony and with a sense of equality. Mr Speaker, there is no issue of sovereignty and I have made it clear to Aboriginal people that neither the grant of land rights, nor the recognition of Aboriginal prior occupation and ownership, in any way puts Australian sovereignty in question. Given the opportunity, Aboriginal people will make their own future as citizens of the Australian nation, as we all will. Sovereignty is vested in the Crown and parliaments, for a single people united in the Commonwealth. The people who are so united under the Crown are all Australians. These matters are not in question. Aborigines want to own their own land, or at least some of it, again. Should not the Aboriginal people have some priority to do so ahead of absentee landlords or foreign corporations? As I said earlier this year, when this Government took decisive action to resolve the question of excisions from large pastoral holdings, we will never concede that the cattle belonging to overseas companies and absentee landlords have more rights than our indigenous Australian citizens. As the motion before the House records, Australia was unique in that no contract between the colonisers and the colonised was ever negotiated. In other countries, the indigenous people were offered some kind of deal. Although the consideration was often derisory, those deals at least proceeded on the basis that the indigenous inhabitants were the original owners of the land. No such recognition was accorded to the Aboriginal people. The legal doctrine of 'terra nullius' was applied on the presumption that the Aboriginal people were not people at all; that their presence in Australia was of no more significance than the flora and fauna. We can no longer live with such a naive and arrogant concept of our beginnings as a nation, and the prior ownership of Australia by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people must be acknowledged by this Parliament and understood by all Australians. As the well-known Australian author, Xavier Herbert, so aptly and nobly said: Until we give back to the black man just a bit of the land that was his and give it back without provisos, without strings to snatch it back, without anything but complete generosity of spirit in concession for the evil we have done him-until we do that, we shall remain what we have always been so far, a people without integrity; not a nation but a community of thieves. There are some who express fears about land rights and a few more who mischievously provoke such fears. I even hear talk that people's homes and farms are under threat. These fears are groundless. Those who propagate them insult the intelligence of the ordinary Australian citizen and do a grave disservice to Aboriginal people, whose reasonable moderation in this area is a model for all. The fears I mention about land rights are based on notions of land ownership that we have inherited over centuries. But the English tradition of land ownership is not the only one relevant to this nation. We must accommodate the Aboriginal traditions of land ownership along with those traditions that came here more recently, and with which most people are more familiar. Closely associated with ideas about the ownership of land and use of it are our ideas about what is an appropriate lifestyle, exemplified in how we view housing. Because of our industrial revolution and the development of our technology we often point with pride to large edifices and small as the material manifestation of our intelligence. But other people in other cultures have a style of life in which they use their intelligence in different ways. Rather than try to construct a house in the desert without building materials, the Aboriginal people found it more intelligent to develop a society that was nomadic, not haphazardly so but in tune with the seasons as they came and went. The 'walkabout' myth, with its overtones of irrational wandering, is insulting to Aboriginal people, for it portrays them as aimless and without purpose. The planned progress of nomadic life was always a social and sacred ritual embracing the dictates of economics and hygiene. For many Aboriginal people, the old rules of hygiene can now no longer be applied. They have been forced by our presence in this country into town camps, the least salubrious parts of cities, or large settlements in the outback. But wherever Aborigines live today, they badly need housing in order to live full and healthy lives and, again, we should remember that it is we who have made, for them, housing a necessity. Another myth many have found it convenient to perpetuate is the claim that ' Aborigines won't work'. The same differences of approach to lifestyle show through in attitudes to work. Before white settlement, Aborigines worked but in ways different from the ways we would. They had to work to eat, and probably enjoyed a higher quality of life, a better standard of living than many of the less fortunate Europeans who first arrived here. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Motion (by Mr Uren)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs concluding his speech and the honourable member for Barker speaking to the motion without limitation of time. Mr HOLDING —I thank the House for its courtesy. Aboriginal people, unlike the indigenous people of other British colonies, were not even kept alive for their labour when all that was wanted was their land. When the settlers pressed the British authorities to continue transportation, this myth about the unsuitability of 'native labour' was invented. It was further enshrined in our heritage to justify the use of slave labour from the Pacific after transportation of convicts had ended. As the pastoral industry expanded, we finally found a need to employ Aboriginal stockmen to do work that nobody else wanted to do in places where nobody else wanted to live. But still we gave them precious little encouragement-low wages or none, and no access to the basic benefits of membership of trade unions. It was often said that, with the expansion of this pastoral industry, 'Australia rode on the sheep's back'; but, as far as the cattle industry was concerned, it is closer to the truth to say that Australia rode on the Aborigines' backs. And yet it is still said in various parts of the Commonwealth that Aborigines will not work. It should be a matter of great shame that Aborigines have an unemployment rate that varies between 60 per cent and 90 per cent-much higher than that of the general population. Another reason for this disastrous rate of unemployment is the lack of relevant training amongst Aborigines. Until very recently we have withheld from the Aboriginal people opportunities for education and training they have needed to get proper employment, or to improve the standard of living within their own communities. Where we have seen Aborigines as a labour force at all, we have seen them as a labour force to be exploited-men and women alike. We have wondered at what we have seen as the Aboriginal indifference to schooling and chosen not to be aware of the fact that most Aboriginal families on the bread line have felt for generations that their children would be just as easily unemployed without an education as they would be with one. It was, of course, only a generation ago that Aborigines were allowed into the schools of this country, being dismissed so often as 'backward' or 'slow learners'. Education funding in this country has never been democratic for anyone and Aboriginal people have not, until very recently, been able to afford it. Because funding is still inadequate it is noticeable that Aborigines do the shortest degree courses and those most directly relevant to the survival of their people. Nevertheless, Aboriginal people are beginning to move into the professions as teachers, lawyers, doctors and dentists. But the crying need for Aboriginal professionals has not been met. It is as important for Aboriginal people to have their own doctors as it is for them to have their own lawyers. Our education funding has generally been far too undemocratic in the past. This situation has had particularly disastrous effects because Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, whose interests were the last to be considered, have so often missed out. But their problems have been compounded because our education systems have been far too copyist and therefore monocultural and monolingual. It was not for a generation after the great increase in immigration after World War II that we began to see that derivatives of the British education system were no longer the most relevant to Australia today. In our education programs, we have so often overlooked the fact that for large numbers of Aboriginal children, English is not their mother tongue. At one time, Aboriginal people were bullied out of speaking their languages and, where it was thought possible, coerced into forgetting those languages, and all that goes with them, altogether . If we are ever to have an education system that meets the needs of all Australians as members of an overall community, we must look to these matters now. The same immovable position we have generally adopted on Aboriginal education, has so often been adopted with regard to Aboriginal health. Federal Governments have been prepared to hand over large amounts of money for Aboriginal health to the health bureaucracies and, I might say, announce this spending with flourish and complacency as if all responsibility ended there. We all know now that this strategy has met with limited success. We are all aware that Aboriginal people in some parts of Australia have amongst the highest rate of blindness in the world through curable eye diseases such as trachoma, while it is unlikely that any non-Aboriginal Australian has gone blind from trachoma in the last 30 years. We all know that, despite significant improvements in the past decade, the Aboriginal infant mortality rate remains about three times the overall Australian rate, and amongst adult Aborigines mortality rates are in some instances much, much higher than the national average. An enormous toll has been taken by introduced diseases, enforced dietary changes, a breakdown of the very efficacious hygiene rules of traditional life, bad housing, lack of water, lack of medical care and the imposed marginal situation of Aborigines in this community. Health-care delivery in Australia has generally ignored the special and very urgent needs of the Aboriginal people. It has always presupposed that patients live in a Western middle class environment and use health services, medical practitioners and hospitals, accordingly. As such, health-care delivery has ignored the special social and cultural needs of Aboriginal people, and their economic and social disadvantage. Even in the cities, diseases are poverty environment-related and older doctors working for the Aboriginal medical services will tell us they have not had to treat these diseases in other Australians since the Depression. In order to overcome the disastrous state of ill-health amongst most Aborigines , we must recognise the need for Aboriginal self-determination in tackling the complex interaction of factors underlying their ill-health. In terms of medical and health programs, Aboriginal self-determination means decision-making power in the planning and implementation of the various programs. The need for community control in Aboriginal health was stressed in the report entitled ' National Trachoma and Eye Health Program' of the Royal Australian College of Ophthalmologists, presented to this Parliament in 1980, and in the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. Again, in 1980, when the former Government commissioned the inter-departmental program effectiveness review on Aboriginal health, we were given further indications of the need for more community control in Aboriginal health, as the better way of overcoming the disastrous state of ill-health amongst Aborigines. There is a similar need for Aboriginal decision-making power in other medical and health programs. The effects of dispossession, of the extreme disruption of Aboriginal society, of the poor housing and low self-esteem, all combine in the frequency of alcohol abuse which is highly visible. While many others in Australian society suffer the illnesses of alcohol and drug dependence, the Aboriginal people's struggle to assist themselves puts them at a high risk in this regard. We must see alcoholism as the symptom of deeper problems and face up to them. They cover the whole range which I have mentioned. We must confront the cause, rather than opt for the easy solution of blaming the victim. It is often said of Aborigines that they will not do anything to help themselves. In the field of Aboriginal health they have done a great deal to help themselves. The Aboriginal Medical Service in Redfern, Sydney, established in 1971, heralded the study of community health in Australia. It is now affiliated as a teaching body with the University of Sydney and it has done a great deal to change medical opinion in this country for the better. There are now some 23 community medical services throughout Australia which are controlled by Aboriginal people and, whilst there is still a great deal to be done in Aboriginal health, the effectiveness of these organisations is highly in evidence. But it is not just in terms of their own health problems that Aborigines and Islanders have made such a tremendous effort. The extra-governmental Aboriginal movement goes back to the beginnings of this century. With the affiliation of organisations such as the Victorian Aborigines' Advancement League, the Aboriginal Fellowship, and the Aboriginal Progressive Association of New South Wales, FCAATSI-or the Federated Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders-came into being in the 1940s. FCAATSI was soon to have as many as 56 affiliated organisations working in Aboriginal Affairs all around Australia. With the failure of the Aboriginal referendum when it was first put to the vote by the Chifley Government in 1948, this Council began its 19-year lobby of the incoming Menzies Government to have that referendum held again. When the referendum was finally put to the public a second time, by the Holt Government in 1967, the Aboriginal people and their supporters, through FCAATSI and its affiliated organisations, conducted one of the most successful campaigns in Australian political history. Those who had worked so long in these organisations were not in receipt of large amounts of government funding; the referendum campaign was conducted on a shoe-string budget and, like the 19-year lobby that preceded it, it was mounted at cost to the Aborigines and Islanders involved. The referendum was to be only the second of the 26 referenda held since Federation to succeed. Moreover, it remains the most successful ever held. No other referendum campaign has ever won a 92.7 per cent Yes vote and certainly no government anywhere in Australia has ever been elected with such a mandate. Even though the Federal Government has been involved in Aboriginal Affairs since this referendum, much of the impetus for reform comes from the Aboriginal people's own organisations. Rather than doing nothing to help themselves, it is no exaggeration to say that Aborigines and Islanders have served a long apprenticeship for the positions of responsibility they might hold today in my Department and other areas of the Public Service, government-funded Aboriginal organisations such as the National Aboriginal Conference, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, the Aboriginal Development Commission, and the many hundreds of organisations that now make up the Aboriginal movement. Over the years, I have felt great pride in having been associated with the Aboriginal movement. In this I am sure I am not alone. Many of my colleagues in the Government, many of my predecessors in this portfolio, and many other members of this Parliament would also feel a great sense of pride at having been able to support such a worthwhile cause-whether they were in office at the time or otherwise. But there are those things the Aboriginal people, however efficient their organisations, cannot do all by themselves. The 1967 referendum charges us , as the elected representatives of this nation, with the legislative responsibilities to do those things the indigenous people of Australia have expected of us for so long. I have spoken of the great heritage of Aboriginal civilisation which is the common heritage of all of us. I have talked about the disastrous effects that European colonisation had for these people, and for their descendants, to this day. I have spoken of the issues of land rights, sacred sites, law and religion, of housing, health, education and employment and of the renaissance of culture, the revival of language and customs, once thought dead or dying. These issues touch us all. 'The Aborigines are a responsibility we cannot escape, cannot share, cannot shuffle off; the world will not let us forget that.' Mr Whitlam said these words in 1972 when he sought the people's mandate at the election that year. The challenge and the opportunity remain with us all. Meeting with them will need practice, tolerance and understanding between Aboriginal and Islander people, as well as between black and white. This nation needs to come to terms with its past. Aboriginal Australians and non-Aboriginal Australians need to come to terms with each other. We have to admit and accept the past. We cannot pretend that nothing happened, nor can we ignore the legacies of racial discrimination, of injustices that become a self- fulfilling prophecy. So we have brought this motion to the Parliament. I hope it will mark a point of departure in our national attitude to Aboriginal citizens. I believe that it will lay down the great principles according to which we can reach a settlement. The motion therefore begins by acknowledging the past. It says that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were the first owners of Australia. It admits that white settlement dispossessed an dispersed these people. It refers to the sometimes well motivated but quite often misguided policies that have been applied. It looks to the application of the two great principles of self-determination and consultation in the development of present day approaches . But most of all, this motion asserts the rights of Aboriginal people as Australians, participating on a basis of true equality in the national life. This motion states that Aboriginal people are not second-class citizens. It says we are all Australians with a common future. The time for division, for discrimination on grounds of race, is past. This motion is the charter for a new phase in black-white relationships in this country, indeed for the settlement, on the basis of justice to all, of this long -outstanding cause of community disharmony. I believe that this House will want to set the record straight and to resolve on a new and effective approach. It is in the national interest to do so. The overwhelming vote for the 1967 referendum means that this Parliament has the power and the responsibility to make laws which will enable Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians to come to terms with each other. This Government accepts that duty. In some conservative quarters we hear talk of State rights. The States' legislative powers in this area passed to the Commonwealth 16 years ago. Any doubts were dispelled by the High Court of Australia in the Koowarta and Dams cases. Human rights are more important than State rights. We seek a co-operative effort, with governments, churches, trade unions, the professions and business all making their special contributions. We especially want to work with each State and Territory government. Many of the Governments have acheived, or are achieving, significant advances for Aboriginal people. The Commonwealth will be among the first to applaud those efforts. But no one should be in any doubt. Although this is a Government of national reconciliation and although we shall seek harmony in our relations with the States, the demands of Aboriginal people for justice will no longer be denied. We-and they-can no longer accept the assimilationist paternalism which passes for Aboriginal welfare in some parts of Australia. The time has come when Aboriginal people can stand on their own feet and take their rightful place in this nation. I repeat: The human rights of Aboriginal and Islander Australians must take precedence of State rights. The international community expects no less of us. Indeed, we cannot aspire to leadership amongst the newly-emerging nations of the Pacific while Torres Strait Islanders and Aboriginal people live in conditions more characteristic of a colonial regime. It is ironic indeed that the last Labor Government ensured an act of self-determination for the people of Papua New Guinea while indigenous Australians just south of the border still live on reserves with colonial overseers and without title to their own land. We are proud of our record as a country which takes its commitment to human rights seriously. We must consolidate that international reputation and ensure real justice for Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. We have embarked on a course which I believe is not merely related to the perception of the role of Aboriginal people within our own broader Australian society. We assert that until we give to the Aboriginal people that which is theirs this nation cannot aspire to greatness. We shall have to make this reparation, not in the sense of giving it and taking it back, but giving it with a sense of generosity, of compassion, and with a proper understanding that the beginnings of this nation, as we know it today, were among the most brutal and genocidal in history. Having recognised that one simple fact, and having responded to the hopes and aspirations of the Aboriginal people and accorded them the dignity and a quality which is theirs, this nation will be ready to go forward to greatness. Ultimately, the liberty and the rights of Aboriginal people will be those which give reality to the rights and liberties of us all. Accordingly, this motion is not merely a motion moved on behalf of the Aboriginal people. It is a motion seeking to build a nation on compassion, upon a diversity of culture, a nation of richness and understanding which will give us a place in history-which, as of now, we cannot claim. I commend the motion to the House. Mr PORTER(Barker)(11.27) —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has finally made the statement which he promised last May. Had I not prompted him publicly I fear we would have been left in the dark even longer. Still, I suppose the last week of the parliamentary session, some seven months late, is better than never. In this statement the Government has set out publicly its approach to Aboriginal affairs and has given us some indication of the direction in which it is heading. The Opposition has been very critical of the inept handling of Aboriginal issues by the Government and by this Minister in particular, especially the provocative manner in which a number of sensitive issues have been handled. Unfortunately, this statement indicates that we will have more of the same in the future. Expectations have been raised and not fulfilled. Half-baked policy making is not good enough in this important portfolio. The Minister has indicated that the statement and the motion of which he has given notice are to lie on the table and be debated when Parliament resumes next year. We accept that that is the best way to handle the matter, both because this session is at an end and, given the importance of the issues raised in the motion, it is essential that ample time be given for discussion and consideration of the detailed issues. I will be taking the opportunity of consulting the Aboriginal people before this matter comes back to the House. As I was given a copy of the lengthy statement only an hour before the Minister started making it in the House this morning, contrary to the convention of giving two hours notice, I will restrict myself to some general comments about it. However, the Minister gave me a copy of the motion some time ago, and I will raise some issues arising out of the motion which honourable members might like to consider over the recess. I am convinced that the social and economic circumstances confronting the Aboriginal people will be improved only by positive policies and programs arising out of a genuine commitment to the advancement of the Aboriginal people. Over the past eight months I have renewed my association with those Aboriginal communities and leaders whom I previously knew. I have also extended my contact to many other Aboriginal communities in all States. Through this experience I am of the view that the situation confronting many Aboriginal people is totally unacceptable in our country, which boasts one of the highest standards of living in the world. We should not tolerate poverty in the midst of plenty. For a number of reasons the majority of the Aboriginal people have not shared in the prosperity and economic development of this country. Who could be proud of the fact that within the Australian nation we have a group of people living under deplorable conditions? Many of our outback, fringe-dwelling Aboriginal communities live in conditions with inadequate shelter, high unemployment, enormous health problems, educational difficulties and the social despair and distressing situation facing those who have suffered the breakdown of their traditional lifestyle and culture. The result of this breakdown in traditional culture, in many cases through dispersal and the severing of Aboriginal links with the land, are problems which we all have a responsibility to address. The restoration of Aboriginal independence, dignity, and self-esteem must be the goal of all Australians. It will require understanding, tolerance and a genuine commitment on the part of us all. It is important to put the Minister's statement in context. There is, no doubt, increasing public concern about the directions in which this Government is heading in Aboriginal affairs. In this portfolio, perhaps more than any other, there is a need for a well-informed and supportive public. In some areas in particular all that has been cast aside by this Government's headlong rush to make changes without adequate consultation and without properly detailing and clarifying the terms of the changes being made. The mishandling of the Ayers Rock decision is a classic example. Regardless of whether the announcement was to appease the left wing or an attempt to restore the Government's credibility following its decision to prohibit mining of uranium on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory, there is no doubt that the manner in which the issue was handled has jeopardised rather than assisted the Aboriginal cause. Had there been consultation with the Northern Territory Government and had the terms of the lease-back arrangement been settled and publicly known then, depending on the terms of such arrangements, I am confident much greater public support would have been forthcoming. In areas of such sensitivity and volatility the Minister' s precipitous action is likely to lead to undesirable consequences, thereby setting back the Aboriginal cause. Another area of concern is the National Aboriginal Conference, which now has very large responsibilities. It has responded to the Government's demands but it is not easy. In administrative terms alone it has had to deal with an overnight doubling of its budget and, as I have said before, such sudden and large changes take time to absorb and a great deal of skill is required to cope. In addition, the Aboriginal people are still expressing their concerns about the new role of the NAC and questions continue to arise as to the representative nature of the NAC, but Dr Coombes's Report may assist in resolving these questions. I turn now to the central question of land rights. It appears that the Minister is needlessly generating public concern which may ultimately act against Aboriginal land rights. The contempt in which he is held in the Northern Territory by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people alike is not restricted just to the Territory. The recent annihilation of the Northern Territory Labor Party on 3 December is in no small part the result of this Minister's and this Government's approach to Aboriginal affairs. The Minister has outlined the principles on which his uniform land rights package is to be based. That package gives rise to a number of very basic questions. Firstly, I refer to the principles: Exactly whose principles are they? Are they based on the needs and aspirations identified by the Aboriginal people or are they political principles raised by the Australian Labor Party to be imposed on the Aboriginal people? Is uniformity a simplistic blanket solution which will serve only as a monument to the Federal Government's centralist philosophy or is it a genuine attempt to find solutions to the individual problems facing Aboriginal communities in each State? In response to those who have contacted me and others who have expressed views publicly, I have grave doubts that the Government's stated land rights principles and the means by which they are to be converted into legislation meet the real aspirations of the Aboriginal people. Certainly there is widespread concern about the representative nature of the steering committee set up by the Minister to co-ordinate and give direction to its panel of lawyers responsible for drafting the legislation. Many groups have been denied a place on that committee. For example, the Minister should be aware , after his visit to the sacred site at Alice Springs which has been the subject of much debate, that women have an important role to play in Aboriginal society and often hold land as custodians. Why then have they been excluded from the steering committee? Secondly, I refer to the timetable which the Minister has set for the implementation of this ALP policy. Is that timetable one which satisfies the Aboriginal people? A range of people, including members of the panel of lawyers and other Aboriginal leaders, have said that the agenda is one imposed on them by this Minister and not one of their own making. Aborigines in the outback, and indeed others interested in the Aboriginal cause, believe this Minister is more concerned with leaving a monument to his custodianship in his period as Minister than in implementing meaningful and acceptable land rights legislation which will assist the Aboriginal people. Thirdly, I refer to the Minister's intention to impose this legislation on the States. The effect of the recent New South Wales land rights legislation is still being debated in that State and an extension to the land rights legislation is currently before the Parliament in South Australia. A review is taking place of land rights legislation in Victoria and an inquiry has been instituted under Mr Paul Seaman QC in Western Australia. There is no doubt that the Aboriginal people in Western Australia and in Victoria are in the process of submitting to their respective governments the basis of what they believe are the most suitable land rights for their communities in those States. At the same time the Federal Minister has instigated a review of the Northern Territory land rights legislation which was implemented by the previous Government. The needs of the Aboriginal communities differ from State to State. However, the Minister has said that he intends to press on with his uniform land rights legislation, which will be superimposed on the States. The Minister has left no doubt about the effect of such legislation. He said publicly two weeks ago that no State-I repeat: No State-in Australia meets the criteria of his land rights principles. Therefore, one must assume that the legislation to be introduced by this Government will have an impact on every State. I ask whether it is in the best interests of the Aboriginal people and whether they, in fact, desire to become involved in a Commonwealth-State conflict at a time when in four States they are fully involved at the State level in negotiations and reviews of inquiries aimed at meeting at least some of the land rights aspirations of their own individual communities. The Minister is supposedly acting on ALP policy, which he says is also binding on State ALP governments. But the fact that most ALP State governments have recently implemented, or are in the process of implementing, land rights legislation, legislation which does not satisfy his view of the ALP policy, may be a good indicator that such policy is not in accord with the solutions being developed at a grass roots level. Despite this, the Minister apparently intends to press on regardless. He is proceeding with a land rights package on a timetable which does not pay sufficient regard to the concurrent action of many State legislatures and scant regard is being paid to the consequences of his action. I am concerned that in an area of such sensitivity and volatility, the Minister's precipitous action will lead to undesirable conflict, to the detriment of the Aboriginal cause. Further, the Minister has made it clear that he has no reservations about buying a fight with the States. Earlier this year, referring to this package and the States, he said: 'I don't want to twist anybody's arm, but there may be occasions when we have to break a few'. My concern is just who will be the loser out of such arm-breaking exercises, and I fear it will be the Aboriginal people. The Minister's proposed panacea has raised unreal expectations, and I am concerned that the balloon of optimsim will be deflated as Commonwealth-State tensions increase. I now move on to discuss a number of points concerning the motion the Minister has moved and these are points which honourable members may like to consider over the break. Before the 1967 referendum the Federal Government did not have the power to legislate for the Aboriginal race, and this restriction was removed in 1967. The Yes case at the time of the referendum showed clearly the co- operative federalist approach which was to be followed. Let me quote from the Yes case. It stated: What is intended is that the National Parliament could make laws, if it thought fit, relating to Aboriginals; as it can about many other matters on which the States also have power to legislate. The Commonwealth's object will be to co- operate with the States to ensure that together we act in the best interests of the Aboriginal people of Australia. This can be contrasted with the Minister's approach whereby he is clearly opting -he often quotes the dam case decision in support of his argument-for the Commonwealth to impose legislation on the States. He is doing so at a time when, as I have already said, many States are in fact reviewing their land rights legislation. Certainly the motion raises the question of the role of the States and this Government's view of the future in what was considered to be an area of concurrent power between Federal and State governments, in relation to Aboriginal affairs. Paragraph 1 of the motion and particularly sub-paragraphs (A) and (B) of that part raise questions which were amongst those considered by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the feasibility of a compact or makarrata between the Commonwealth and the Aboriginal people in their report entitled '200 years later'. The questions of settlement and conquest and whether this country was properly considered in international law terms to be terra nullius were dealt with in that report. The importance of those considerations relates to the rights to title to land possessed by the Aboriginal people. To give two views on this question I would like to refer to Chancellor Kent and to the Coe case. Firstly, on page 381, volume three of the twelfth edition of ' Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States' Chancellor Kent said that the application of the distinction between settled and conquered, or ceded, colonies in each case: . . . is a matter of law, which becomes settled and is not to be questioned upon a reconsideration of the historical facts. In the Coe case, Coe claimed for himself and the Aboriginal nation a specific piece of land, that being the Commonwealth Office building in Martin Place, Sydney. His statement of claim proceeded from the assertion that Australia was a conquered territory. Paragraph 9M in his statement of claim stated: After the conquest aforesaid the Aboriginal people and nation retained their rights, privileges, interests, claims and entitlements in respect of their lands unless and until they are taken away by specific act of prerogative. No such specific act of prerogative was ever exercised. Clearly this motion does not have the effect of changing the law. But certainly it raises the question in people's minds as to whether the specific words of the resolution are cast, bearing in mind the statement of claim in Coe's case and perhaps in the knowledge that another claim for title on behalf of some Torres Strait Islanders is to go before the High Court of Australia. Paragraph 2 of the motion deals with special measures which the Government believes ought to be taken. In paragraph 2 (A) the Minister refers to action whereby the Aboriginal people may 'assert control of all aspects of their lives' . This is one of the many examples of the atrocious wording of the motion. I assume the Minister means control 'over' all aspects of their lives. When the Minister refers to 'control over all aspects of their lives', I assume that he is referring to the desirability of the Aboriginal people having control over and responsibility for their own affairs. To give control literally over all aspects of their lives infers the setting up of a separate sovereign state. The Minister stated recently and again today that he believes that this would be politically unachievable under the present circumstances. So if we read down the words 'control over all aspects of their lives' to exclude an interpretation leading to a separate sovereign Aboriginal nation within Australia, what meaning do the words have? In paragraph 2 (B) the Minister refers to basic principles, including Aboriginal control in relation to mining on Aboriginal lands and access to mining royalty equivalents. I suggest to the House that these sentiments are totally inconsistent with the Minister's and the Government's action in recent times. We have, in the Northern Territory, a group of Aboriginals who support the mining of uranium on their land. Whilst the Government allows mining adjacent to this area, and a new mine at Roxby Downs in South Australia, it will not permit uranium mining at Koongarra or Jabiluka. I ask the Minister: Is this an example of 'control over all aspects of their lives'. Is it an example of Aboriginals having control in relation to mining on Aboriginal land? Have they not lost access to mining royalty equivalents? Clearly the motion is rhetoric and the Government's actions are totally incompatible. The Government has already treated these principles with contempt. As such, the Government is guilty of fradulent misrepresentation. I refer briefly to the five principles in paragraph 2 (B) of the motion. These stated principles, in the form in which they have been set out, raise more questions than they answer. When looking at paragraph 2 (B) sub-paragraph (1), which deals with Aboriginal land to be held under inalienable freehold title, the question arises: Is this form of title to be extended to all Aboriginal land , including that purchased by the Aboriginal Development Commission, and excisions from pastoral properties? The second principle is the protection of Aboriginal sites. It is not made clear which Aboriginal sites, whether it is to be all such sites, or whether it is to be limited to sacred or significant sites . How will these sites be identified? What form of protection will be provided? The third principle refers to Aboriginal control in relation to mining on Aboriginal land. I have pointed out that the Government has already breached this principle. However, an obvious question which arises is the extent of such control. For example, is it to be absolute control or subject to arbitration? Does the principle extend to exploration as well as mining? The fifth principle specifies that compensation for lost land is to be negotiated. How will it be negotiated. Who will be the parties to the negotiation? Who will be compensated? What form will the compensation take? Clearly, I do not have time to consider all aspects of the Minister's statement and the motion. However, I strongly support paragraph 2 (H) although again it is very badly worded. The Opposition believes that it is extremely important to foster a greater understanding between Aborigines, Torres Strait Islanders and other Australians by means of public education programs and by encouraging a greater awareness of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and their history. In conclusion, the statement and the motion provide general guidelines on Government policy. However, as I have already stated, the Opposition is deeply concerned about the handling of the sensitive issues in this portfolio. I urge the Minister to consider the way in which the initial land rights legislation was implemented by the previous Government and compare that with the turmoil which the Government created by the uranium mining and Ayers Rock decisions. That turmoil for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people can be avoided by wise an judicious handling of this difficult portfolio. Over the Christmas break, in a spirit of bipartisanship, I urge the Minister to reconsider the course he has set. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Mr COWAN(Lyne) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the tenth, eleventh and twelfth reports for 1983 of the Committee relating to the Perth Airport International Terminal Complex and parallel taxiway, the provision of navigational aids, Hydrographers Passage, Great Barrier Reef, and the relocation of the Army Parachute Training School from RAAF Base Williamstown, New South Wales, to HMAS Albatross, Nowra, New South Wales, respectively. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Acting Leader of the House) —I seek leave of the House to move in an amended form the notice of motion relating to the discharge of Orders of the Day. I propose to delete from the list the Order of the Day relating to the Industries Assistance Commission report on grain harvesters. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. Mr DAWKINS —I thank the House. I move: That the following Orders of the Day, Government Business, be discharged: Science and Technology Statement 1982-83-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. C.S.I.R.O. Laboratories Safety Standards and the death of Mr R. Bergamasco- Report of Committee of Inquiry-Paper and ministerial statement-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Local Government Personal Income Tax Sharing-Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission recommendations-Report-Motion to take note of paper : Resumption of debate. Customs Administration and Procedures-New South Wales-Review-Report and papers- Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Federated Ship Painters and Dockers' Union-Interim Report of Royal Commission and statement-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Special Prosecutor R. F. Redlich-Report and statement-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Population Forecasts for Australia-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Local Government Personal Income Tax Sharing-Local Government Grants Commissions recommendations-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Department of the House of Representatives- Report-Motion to take note of paper : Resumption of debate. Anzus Treaty-Review-Ministerial statement-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Lobbyists and the Australian Government and Parliament-Discussion paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Pensions Means Test-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Airlines Agreement-Reports on Consultations between T.A.A. and Ansett-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Medicare-Government decisions-Ministerial statement-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Immigration Policy and Program-Ministerial statement-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Recognition of Overseas Qualifications in Australia-Report of Committee of Inquiry-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Drug Trafficking-Report of Commonwealth-New South Wales Joint Task Force-Papers -Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission-Report of President-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Criminal Deportation Policy-Ministerial statement-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Discharge of Orders of the Day Mr DAWKINS —The IAC report on grain harvesters will remain on the Notice Paper and will, therefore, be before the House when the House resumes next year. It is proposed, by agreement with the Opposition, to delete these matters from the Notice Paper. Left on the Notice Paper are matters which honourable members have indicated they wish to speak on at some later time. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(11.51) — We would like the report on grain harvesters left on the Notice Paper because of the great concern of industry. The report was given to the Government on 5 August and an announcement was made. The matter was placed on the Notice Paper on 23 August but we have not had the opportunity of debating the issue. There is very great concern in the industry, as indicated by a telex sent on 10 August by Mr T. J. Flugge, President of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. There has not been sufficient consultation by the Government with the industry on this matter. It causes a great deal of concern and results in a one per cent increase in costs to farmers. The industry maintains that the report and the Government decision- Mr Dawkins —I raise a point of order. This motion does not provide an opportunity for honourable members to speak on these matters. I have indicated quite fairly to the Opposition that I am happy for that matter to remain on the Notice Paper and to be brought up for debate at a later time. However, it is not open for that report to be discussed now. It is not before the House. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The point of order is upheld. Mr McVEIGH —May I seek an assurance from the Minister? If the Government does not make a decision on this matter before the next session, can it be debated in the early days of the next session? It is of great importance to the farming industry. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The matter will be on the Notice Paper and it will be open for debate when the House resumes. Question resolved in the affirmative. Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(11.52) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: construction of a chancery complex and staff housing at Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The proposed work is for the construction of a new chancery, head of mission residence, recreation facilities and 11 residences for Australian based staff in the new diplomatic quarter in Riyadh. The Committee has reported that there is a need for the work in the reference and has recommended its construction together with some additional facilities in certain of the residences. I wish to address this matter and other conclusions and recommendations of the Committee. Firstly, the Committee is concerned to ensure that accommodation standards for staff, their families and servants are adequate and do not add to expected pressures and discomforts of family life in Riyadh, which is an isolated city situated in a very harsh environment. Further, the application of strict Islamic codes of behaviour will place considerable restrictions on the activities of families within the city. The Committee has recommended that the Department of Administrative Services should review the accommodation standards as they are applied to the brief for Riyadh housing. It considers the current standards are not adequate for Riyadh and should provide for family rooms and en-suites in all houses and improved servants accommodation. The recommendations relating to servants accommodation have been implemented. I understand that the accommodation proposasls presented to the Committee provided for the maximum entitlements under currently approved scales and standards. The Government has noted the Committee's concerns and I am advised that the Department of Administrative Services is arranging for an immediate review of the standards in the specific context of the brief for the Riyadh housing and its adequacy in view of the hardships of the location. The review will be based on the Committee's conclusion that standards are inadequate. The estimated cost of the additional items recommended by the Committee is $280,000. The Committee is also concerned that as far as practicable the head of mission should place no restrictions on families using the proposed recreation facilities. The background to this is that the locations, size and groupings of sites for staff housing allocated by the Saudi Arabian authorities preclude the provision of recreation facilities in the housing area. It has been necessary to locate them in the chancery complex itself. I am informed that the Department of Administrative Services has already issued a determination on the recreation facilities which specifies that they are for the use of all Australian based staff at the mission. The Committee has recommended that priority should be given to Australian firms in the design, construction and equipping of the chancery complex and residences and that wherever possible, distinctive Australian finishes be used; and also that carpets, curtains, furniture and accessories should be of Australian origin . This has been the intent since inception of the project. The entire design is being carried out by Australian consultants although care was taken to select consultants with some experience in the Saudi Arabian construction environment. It is also intended that maximum realistic use will be made of Australian materials, especially for those items which will need to be imported into Saudi Arabia. A list of possible products has already been developed and will be included in the technical specifications for the project. With regard to the use of Australian firms in the construction phase, it is intended that Australian companies registered to operate in Saudi Arabia will be invited to tender for the project. The Government will give due consideration to preferences for Australian firms if this is necessary before awarding a contract . The Committee has asked also that, in relation to overseas posts generally, the Department of Administrative Services report on steps taken to ensure effective maintenance of leased premises. I am advised that this will be done. The estimated cost of the proposed work as referred to the Committee and at March 1983 prices was $A17.8m. It is proposed that the additional expenditure of $280,000 recommended by the Committee for the family rooms and en suites, which I referred to earlier, be not taken up at this time pending the review to be undertaken into the housing standards. The Committee will be advised on proposals arising out of the review and any additional costs involved. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning, including planning for the additional housing entitlement, can proceed generally in accordance with the Committee's recommendations. I have commented on each one of the Public Works Committee's recommendations, which was only courteous to the PWC in the circumstances. I commend the motion to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr FRY(Fraser) —by leave-As Leader of the Commonwealth of Australia branch delegation to the 29th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, held in Nairobi, Kenya, in October-November 1983, I present the interim report of the delegation. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr FRY —The final report of the branch delegation will be presented at a later date when the summary report of the Conference has been received from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association headquarters secretariat in London. One of the most significant developments from the Conference was the acceptance by the General Assembly of the recommendation from the working party on the CPA and the future that the number of regional representatives on the executive committee should be increased from two to three. As a result of this decision and arrangements agreed upon by the branches in the Australasian and Pacific region, the Commonwealth of Australia branch will be represented on the executive committee once every six years compared with the previous arrangement of once every 27 years. It will also ensure more regular representation for the other branches in the region. It was a very successful and enjoyable conference. The Parliament, Government and people of Kenya are to be congratulated on the excellent arrangements made for everyone attending the Conference. On behalf of our delegates, I extend my sincere thanks to our generous and hospitable hosts. We found Kenya a beautiful country with magnificent game reserves and national parks, and were deeply touched by the warmth of our welcome and the friendliness of the Kenyan people. I express my thanks to my parliamentary colleagues, both Federal and State, for their friendship, support, assistance and the conscientious work which they carried out during the Conference, and to all those involved in arranging the Conference. Finally, I place on record my appreciation, and that of all Australian delegates for the tremendous assistance provided by the Australian high commissioners and their staff on the African continent. Changes of flight plans and other arrangements placed great strains on small but dedicated groups of Australian Foreign Affairs officers in a number of locations and I am indebted to them all. In particular, I pay special tribute to the Australian High Commissioner to Kenya, Mr A. D. G. White, his wife and the High Commission staff for their untiring efforts on our behalf. Finally, on behalf of all members of the delegation, I express our very sincere thanks for the untiring efforts of the Secretary to the delegation, Mr Lyn Barlin, for the support which he gave the delegation. Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(12.05) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Perth airport international terminal complex and parallel taxiway. The proposal is for extension of the existing taxiway system and construction of new international facilities for Perth Airport. It includes construction of a new international passenger terminal building, associated engineering services, taxiway works, apron, car parks, access roads and construction of a taxiway on the western side of the existing 02-20 runway. The Committee reported that adequate facilities for international aircraft, passengers and the non- travelling public should be provided at Perth Airport and has recommended that construction of the works in the reference proceed. The Committee further recommended the scope of the project be increased by provision of five enclosed static ramps from the second floor forward departure lounge and by extension of the proposed eastern parallel taxiway to the runway threshold. The inclusion of these additional works would increase the estimated cost from $53m to $56.1m at July 1983 prices. Since the Committee finalised its report however, the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of Disabled has advised against the use of departure ramps involving major level changes as they would present major difficulties for disabled people and aged travellers. The Council prefers the use of lifts for this purpose, and those lifts are in the original plan. The Government proposes therefore, not to proceed with the additional access ramps. Adequate lifts will be provided for the disabled and the aged and were, I repeat, included as part of the original design. Other departing passengers will board their aircraft via stairs and the five first floor static links and aerobridges. This, of course, is similar to what happens at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport right now. Extension of the eastern parallel taxiway to the runway threshold is provided for in the airport master plan. This extension as recommended by the Committee will be considered again as soon as justified by further increase in aircraft movements. The estimated cost of the proposed work when referred to the Committee was $53m at July 1983 prices and as, in spite of the Committee's recommendations, no changes have been made, the figure remains at $53m. If the House agrees to support this motion, detailed planning can proceed as I have outlined, substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. Once again, I thank the Committee for its work. I hope that Committee members note that we have taken their recommendations into consideration but in this case we are really continuing with the design as submitted to the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(12.08) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts I present the 216th report of the Committee, its annual report for 1982-83. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with that report. Leave granted. Mr CADMAN —The 216th report is the annual report for 1982-83 of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. It contains a review of the inquiries conducted by the Committee during the year, issues arising from our investigations and other matters which the Committee regards as significant in its development. The year 1982-83 witnessed a number of changes for the Public Accounts Committee. The thirteenth Committee ceased when Parliament was dissolved on 5 February 1983. The fourteenth Committee was appointed following the election and held its first meeting on 11 May 1983. The administration of the Committee secretariat was transferred from Joint House Department to the House of Representatives in December 1982. Throughout 1982-83 the Committee has continued to maintain an extensive program of inquiries and research. It tabled four reports on significant public sector management issues such as the form and standard of financial statements for Commonwealth undertakings, administration of bilateral overseas aid, the selection and development of senior managers in the Commonwealth Public Service and the medical fraud and overservicing progress report. The growth of Government activities, the creation of statutory authorities, and the public's demand for more financial and other information has meant that new and additional means of financial measurement and communication need to be derived. The Committee fully supports efforts to increase the consistent application of relevant accounting methods so that financial reporting in the public sector will serve more and better the needs of the community. This is the fourteenth Public Accounts Committee since its re-establishment in 1951. The success of the Committee, of which I have the privilege to be the Vice -Chairman, has been built on the solid foundation laid over the past three decades by successive chairmen, members of the Committee and its staff, as well as by its official observers and advisers. As this annual report covers the period when the Committee was mainly chaired by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), I especially pay tribute to my colleague. The honourable member for Bradfield became a member of the tenth Committee in 1974 and its Chairman from the establishment of the eleventh Committee in 1976. Only the distinguished Emeritus Professor F. A. Bland, M.P., served the Committee for a longer period. I am sure that in the future Mr Connolly's chairmanship will be regarded as having a profound influence on public administration in the Commonwealth. However, all who have been associated with the Committee have contributed to the building of a significant mechanism for effective parliamentary review. The Committee wishes to record its appreciation to its Secretary, its permanent and seconded staff and its advisers for their excellent work throughout the year . In addition, the Committee wishes to thank officers from the Department of Finance, the Public Service Board and the Auditor-General's Office, who have continued to provide advice and assistance as observers for all our inquiries. We are also appreciative of the work done by the Principal Parliamentary Reporter and his staff. We appreciate their valuable assistance and that of other officers of the parliamentary departments who have supported the Committee in its activities. Copies of this report will not be available for general distribution until Friday, 9 December 1983. However, copies are held by the Parliamentary Library. I commend the report to honourable members. Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(12.13) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: provision of navigational aids, Hydrographers Passage, Great Barrier Reef. The proposal is for the provision of maritime navigational aids to mark a deep water channel through the Great Barrier Reef. The channel is known as Hydrographers Passage. The work comprises four major light structures, each equipped with automatic lights and a smaller structure surmounted by a radar reflector. The Committee's report concludes there is a need for the work proposed in the reference and recommends that construction proceed at the estimated cost of $4.75m at September 1983 prices. The Committee also recommends that a risk analysis should be undertaken concurrently with the development of Hydrographers Passage to assess likely impact of long term shipping operations in the Passage. It further recommends that the Department of Transport pursue, through the International Maritime Organisation, agreement to compulsory pilotage in Hydrographers Passage, with a system of exemptions by examination of suitably experienced ships' masters. The Government accepts these recommendations and will make arrangements accordingly. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(12.15) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: relocation of parachute training school from RAAF base, Williamtown, N.S.W. to HMAS Albatross, N.S.W. The proposal is for the provision of working and living accommodation for the parachute school, the main elements of which are administrative, training and parachute maintenance facilities, a parachute drop zone and improvements to existing living accommodation. This proposal was a component of the FA18 Hornet project for the Royal Australian Air Force base at Williamtown, previously reported on by the Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the House resolved on 10 November last that it was expedient to proceed. At that time the Committee decided not to delay its report on the main project pending receipt of details of the proposed alternative relocation of the parachute training school component. Honourable members will recall that my colleague the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) announced on 6 September that the school would be relocated to HMAS Albatross, Nowra, in line with the Government's intention to maintain service activities and population levels in the area to offset the reduction arising from the phasing out of Royal Australian Navy fixed-wing aircraft. The Committee has now completed its investigations and in its report has recommended that the work proceed at the estimated cost of $7.3m at October 1983 prices. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Reference of Work: Public Works Committee Act Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(12.17) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: construction of facilities for the Australian frigate project, Williamstown Naval Dockyard, Vic. (phase A). The proposal is for the construction of facilities essential for the construction of FFG class frigates. It covers those initial works necessary for the efficient construction of frigates. The major elements of the proposed work are as follows: Unit blasting facility, shipbuilding platens, upgrading of cranage, kevlar and painters' workshops, covering of parts marshalling area, modifications to dockyard store and miscellaneous engineering services. The estimated cost of the proposal at November 1983 prices is $6.4m. I table plans showing the location of the proposed work and commend this motion to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Reference of Work: Public Works Committee Act Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(12.18) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: reconstruction of pyrotechnic section at the munitions filling factory, St. Marys, N.S.W. This motion is just another in a series which shows that this Government is getting on with the construction job in this country and is giving builders and those involved in the construction business a lot more work to do over the recess period. In the case of a lot of these jobs, construction will go on for some time. Existing facilities and equipment at the St Mary's munitions factory date in the main from the 1940s. The proposal is for the construction of six industrial-type single storey production buildings and associated engineering and amenities buildings to accommodate improved and updated munitions filling equipment being acquired by the Department of Defence Support. The new equipment and facilities will provide a much safer and more efficient environment for the handling of potentially dangerous materials. The estimated cost of the proposal at August 1983 prices is $13m. I table a plan showing the location of the proposed work and commend this motion to the House. I am grateful to the House for facilitating the putting through of this work. Question resolved in the affirmative. Public Works Committee References Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. Motion (by Mr Hurford)-by leave-agreed to: That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorise the publication of the report of the Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs dated November 1983. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —by leave-The Committee of Review under the chairmanship of Dr Moss Cass was appointed on 24 July 1983 to consider and report on, in summary: Whether the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs has been efficient and effective in meeting its statutory objects and functions; and whether any changes in the objects, functions or administrative arrangements are desirable having regard to the Government's policy statements on Immigration and Community Relations and Labor and Quality of Government. The full terms of reference are set out in the preamble to the report, volume 1. I wish to affirm the Government's commitment to provide policies and take other initiatives which develop Australia as a fair, harmonious and progressive multicultural society and the Government's responsibility to assist migrants in establishing themselves with the same rights, opportunities and responsibilities as all Australians. The establishment of the Committee of Review gave effect to a pre-election policy commitment to review the operation and administration of AIMA. It also reflects the Government's concern to see that the administrative arrangements to implement our multicultural and community relations policies most effectively meet the needs of both migrant groups and the community generally. The Committee of Review has reported that the Institute has been neither effective nor efficient in fulfilling its charter, which was to address itself to the central issues of multiculturalism in Australia. The Committee of Review has found that from every vantage point, be it that of the academics, the bureaucracy, the ethnic communities or social agencies, AIMA has been a costly failure. The Committee has recommended that AIMA should be replaced by a new independent statutory Commission to be an effective mechanism in achieving the following objects: Firstly, to promote equity and access for those whom society disadvantages because of their ethnic or cultural differences; Secondly, to combat prejudice and discrimination against members of cultural and ethnic minority groups; Thirdly, to promote understanding and acceptance of cultural diversity, mutual esteem and harmonious relations within the Australian community; and Forthly, to promote, within a just and cohesive society, the full and equal participation by all residents of Australia, of whatever cultural or ethnic backgrounds. The report has proposed that the Commission, as a national structure, should act with due regard to the interests and concerns of the States and Territories and involve them actively in its work. It has also recommended that the Commission should relate to the three levels of government and to community groups, and be empowered to act as a national co-ordinating body in the field of multicultural affairs. The Committee of review has recommended that its report be tabled in the Parliament as early as possible and then be made available for public discussion. It has further recommended that the new Council of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, conduct extensive consultations in the community with interested ethnic and other groups and individuals on the report and that the Council be asked to report on the outcome of these consultations before the Government determines its response to the report of the Committee of Review. The Government is anxious to act quickly on the report. It has accepted the recommendations of the Committee of Review on the tabling of the report and proposed public consultations. Other decisions will await the outcome of those consultations. The Committee's report provides much evidence of the need for more effective policy development, a competent program of research with findings freely available to government and community organisations and ongoing effective consultation with community organisations. The Government will maintain an open mind on the new structures proposed in the Committee of Review report until the consultations have been completed and the Government has studied all options regarding the future of AIMA. If, as a result of the Government's consideration of the report of the new AIMA Council, legislation is necessary this would be introduced as soon as practicable. The terms of the appointment of the present appointed members of the AIMA Council expire on 19 December 1983. The Council of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs is responsible under the AIMA Act for the conduct and control of the Institute's affairs and it is essential that a new Council be operating as from 20 December 1983. As final decisions still have to be taken, as I have outlined, the Government has decided to appoint an interim council for up to one year. This will involve appointment of an acting chairman and three acting members of the Council of AIMA and subsequent appointment by the Governor -General of a further three members. The names of the members of the new interim council will be announced by me as soon as practicable. Finally, I should like to pay tribute to the efforts of the Committee of Review of AIMA. The Committee had a large task. It also had a tight timetable due to the need to complete the review quickly so that its findings could be available to the Government in time for them to be considered when decisions on the new AIMA Council were being made. The Committee has displayed an extraordinary level of application and diligence in investigating, consulting and reporting on its terms of reference. I record the Government's and my own personal appreciation of the Committee's work. I also express my appreciation to the very substantial number of community organisations and individuals who have contributed to the work of the Committee of Review. I table the report. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —by leave-The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs ( Mr West) has just made three very serious and, some would say, shameful allegations against the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, which was an initiative of the Fraser Government. Mr West —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw the honourable member's attention to the fact that I drew attention to the report's findings. Mr HODGMAN —The Minister is debating the point. I am quoting from his speech. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! I rule on the point of order to the effect that there is no point of order. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has said that AIMA was not effective, that it was not efficient, and that it was, to quote his own words back to him, 'a costly failure'. The Opposition warns the Minister that it does not take his allegations lightly. Mr West —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am afraid I must persist with this. I draw the honourable member's attention to what I said. In my speech I said: The Committee of Review has found that from every vantage point-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister is not taking a point of order. He disagrees with what is being put by the honourable member for Denison. Mr West —It is a fair point. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the Minister feels he is misrepresented, subsequently he might approach the Chair to get some redress. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Already the Minister is running for cover. Of course he said in his statement that the Committee of Review had reported in relation to whether AIMA was effective and efficient, but the Minister has adopted those words. He said: . . . AIMA has been a costly failure. I want to inform the Minister and the people of Australia, through this Parliament, that we do not take the Minister's allegations lightly. The Opposition is not satisfied that there has been a fair trial of AIMA. We will call upon the Government, and the Minister in particular, to put up hard evidence to substantiate his allegations. This matter will be fully debated when the Federal Parliament resumes next year. We put the Minister on clear notice that he will have to prove in this Parliament to the satisfaction of the people of Australia the truth of what he said. He will have to satisfy the people of Australia that he is not engaged in a witch hunt. He will have to satisfy the people of Australia that he will not undo what we did simply because it was a Fraser Government initiative. Lastly, he will have to prove that he is not deliberately setting about the politicisation of ethnic affairs in this country. I have not yet had the opportunity to see the report. A message through my office indicated that it could not be shown to me before it was presented in the Parliament-I understand this-because apparently it contains some matters which might be regarded as defamatory. The report is available and we will go through it with a fine tooth comb. I deeply regret that in the list of thanks which the Minister gave in this Parliament a few moments ago he mentioned everybody but AIMA itself. Rightly or wrongly, I believe that Mr Frank Galbally and Mr Petro Georgiou are very great Australians and that all the members of AIMA have applied themselves diligently to the task which was entrusted to them by the previous Government. In conclusion I ask: Is the Minister simply re-inventing the wheel? Is AIMA to be demolished simply because the Minister wants to handle ethnic affairs in a different way? Is the proposed Commission, the objects of which I support and which can be supported by both sides of this House, to be established simply because the Minister has a thing about AIMA, Mr Galbally, Mr Georgiou and the initiatives of the Fraser Government? I indicate in this Parliament, as I indicated to Dr Cass when I spoke to him personally, that because of my short term as shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs I did not believe that I could make a substantive and meaningful contribution to the review. I think the Minister will appreciate that it is a very complex area. I would far prefer to have my facts correct before I go before anybody to express a view on behalf of the Opposition. But I indicate-this has been published in the Press-that the very constitution of the Committee of Review was claimed by some to bring about what in effect has been a predictable report. It was claimed that some members of the Committee of Review were publicly on record as having criticised AIMA before their appointment to the Committee of Review and, secondly, that some had not had direct contact with the work of AIMA. The Minister has undertaken that there will be an opportunity for full public comment on this report. I ask him to ensure that there is a full scale debate in the Parliament prior to the introduction of legislation; in other words, that there will be an opportunity in this Parliament for people such as the former Ministers for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) and the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), to make a contribution. I have to conclude my remarks now because of the time constraint but, if the Minister fails to come up with the hard proof to justify the allegations he has made, I believe that he and his Government will be rightly and properly criticised for an action which in the ultimate may well appear to be based more on political motivations than anything else. Report and Ministerial Statement Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members I present the text of the following International Labour Organisation instruments adopted by the 68th session of the International Labour Conference held in Geneva in June 1982: Convention No. 157, Maintenance of Social Security Rights 1982; Convention No. 158, Termination of Employment 1982; Recommendation No. 166, Termination of Employment 1982; and Protocol to the Plantations Convention 1958, No. 110. I seek leave to make a statement regarding these instruments. Leave granted. Mr WILLIS —The four instruments adopted by the International Labour Conference in June 1982 were referred to the appropriate Commonwealth and State authorities for examination and comment. Preliminary examination of law and practice has indicated that there are difficulties within both Commonwealth and State jurisdictions concerning the first three instruments. Hence it will not be possible for Australia to ratify the two conventions or to implement the provisions of the recommendation at this time. The fourth instrument, the Protocol to the Plantations Convention, is considered to be inapplicable to Australia and, hence, no further action will be taken in relation to it. The question of what future action may be appropriate in relation to the first three instruments will continue to be considered by the Commonwealth-State consultative machinery on ILO matters and by the National Labour Consultative Council, through its Committee on International Labour Affairs. Convention No. 157, Maintenance of Rights in Social Security 1982, is concerned with the maintenance of social security rights for people and their families who work or have previously worked in countries other than their own. The general objective of the Convention is to promote flexible and broad co-ordination between national social security schemes. It will not be possible at this stage for Australia to ratify this Convention because of the substantial difference between the philosophy and structure of the Australian social security system which is non-contributory, residence based and not earnings-related but income tested, and the system generally applicable in other member countries. Current moves by the Government towards establishing reciprocal social security agreements with certain countries, however, will bring Australia closer to conformity with the provisions and the intent of this Convention. The Convention on Termination of Employment is of particular interest as it aims to establish the basic right of employees to be protected against unjustified dismissal. It provides for certain guarantees to employees threatend with or affected by termination, such as the requirement that termination be for a valid reason connected with the capacity or conduct of the employee, or based on the operational requirements of the undertaking; a procedure whereby the employee can appeal to an impartial body where termination has been considered to be unjustified; the right to a reasonable period of notice of termination; and protection of his or her income in the form of a severance allowance or social security benefits. The Convention further provides, in the case of terminations which are for reasons of an economic, technological or structural nature, that the employer consult with employee representatives on the action contemplated and that he will notify the competent authority as early as possible. The Recommendation on Termination of Employment, in addition to the provisions contained in the Convention, sets out, among other things, more detailed guidelines on possible measures to prevent or limit terminations for economic reasons and their negative effects. Mr Deputy Speaker, honourable members will be aware that many of the provisions of the Convention are the subject of the job protection test case before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which was completed recently. In its submission to the Commission the Commonwealth indicated its broad support for the Australian Council of Trade Unions claims. The Commonwealth drew attention to the general inadequacy of current job protection provisions in Australia-by mid-1982 only 15 per cent of Federal awards and agreements contained provisions for some form of job security-either through advance notice provisions, consultation procedures or severance pay. The Government submitted that this situation needed to be addressed by the establishment or improvement of minimum standards in Federal awards. The Government also indicated that both the Government-ACTU accord on economic policy and the communique issued by the National Economic Summit Conference of last April recognised the importance of consultation by employers with employees and their unions over technological change and adequate provisions for redundancy and retraining. Any developments which provide greater protection in this area will have the effect of bringing law and practice into closer conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The Government is giving high priority to ratifying instruments whch are appropriate to Australian conditions. Australia has ratified some 43 ILO conventions. While our record compares favourably with other federal states which have greater difficulty in bringing their law and practice into line with ILO conventions than do unitary states, the Government is concerned to take greater advantage of the standards and guidelines of ILO instruments in the development of its policies. As I indicated earlier, the ratification prospects of particular conventions are reviewed regularly by Federal and State labour Ministers as well as by the International Labour Affairs Committee of the NLCC, whose establishment was consistent with the provisions of ILO Convention No. 144 -Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards), 1976-which Australia ratified in 1979. A matter to which the NLCC committee has determined priority should be given is an urgent review of Australia's position in relation to unratified ILO conventions. This review is being undertaken by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. When completed, it will facilitate the determination of priorities and consideration of what needs to be done in respect of ratification of suitable ILO instruments, to which, as I have already said, the Government is giving high priority. It is my intention to make a more detailed statement on this matter in the autumn session. Honourable members will be aware that the Government has been particularly concerned to give effect to Convention No. 155 relating to Occupational Safety and Health. The recent establishment of the tripartite Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, which will advise the Government on the implementation of its national occupational health and safety strategy, as I reported in my statement to the House on 10 November, is a significant step towards bringing law and practice in Australia into conformity with the Convention. The Government is also working towards ratifying, as soon as possible, Convention No. 150 on Labour Administration and Convention No. 142 on Human Resources Development. Both these conventions embody principles which Australia has supported for many years and ratification of these instruments would underscore the importance already given by Australia to these matters. The Government also regards the provisions of Convention No. 151, Labour Relations ( Public Service), and No. 156, Workers with Family Responsibilities as matters of high priority. Honourable members will agree that many ILO conventions embody social and labour standards which member countries should seek to attain as soon as possible. Once member countries have ratified a convention they have responsibility to adhere to its provisions. It is a matter of considerable concern that some countries which have been criticised for breaching the provisions of conventions, ratified voluntarily by them, have sought to deflect that criticism by attacking the competence and impartiality of the ILO supervisory machinery. In recent years, some Eastern bloc countries have taken this approach-especially in the light of ILO examination of infringement of trade unions rights in Poland-and have gone so far as to challenge the authority of the supervisory bodies to comment on national practice. Some developing countries when taxed with non-compliance have argued that this can be justified by the exigencies of economic development. Australia does not share this view. If allowed to go unchallenged, these arguments would seriously underline the influence of international labour standards in promoting social justice and better working conditions and would ultimately weaken the role of the International Labour Organisation itself. With these considerations in mind, the NLCC adopted a resolution in August of this year requesting the Government to reaffirm its long established support for the universality of international labour standards and for the Organisation's supervisory machinery. The resolution stated: ILO Conventions should remain universal in character; the special needs of countries and regions should be taken into account at the time of drafting Conventions. Flexibility should be incorporated into the provisions of the instruments at the time of drafting and should not be allowed for in the interpretation of the application of ratified Conventions. Appropriate flexibility can only be achieved if there is full participation by member States and the various Regions in the standard-setting process. In this regard the importance of technical assistance by the ILO in the area of labour standards should be emphasised. Support should be given to the work of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations and the Conference Committee on Applications and their impartial and technical examination of the application by member countries of the provisions of Conventions they have ratified. This Government fully supports the terms of the NLCC resolution. We are mindful that Australia was a founding member of the ILO and that successive Australian Governments have participated actively in and supported the Organisation. This Government will continue to do do because we consider that the objectives of the Organisation and, in particular, its principles of freedom of association and tripartism are fundamental to economic development and the furtherance of social justice. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava) —by leave-On behalf of the Opposition I particularly welcome the latter part of the statement of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). It would be appropriate to remark that the Opposition shares entirely the concern of the Government to take greater advantage of the standards and guidelines of instruments of the International Labour Organisation in the development of policies. I welcome the fact that the Minister is going to examine the unratified ILO conventions and make a statement in the autumn session. All persons who are interested in labour relations would welcome that. The Opposition concurs most strongly with the Minister's remarks regarding ILO conventions embodying social and labour standards with member countries so that these should be as universal as possible in their application. We, whether in government or in opposition, share the concern of the present Government about the approach of some of the Eastern bloc countries. It is certainly illustrated by the infringement of trade union rights in Poland, and this House expressed its view on that matter when we were in government. I agree most strongly with the strength of expression used by the Minister as to the way in which Australia approaches that matter and also agree most strongly with the approach in the National Labour Consultative Council resolution of August this year. I must refer to a couple of points that were raised in the earlier part of the Minister's speech. First of all, I do hope that the Government is able to make some progress on the maintenance of rights in social security matters. The substantial difference that he referred to about the methods of handling social security systems between Australia and other countries has bedevilled previous governments and I fear will remain a major barrier as far as reciprocal arrangements are concerned. It produces a degree of injustice in certain circumstances. It is a matter with which I have wrestled in the past and is quite difficult. The Convention on the Termination of Employment is the last matter to which I refer. Time is limited but I do wish to record the fact that the Opposition certainly supports what amounts to the minimum standards referred to by the Minister. Statements of motherhood are obviously not sufficient when it comes to the application of those provisions. While it is an adverse reflection on the unions, the employers and the system that only 15 per cent of Federal awards and agreements have contained some provision regarding job security, at the same time the real test is going to be in the adherence to the system and the approach to be taken when those provisions are there. We see that the Victorian Government has taken what looks like a generous approach-certainly a most reasonable one-in conformity with the provisions set out by the Minister today in respect of the ILO. We now find Victorians are walking to work and look like doing so for some time. It is very important that when these provisions are in place, when governments and private employers have acted in accordance with the international provisions, they are then able to enforce those provisions and have them abided by. It is one thing for governments to make statements that are almost passe in terms of objectives but much more has to be done and much more should emerge in future statements by the Minister as a result of consultations with the States, with the trade unions and employers through the NLCC on how these provisions are going to be abided by and enforced. The President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has already said to the Australian Council of Trade Unions that at times of economic recession the choice might have to be made between jobs and wages. Currently a wage indexation system is applying which would mean that any generous application of job security provisions of the kind outlined could be only a further deterrent to the employment of people and could only add to our uncompetitiveness. At the same time, there is no doubt, as a matter of social justice, that provisions of that nature are needed. I hope that the Federal Government will use its good offices with the Victorian Government to try to bring pressure on the trade unions to recognise the importance to the public and the importance to job creation elsewhere of the redeployment of the funds currently tied up by the Victorian Railways in an area which is no longer economic and in which the Government has done all of the right things in accordance with the spirit of the ILO. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —I thank the honourable member for Balaclava for co-operating in curtailing his remarks to meet the convenience of the House. Sitting suspended from 12.49 to 2 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) is absent from Parliament today to participate in the opening of the ANZCAN cable on Norfolk Island. The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) will handle questions on behalf of the Minister for Communications. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) will represent the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in this chamber. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Prime Minister to the advice of the Solicitor-General given on 25 August this year. The advice was: Should Mr Walsh's evidence be accepted it would be open to a jury to find that Mr Young had committed a breach of section 79 (3) . . . That is of the Crimes Act. As the Royal Commissioner has now accepted Mr Walsh's evidence, particularly in regard to the three vital issues in which the evidence of Mr Young and Mr Walsh was in dispute, will the Prime Minister now ask the Attorney-General to reconsider his earlier recommendation not to consider prosecution of the honourable member for Port Adelaide under the Crimes Act? Mr HAWKE —The Attorney-General's opinion, given on 29 August, was in two parts: Whether section 79 (3) of the Crimes Act was breached and, if so, whether there should be any prosecution action. The Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General concluded in regard to the first part that if Mr Young's testimony were accepted it would be difficult to argue that the Crimes Act applied. If Mr Walsh's account were to prevail, the application of the Crimes Act would be, in the words of the opinion, 'much more finely balanced'. Mr Justice Hope found that the substance of what was said by Mr Young to Mr Walsh was along the lines of Mr Walsh's testimony. The Attorney-General's opinion was in two parts. The second part questioned whether, even if the Crimes Act were breached, it was proper to prosecute. In the opinion, the Attorney listed three considerations which led him to conclude that it was not. The first consideration was the obscurity of the law. The second consideration was the fact that a political sanction of resignation was available and was taken and, therefore, the need for a deterrent consideration did not apply. The third consideration was the level of seriousness of the offence. The Attorney-General concluded that, although the disclosure would potentially have been serious, it did not appear that any damage had, in fact, occurred and that there was no intention to harm Australia' s national security. Mr Justice Hope bore out the conclusions of the Attorney- General absolutely. In particular, because there was no actual damage to Australia's security and for the other reasons that I have mentioned, it was inappropriate to prosecute, even if there had been a breach of the Crimes Act. It is important to understand that there was nothing in the Hope report of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies that was not taken into account in the opinion of the Attorney-General. That opinion also took into account the Walsh testimony. I remind the House that Mr Justice Hope, in his report-which all honourable members have-noted that the question of impropriety is a political one and should be left to politicians to deal with, as we have done. As I pointed out yesterday in answer to another question from the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Justice Hope concluded that it was not for him to make any recommendations consequent upon his finding that Mr Young's disclosure was unauthorised and improper. The whole point is that the impropriety has been dealt with. It was dealt with by Mr Young's resignation in July. Mr BRUMBY —I ask the Prime Minister: What conclusions does he draw from the latest unemployment and national accounts figures released today about the progress the Government is making towards economic recovery? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for Bendigo for his very relevant question. By way of background it will not be overlooked that in recent weeks the Opposition has done everything within its power to distract attention from the reality of Australia's very significant economic recovery, to distract attention from the depths of recession into which Australia was plunged by the policies of the Opposition when it was in government and, in particular, to distract attention from the responsibility for that recession on the part of the former Treasurer, Mr $3.6 Billion Deception himself. The economic indicators released today on the labour market and on the national accounts provide positive signs of the strength of the economic recovery in this country. They are the best economic news that this country has had for a very long time. Not even the statistical deception which the Opposition has been carrying on for the last few weeks can serve it any purpose in the face of these statistics. On the labour market front all the indicators are in the right direction. The seasonally adjusted unemployment figure is down from 9.9 per cent to 9.6 per cent on the last month's figures. That is in the context of the participation rate increasing from 60.4 per cent to 60.6 per cent, another indicator of returning confidence in the economy. I remind you, Mr Speaker, that with respect to total employment, the employment figure, seasonally adjusted in the last month, increased by 44,700. I remind all honourable members of this House-those on this side, of course, will take pleasure in it; those on the other side will be upset-that the total increase in employment since April has been 126,600. One hundred and twenty six thousand and six hundred new jobs have been created since April by this Government. In the Budget, being as cautious, conservative and responsible as we always are, we talked about the possibility of an increase of 90,000 jobs in 1983-84. In five months, the number of jobs has already increased by 99,000. That is on the employment front. The national accounts show first of all that the revised June quarter figure for non-farm gross domestic product declined by 1.2 per cent and not by 2.2 per cent, which was the preliminary figure used in the recent projections of the Economic Planning Advisory Council. Figures for the September quarter show an extraordinary non-farm gross domestic product growth of 2.3 per cent. The national accounts figures also show exceptionally good news on the inflation front. On the inflation front the non-farm product deflator for the September quarter rose by only 6.7 per cent, which is less than half what it was a year ago. The figures I have given to the House have two very important implications. The first, of course, is that they provide very positive signs of the strength of the economic recovery taking place in this country under the policies of this Government. The second, of course, is that they show that the projections prepared for EPAC, of which the Opposition tried to make so much, and about which we issued warnings in this place, can be confined to the dustbins of history. We were trying to explain to the economic illiterates on the other side the difference between projections and forecasts. Forecasts show the likely path of the economy. Even our conservative forecasts have been shown to understate the strength of the recovery associated with our policies. It is about time that the Leader of the Opposition and Malcolm Fraser's mate, John Howard, who, as an act of friendship and as a futile attempt at political salvation, agreed to a giant deception on the Australian public, started to eat a little bit of humble pie. In sum, the Australian public can now more readily begin to compare the performance of the alternative economic policies of this Government with the hopeless economic policies of the Opposition. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had any decency he would recognise that he owes my Treasurer an apology. I conclude by saying, as I said yesterday, that Max Walsh told the Leader of the Opposition in the current issue of the Business Review Weekly that he was singing muck. It is quite clear in the financial pages of this country that they know that he has been singing muck. May I say-may it be clearly in the minds of honourable members opposite as they go away over the Christmas and New Year break; let them stew upon it-that the Australian public knows now that there is one group in this Parliament which is singing muck and there is another , on this side of the House, which is getting on with the job of running the country and the Australian economy. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery today Mr Vanaardenne, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Economic Affairs in the Government of the Netherlands. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr ANTHONY —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. What sanction does the Prime Minister consider appropriate for a Minister who misleads the Parliament, who deceives his Prime Minister and who, on the basis of the opinions of the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General and the report of a royal commissioner, appears to have committed an offence under the Crimes Act? Mr HAWKE —I thought the question may have been put in the actual rather than the hypothetical, but on the basis that the honourable member is referring to the honourable member for Port Adelaide, the decision has been made. Clearly, it is a decision which will be welcomed and accepted by the Australian people. Mr PUNCH —My question is directed to the Treasurer and concerns the national accounts figures which were released today. Can the Treasurer advise whether the forecasts for economic growth contained in the Budget Papers are now likely to be achieved? Mr KEATING —Not only are the forecasts likely to be achieved; indeed, they probably will be exceeded. I am happy to repeat the advice that the Prime Minister gave the House that the September quarter national accounts show an increase in gross domestic product of 4.4 per cent in real terms over the previous quarter. I might add that this is the highest quarterly increase since the 1960s. The strength of the figure suggests that not only will the Budget forecast be met; as I said, it will probably be exceeded. This does put a lie to the Opposition's claims of last week, when it tried to abuse the projections of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and to suggest that the projections were a forecast, when I gave adequate warning of the fact that the Government did not accept the basis of the projections. Yet the Deputy Leader of the Opposition came into the House-come in sucker-with his mouth wide open, and nailed himself up to those projections into the never-never three years from now . The assumptions of projection one were less optimistic than scenario A, based on what we believed the June national accounts would be. We have now had a revision of the June national accounts. The June national accounts show that the economy is growing more strongly than either scenario A or projection one assumed. Hence, as the Prime Minister has said, the basic underlying assumptions of projection one no longer hold. It renders as absolutely baseless the claims that were made by the Opposition a week ago. Yesterday the Deputy Leader of the Opposition called me a liar about those projections. I hope that he will now apologise. Mr Hawke —No, he would not apologise. Mr KEATING —He will not apologise, because he has the political morals of an alley cat. I do not expect him to apologise. The figures show a marked contrast between the performance of this Government and that of the previous Government in relation to the economy. We are looking at a rate of growth of about 6 per cent through the year, compared with minus 2 per cent for the Deputy Leader's performance as Treasurer last year. The Prime Minister has already given the figures in respect of employment. But last night in the House the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did another sleight of hand on the employment figures. It is worth saying what he said: The real truth, which the Government is seeking to withhold, is that since March, when it was elected, only 30,000 jobs have been created and in seasonally adjusted terms only 54,000. The first thing the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows as the former Treasurer is that he should not use raw figures. But even using them, he picked March knowing full well that the only statistics which had been collected for this Government began in April and not in March. So, rather than the raw figure of 30,000, the figure should have been 87,600. In terms of the adjusted figure it should not have been 54,000, but rather 82,000. That is an indication of the duplicity and the deceitfulness of the Deputy Leader last night when, again, he tried to mislead the Parliament and the public in respect of these figures. As the Prime Minister said, already this year we are looking at a seasonally adjusted figure of 126,000. Of course, in the Budget forecast we were heading for 90,000 or 1 1/2 per cent employment growth, or 130,000 across the period from April until 30 June 1984. Just five months into the financial year we are just about at that figure. Mr CADMAN —Does the Prime Minister recall, and I am sure he does, the advice of his Attorney-General that the traditional political sanctions are the appropriate ones for all but the most extraordinary and dangerous ministerial breaches of official security? In light of Mr Justice Hope's conclusion that the disclosures of the honourable member for Port Adelaide 'give rise to a real danger of significant damage to national security', how can the Prime Minister still claim that the self-imposed penalty by the honourable member for Port Adelaide is the appropriate penalty? Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, when will they ever learn? The duration of the penalty by definition was not self-imposed. The honourable member for Port Adelaide tendered his resignation on 14 July. The duration of that penalty was a matter for decision not by the honourable member for Port Adelaide but by myself in association with my colleagues. As I have explained to this House and the people of Australia, we have considered what we regard as the appropriate matters to take into account, as Mr Justice Hope indicated it was our duty to do. We have done that. I assert, and I repeat: Not only the overwhelming majority of members of this House but also the people of Australia will approve of what we have done . Mr JACOBI —Is the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism aware of my repeated, but unsuccessful, representations to the previous Government proposing the establishment of an Australian sports museum? In view of the obvious popularity of sport with the Australian people and this Government's commitment to the Australian sporting community, will the Minister take steps to establish an Australian sports museum as a matter of priority? Mr JOHN BROWN —I am aware of the continuing interest of the honourable member for Hawker in the concept of a sports museum/hall of fame. It is a measure of his tenacity that he continues to display that enthusiasm despite the absolute lack of any response from the previous Government when he brought up the matter. I think it is fair to say that a great deal of our national ethos has been built on the sporting prowess of Australians and the deeds of our great sporting heroes and heroines. It seems to me a pity that, while we have museums of national science and museums of all sorts of things, we do not have a national museum to endow the nation with the riches that have been left to us by our sporting heroes and heroines. I take the matter very seriously, and in fact I have referred it to the Interim Committee of the Australian Sports Commission for a detailed report on what we might do about it. I did have some notice of this question so I looked up the history of the honourable member for Hawker's interest in this matter. I dug out a very interesting and eloquent letter that he sent to Mr Ellicott when he was the responsible Minister. I will just quote a couple of lines from that letter as I think it might highlight the point I am making. The honourable member for Hawker said in his letter: Our youth needs sport and they need sporting heroes, in a technological age of disbelief they remind us of our human potential. They redefine our limitations and expand our boundaries. They illustrate the promise and encourage the practice of what can be. I think all this is very relevant to the fact that we do not have a proper repository in Australia for all the artifacts and memorabilia that exist from our sporting heroes and heroines. I firmly support the proposition. When the Sports Commission comes up with its recommendations I will be putting them to the Government. I hope I will be able to convince it of the necessity to establish a museum. Mr SINCLAIR —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. Contrary to advice to the Royal Navy a fortnight ago that docking facilities would be available for HMS Invincible, has the Minister advised the Royal Navy that it cannot now use the Captain Cook dry dock, Garden Island, for that vessel until it advises whether the vessel is carrying nuclear weapons? Will the same refusal of port facilities be extended to all vessels of treaty partners, including the United States of America? Was that decision a Cabinet decision? If not, what other Ministers were consulted? Mr SCHOLES —The arrangements for ship visits are in no way related to the matter which the former Minister for Defence has raised. The question of the visit to Sydney by the HMS Invincible has been under active discussion for some considerable time. Late last week the British High Commissioner advised me that, for operational reasons, the HMS Invincible would no longer be dry docking in Australia. Mr MOUNTFORD —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Do the labour force statistics released today give any indication of the immediate impact of the national wage decision on the employment situation? Mr WILLIS —The situation is that people on the other side have been saying that the Government's wages policy would have disastrous effects on employment. It is certainly not the case that there is any evidence of any truth in their allegations. On 13 October, the shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations said: There must be a real possibility that (unemployment) will worsen further in October as employers are faced with higher costs caused by the 4.3 per cent national wage increase. On 23 September, his rival spokesman on employment and industrial relations, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, said: . . . the inevitable result (of the national wage decision) must be that more people will lose their jobs. So we have this continual refrain from honourable members on the other side of the chamber that the Government's wages policy, endorsed and implemented by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, would be an employment disaster. Of course, what we have seen in the last couple of months is a complete refutation of their allegations. Over the last two months we have seen growth in employment, seasonally adjusted, of 49,000. We have seen a reduction in unemployment levels, seasonally adjusted, from 10.4 per cent to 9.6 per cent, and in actual numbers, seasonally adjusted, a reduction of 52,000 in the level of unemployment. I think those figures are evidence of the complete absurdity of the statements made by members of the Opposition about the effect of the Government's wages policy on employment and unemployment. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. It is quite clear that, in the two months since that period, we have had the complete opposite of what Opposition members have alleged would occur. The whole situation in regard to employment and unemployment is extremely encouraging, as the Prime Minister has already indicated in respect of the November figures. I think it is worth reiterating that in the Budget we were forecasting an employment growth through this year of something of the order of 90,000. In fact already, in seasonally adjusted figures, we have had a growth since June of 98,500; in other words, more in five months than we forecast in the Budget for 12 months. Even bearing in mind that there might be some inexactitude in the figures month by month, it is quite clear on the basis of those figures that we will have employment growth this financial year well in excess of the Budget forecast. The unemployment consequences of that are that instead of having some increase in unemployment, as we expected would be the case, we are likely to have no increase or, even better and more likely, a reduction in unemployment over the course of this year . Those figures are extraordinarily encouraging to the Government. They also prove what we have been saying about the Economic Planning Advisory Council projections; that is, that they were unduly pessimistic and that they were based , as the Opposition should by now understand, on an acceptance of the Budget forecasts for 1983-84. The Budget forecasts are now clearly understating the likely result for 1983-84, and therefore those EPAC projections, assuming that the Budget outcome for 1983-84 will be ahead of the Budget forecasts, are severely understating the growth in employment and the impact on unemployment, not only for 1983-84 but also for 1984-85 and 1985-86. None of that, however, is to say that we can be complacent and rest on our laurels at this stage in regard to the employment situation. It still remains the case that it is extemely important for us to ensure that, in the course of our economic recovery, there is no wages blow-out which would ensure that that recovery came to an end. That is where the prices and incomes policy comes in. That policy has been designed to ensure that we can have a sustained economic and employment growth. In the course of the next year or two we expect that adherence to that policy will enable us to ensure that we have continuance of strong employment and economic growth. Without the prices and incomes accord there is no doubt that a wages policy such as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would have us pursue would lead to an early cessation to that recovery through a wages blow-out. What we have now is a wages policy which is at the same time conducive to the maintenance of real living standards for wage and salary earners, a reduction-- Mr Cadman —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Is the Minister who did the deal with the Builders Labourers Federation-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I warn honourable members that if they raise frivolous points of order I will take action. Mr WILLIS —In conclusion, what we have at the present time is a wages policy which is conducive to equity in the wages area by maintaining real wages, but at the same time enables us to have a reduction in the level of inflation, an increase in our international competitiveness, and a strong growth in the economy and in the level of employment. Mr SINCLAIR —I refer the Minister for Defence to the Australian Associated Press report which states: 'The Invincible sought permission to use the Garden Island naval dockyard drydock to check an A-frame', the Australian Navy spokesman told AAP. Mr Scholes asked the British whether the vessel was carrying nuclear weapons. The British refused to say, and Mr Scholes said the Royal Navy could not use the dry dock as long as it refused an answer. Does he deny that report and also the statement by the president of the Captain Cook Garden Island naval dockyard union, shop steward Mike Jackson, that workers had been told the Invincible work was off because of the armaments she carried. Is the ship now to be dry docked in Singapore? Mr SCHOLES —I am not able to identify that any naval spokesman has made any such statement. I certainly have not released any statement of that nature. I understand that a pressman spoke to a junior employee at the dockyard who was unable to comment on the matter because it was not within their province. The pressman engaged the person in conversation and then wrote a story from that conversation. Mr Sinclair —You are also misleading the House, are you? Mr SCHOLES —I am telling the honourable member that a pressman engaged a junior member of staff in conversation. A Press release, mentioning a naval spokesman, has been made arising from that conversation. When the honourable member was Minister were junior members of staff, not naval employees necessarily, naval spokesmen? If that is so he should say that that is the level at which he operated. With regard to the Invincible, I am not able to deny or confirm what the president of the union at Garden Island said. What he said was what he wanted to say, and it has nothing to do with me. As far as the Invincible is concerned, discussions have taken place between my Department and the British High Commission. Discussions have taken place between myself and the British High Commissioner in relation to the dry docking of the Invincible. Last week, the High Commissioner advised me that for operational reasons the Invincible would not be dry docked in Australia. The policy of this and previous governments on visits of vessels to Australian ports in respect of nuclear matters is exactly the same. This Government applies those policies with the most rigid regard to safety requirements. The British High Commissioner has indicated to me that for operational reasons the Invincible will not dry dock at Garden Island. I have nothing to add to that. If the honourable member has any other questions he may ask the British High Commissioner. Mr GEAR —Mr Speaker, my question is directed to you. Are you aware that the two portraits facing the rear of Parliament House in King's Hall are both portraits of women, one of whom is Dame Dorothy Tangney, after whom my seat is named? Can you inform the House of any moves you may be contemplating to correct this situation? Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member will realise that the custom is to have the most recent portraits in King's Hall with some of the older ones in the collection. Matters such as he has raised have been directed to the attention of the Presiding Officers. The Presiding Officers have decided that there will be a rotation of portraits in King's Hall to allow many of the portraits of those who were in the Parliament in the past or in important positions to be shown. I regret that on two occasions in the past few weeks some individuals have taken action to remove the portraits and rehang them. This endangers the safety of paintings in the historic collection and we have replaced them from where they were rehung, but in the next session a rotational system will be used. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a further question of the Minister for Defence. In the light of the answer just given to this House, why did a spokesman for his office advise Australian Associated Press that Australian Labor Party policy allowed port visits by friendly nuclear warships provided nuclear weapons were not carried on to Australian soil? Why was it necessary for that answer to be given to the media when the Minister assures us that no conditions were imposed by him or his Government? Mr SCHOLES —I do not recall ever having said that no conditions applied to visits by warships or on the use of Australian facilities. I would be very surprised if the former Minister or the former Government did not apply conditions to the use of Australian facilities by allies or by commercial vessels for that matter. It is our practice to answer questions when we are asked what conditions are applied to visits by nuclear warships by informing people what is public knowledge and of the conditions which have been tabled by the former Government in this Parliament. Mr Peacock —It is not nuclear powered. Mr SCHOLES —If the Leader of the Opposition listened to the questions that were asked he would be aware that the Deputy Leader of the National Party asked me why we informed people of the conditions applying to nuclear powered vessels. I am not aware of the conditions under which the questions were asked, but they do have relevance. The facts are that this Government insists that the most rigid safeguards are applied to the visits of nuclear weapons, and in accordance with- Mr Peacock —It is not nuclear powered. As you say, it has nuclear weapons. Mr SCHOLES —Nuclear ships. I do not know whether members of the Opposition are serious or not. I think it is a bit like the report of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. They have nothing else to deal with so they are just showing how unintelligent they are. Mr Peacock —Did you ask whether it was carrying nuclear weapons? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition is becoming rather restive in recent days. I have had occasion to warn him before. I would hate to have to take action against him. I warn members of the House that they should observe the Standing Orders even though it is near the end of the session. Mr SCHOLES —On the question of nuclear weapons on Australian soil I suggest, if honourable gentlemen opposite are not aware of it, that they have a look at the assurance given to the then Foreign Minister, the Hon. Tony Street, by the United States, and other agreements on the matter which preclude the landing on Australian soil of B52 aircraft carrying nuclear weapons. This Government has a very specific policy on nuclear ships and matters nuclear. We do not accept nuclear weapons on Australian soil. We permit visits to Australian ports of nuclear powered ships under the most stringent safeguards that are available. If any pressman asks me or a member of my staff we are quite prepared to outline those safeguards at any time, and we will apply them to the letter. Dr KLUGMAN —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is , no doubt, aware that the Polish Government, notwithstanding the announced amnesty, is proposing to go ahead with the trial of a number of Solidarity leaders and of four KOR leaders, that is, the Committee of Workers Defence. Will he add his appeal to those of other international socialist, social democrat and trade union leaders urging the Polish Government to grant a complete amnesty to all those who participated in the only, at least temporarily successful, democratic working class movements in Poland since that country was occupied by the German Third Reich and the Union of Soviet Socalist Republics following the Hitler-Stalin pact in 1939? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for Prospect for the question, which gives evidence of his continuing interest in this subject. He raises by his question a very important issue of principle. In the week in which Mrs Danuta Walesa leaves Warsaw to visit Oslo to receive her husband's Nobel Peace Prize he also raises a very timely issue of principle. The House will remember, I trust, that the Polish Government last July officially lifted martial law and announced a partial amnesty for detainees. At that time on behalf of the Australian Government I noted that special legislation had been brought into force which could very well have the effect of maintaining martial law. We also expressed at that time very forcibly our regret that the amnesty for political detainees was only partial. We deplore unequivocally the fact that seven leaders of Solidarity and, as the honourable member has indicated, four leaders of KOR, the Committee of Workers Defence, are still in detention and that trials are apparently in preparation in regard to these people on the part of the Polish authorities. It is absolutely clear that the spirit of the Polish people which was reflected in the emergence of Solidarity in 1980 will not be broken. It has not been broken and will not be broken. Their pursuit of the paths of negotiation and dialogue and peaceful protest in support of their cause, I suggest, has been exemplary to the whole of the world. At a time when there has not been unity or spirit of purpose in this House I am sure I speak for the whole of the House when I say that this tragic country of Poland will not be stable and prosperous unless the Polish people themselves are allowed to find solutions to their economic and political problems free of coercion and by the processes of dialogue and consensus which they have sought to follow. In respect of the final part of the question from the honourable member for Prospect, I certainly add the voice of the Government and, I would think, of the Parliament and of the people of Australia to those calling on the Polish Government to drop any planned legal action and to release all political detainees. If that is done, there will be two very favourable results. Firstly, that tragic country of Poland will have a chance of restoring stability and decency within the country. Secondly, and very importantly, it will add to the chance of Poland returning to a better and more decent relationship with the international community of nations. Mr PEACOCK —My question is to the Minister for Defence and is supplementary to those asked by the Deputy Leader of the National Party. Did the Minister or any members of his Department ask whether HMS Invincible was carrying nuclear weapons? Mr SCHOLES —It is the policy of the British Government and of the United States Government not to confirm or deny whether vessels capable of carrying nuclear weapons are in fact carrying nuclear weapons. I am aware of that situation. I engaged in conversations with the British High Commissioner in respect to the dry docking of HMS Invincible, as I have already told the House. They were private conversations which the right honourable member, as a former Foreign Minister, would expect me to respect, and I repeat what I said on the first occasion. I suggest that the right honourable member ask the British High Commissioner whether he wishes to expand on the information which he has given me, that for operational reasons HMS Invincible will not dry dock in Australia. I repeat what I said before: The Australian Government applies the conditions laid down by the previous Government concerning visits by nuclear-powered warships to Australia. We maintain the policy developed by the previous Government in respect of the B52s operating in Australia. We are totally opposed to nuclear weapons being on Australian soil, and that is a policy we will not depart from. Mr SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Port Adelaide. Mr Sinclair —Are you pleading guilty or not guilty, Mick? Mr SPEAKER —I invite the honourable member for Port Adelaide to wait until the House comes to order. Mr YOUNG —I intended to. Mr SPEAKER —Now would be an appropriate time. I call the honourable member. Mr Sinclair —What you mean is you are guilty, Mick. Mr YOUNG —If they put me in goal I want to share it with Michael MacKellar. At least we will have a television set. I could not stand Andrew's sunlamp. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. There comes a stage when there is wit but, when others try to cap it, it becomes ridiculous. I call the honourable member for Port Adelaide. Mr YOUNG —I ask the Treasurer: In light of comments reported in today's Press concerning the attitude of the Australian Council of Trade Unions towards the Prices Surveillance Authority, will the Government be having further discussions with the trade union movement on this matter? Mr KEATING —The Government will be having discussions on prices and incomes with the trade union movement, the ACTU, at the Economic Planning Advisory Council meeting on Monday and later in the week at the National Labour Consultative Council. I was somewhat surprised by a statement yesterday by the ACTU. There were extensive consultations with both the ACTU and representatives of business, as well as representatives of the States, before the legislation establishing the Prices Surveillance Authority was introduced into this House. Officials of the ACTU have been in touch with me this morning. They wished to clarify some of the points they made yesterday because of some misunderstandings, they believed, of their intentions. They have telexed me. I will read the telex to the House. The telex is from Mr Kelty, the Secretary, and Mr Dolan, the President. It says: 1. The ACTU has had extensive discussions with the Government on the question of the PSA. 2. The ACTU does not oppose the PSA legislation. There are no changes that we wish to make in regard to the legislation. The legislation has been discussed with the ACTU and we have accepted the legislation. 3. However, the legislative framework unequivocally puts the onus on the Treasurer to make the PSA an effective body. 4. In this context the Executive believes that a number of decisions, all of which are of an administrative nature, should be made. These are detailed in the resolution. 5. We believe that the ACTU Executive decision should be subject to further discussion. Those discussions have already commenced. We are satisfied that the Treasurer will genuinely consider each of the issues we raised. 6. The desire of the ACTU is to have an effective prices surveillance authority consistent with the prices and incomes accord. We do not want a repetition of the PJT with its emphasis on legalism and bureaucracy. There is absolutely nothing in the ACTU resolution which detracts from that position. The telex is signed: 'Affectionately yours, Cliff and Bill'. That handles more than adequately the fact that there has been consultation with the ACTU. It recognised that in its telex. I table the telex for any honourable member who wishes to peruse it. The Prices Surveillance Bill was put together after extensive consultation with both business and the ACTU. The administrative matters which the ACTU referred to yesterday in its decision will be taken up by me in discussions with it on both Monday and Friday of next week. Mr RUDDOCK —The Minister for Territories and Local Government has been anxious to get this question. I hope that he will answer it all and not only the part that he is prepared for. He will be aware that on Tuesday the Public Accounts Committee of this Parliament tabled its 214th report, on the Canberra Commercial Development Authority, and that that report, as were earlier reports of parliamentary committees, was extremely critical of that Authority. Will the Minister now reconsider his decision to give this discredited body responsibility for the development of the Erindale Centre? Is there any truth in the suggestion that the Canberra Commercial Development Authority is to be given responsibility for the development of a prime commercial site in Civic, notwithstanding the likely adverse impact that such a decision would have on private sector confidence in Canberra and the city's future? Dr Theophanous —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. In addressing this question the honourable member has misrepresented the findings of the Public Accounts Committee. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member is entitled to ask a question but it is far too long and if he does not finish it he will be ruled out of order. Mr RUDDOCK —Thank you, Mr Speaker. Further, is it true that this latter decision had been left in abeyance until the Senate had determined the question of the disallowance of the Canberra Casino Control Ordinance? Mr UREN —First of all, the Canberra Commercial Development Authority is a very successful organisation. It started in 1974-75 with $1m from the Government to develop the Belconnen Mall. Now the Mall is worth between $60m and $70m-in fact an offer of over $60m has been made for it-and it has outstanding loans of $35m. For a commercial organisation that set out in 1974-75 that is not a bad result, so much so that honourable members opposite were prepared, and in fact tried, to sell it and to undermine its management. Clearly, the suggestion that the Authority will enter into a commercial venture in Civic is a smear and is completely false. There were some shortcomings in regard to the Authority's management in the early years because the private accountants who advised it and managed its accounts advised it that it was following the correct procedures. The Auditor-General had advised otherwise and there were some adverse criticisms in his report. In the musical chairs of Ministers from 1976 to 1983, no Minister at any time directed the Authority to follow the conditions laid down by the Auditor-General. On becoming the Minister responsible for the Authority I directed it to comply with the conditions set down by the Auditor-General. Since that time I have had discussions with the Auditor-General, who has told me that as far as he is concerned there are no real problems with the Authority's compliance with those conditions. I stress that in my view there has been a vendetta by honourable members opposite, particularly those who are members of the Public Accounts Committee and others. Before we reappointed the Chairman we undertook a thorough investigation of that person. I refer to a report of the Public Accounts Committee on the Canberra Commercial Development Authority- report 214-which was tabled only this week. It contains a letter to the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) from Senator Durack, who was then the Attorney-General. In my view, this is a matter of civil liberties. I wish to quote that letter in part and, with the leave of the Parliament, to have the total letter incorporated in Hansard. Let me make the situation clear. The honourable member for Bradfield, the then Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, had written to Senator Durack asking him what action the Government proposed to take about certain evidence before the Committee. In his letter in reply Senator Durack said: In evidence before a hearing in camera of the Public Accounts Committee on the same date, further allegations were made by Messrs Parker and Parsons. Mr Parker said (page 175 of in camera transcript) that he and Mr Parsons were informed by the Executive Director of the Authority (Mr Calderwood) that he 'had a suspicion that the Chairman (of the Authority) had removed a tender document from the offices of the Authority's architects. The letter went on to say: Mr Calderwood in further evidence said that he was 'happy with the procedures for tendering'. He said that he had not heard of any tenderers who were unhappy with the process. The letter went on to say: After a careful examination of the evidence before the Committee, my officers have come to the conclusion that there is no evidence at this time establishing that the Chairman of the Authority or a contractor was involved in any illegal or unlawful act. The evidence given by Messrs Parker and Parsons consists of unsubstantiated allegations said to have been made by the Executive Director. Their evidence is hearsay. The subsequent evidence of the Executive Director was directly inconsistent with these allegations. On the evidence of Mr Parker, the allegations said to have been made by the Executive Director were not more than his 'suspicions'. I ask the Leader of the Opposition for leave to have the whole letter incorporated in Hansard. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It is beyond the capacity of the Leader of the Opposition to grant that leave. The rules are that tables may be incorporated in Hansard, but not documents or letters. Mr UREN —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to have the letter dated 6 January 1982 to the honourable member for Bradfield from Senator Durack incorporated in Hansard so that-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have indicated to the Minister that over the years the ruling has been that such documents are not to be incorporated. I must apply that ruling consistently. Mr UREN —I draw the attention of honourable members to the letter contained in the report. Honourable members interjecting- Mr UREN —I note the arrogance of honourable members opposite. I have found in this House in the years that I have been here that when a person is named and smears and innuendoes have been made about him, such as those made about the Chairman of this Authority, Mr Pead, clearly a statement such as this has to be made. Mr Cadman —All you have to do is have an inquiry. Mr UREN —The honourable member who is interjecting is well aware that this letter, signed by Attorney-General Durack, was addressed to the then Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. It is about time the smear and innuendo stopped. Quite clearly, the allegations are smear and innuendoe and should be discarded completely. Mr FREE —Can the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment explain to the House what measures of assistance have been afforded to Tasmania to assist in the development of the South West wilderness region of that State? Mr COHEN —On 22 November the Government announced a series of initiatives for tourism infrastructure facilities in Tasmania, primarily in the area of Strahan and Queenstown and the South West heritage area. These initiatives are the result of long and detailed discussions between the Tasmanian Government, its National Parks and Wildlife Service, the councils of Strahan and Queenstown and this Government. The Government had previously offered $2m in 1983-84 and a further $3m in 1984-85 for such facilities. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and I were involved in these discussions. The approved list of projects announced by the Acting Prime Minister on 22 November is: The sum of $65,000 to develop a west coast tourism plan, $25,000 to develop a town plan for Strahan, port, water supplies and sewerage developments at Strahan costing $980,000. Incidentally, these proposals came from the Strahan Council, the local fishermen and tour boat operators and will lay the tourist infrastructure for the rapidly increasing tourism which is occurring in this area. Without these basic essentials, the town of Strahan would find its present infrastructure seriously overloaded. A further $40,000 is required to restore tourist facilities for campers at Strahan and $95,000 for a jetty and walkways at Sarah Island. Sarah Island is a former penal settlement and an area of very exciting tourist potential. I was shown over Sarah Island by the Tasmanian Minister for Tourism, Mr Geoff Pearsall , whom I would personally like to thank for his courteous co-operation in the development of these proposals. An amount of $880,000 has been provided for the Cradle Mountain caravan park and camping grounds and $300,000 for the Lake Peddar boat ramp and other tourist facilities. The total of these grants comes to $3,423,000. A further $500,000 has been given to the State of Tasmania to implement a summer program involving an additional eight park rangers. It would be nice to hear from some of the Tasmanian members opposite, who are baying like a pack of dogs, some congratulations to the Government after all their outcries over the last six months. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Pursuant to section 19 (1) of the Ombudsman's Act 1976, I present the Commonwealth Ombudsman's sixth annual report for 1982-83 . Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 14 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, section 14o of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the corresponding provisions of the statutes related to recoupment tax, sales tax, bank accounts, debits tax, payroll tax, estate duty, gift duty, the Australian Capital Territory Stamp duty and tax, wool tax, tobacco charges and stevedoring industry charges, I present the sixty-second report of the Commissioner of Taxation, dated 8 December 1983. I move: That the report be printed. Honourable members will recall that it is the practice of the House to agree forthwith to the motion that the report be printed so that it may be covered by parliamentary privilege. This course has met with the concurrence of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). When the motion to print the report is agreed to , the paper will be circulated immediately. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present the Australia-China Council annual report for 1982-83, together with the text of a statement relating to the report. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present the Australia-New Zealand Foundation annual report for 1982-83 . Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Australian Delegation to the 1983 session of the Committee on Disarmament, Geneva 1983. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present a report of the Australian delegation to the thirty-ninth session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry and Acting Minister for Trade) — For the information of honourable members I present the Department of Trade annual report for 1982-83. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —For the information of honourable members, pursuant to section 27 of the Australian Bicentennial Trust Fund Act 1982, I present the Australian bicentennial road development program annual report for 1982-83. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —Pursuant to section 57 of the Science and Industry Research Act 1947, I present the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation annual report for 1982-83. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —Pursuant to section 45 of the Pipeline Authority Act 1973, I present the Pipeline Authority annual report for 1982-83. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —For the information of honourable members I present the Snowy Mountains Council annual report for 1982- 83. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation) —Pursuant to section 29 of the Air Navigation Act 1920, I present the Department of Aviation annual report for 1982 -83. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation) —Pursuant to section 40 of the Australian National Airlines Act 1945, I present the Trans Australia Airlines annual report for 1982-83. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction) —Pursuant to section 15 of the Housing Assistance Act 1981, I present the Commonwealth-State housing agreement annual report for 1981-82. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Administrative Services) —For the information of honourable members I present the Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Service Ltd annual report for 1982-83. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Administrative Services) —For the information of honourable members I present the Department of Industry and Commerce annual report for 1982-83. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Administrative Services) —For the information of honourable members I present the Industries Assistance Commission report on the sugar industry. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —In accordance with paragraph 34C (b) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, I wish to advise that I have granted an extension of time in which the Aboriginal Development Commission may provide me with its annual report for 1982-83, pursuant to section 41 of the Aboriginal Development Commission Act 1980, until the commencement of the 1984 autumn sittings of Parliament. The ADC has sought an extension because of delays in finalising financial statements required by section 41 of the ADC Act. In so doing it has provided an interim annual report, which I seek leave to table. Leave granted. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —On behalf of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), pursuant to section 86 of the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981, I present the Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal annual report for 1982-83 Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —On behalf of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), pursuant to section 30 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, I present report No. 7 of the Human Rights Commission on the inquiry conducted by the Commission into the need for amendment to the Racial Discrimination Act to cover incitement to racial hatred and racial defamation, together with the text of a statement by the Attorney- General relating to the report. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Pursuant to section 52 of the National Companies and Securities Act 1979, I present the National Companies and Securities Commission annual report for 1982-83. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Pursuant to section 47 of the High Court of Australia Act 1947, I present the High Court of Australia annual report 1982-83. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Pursuant to sub- section 83 (1) of the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 , I present the Security Appeals Tribunal annual report for 1982-83. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —On behalf of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), for the information of honourable members I present a report on the tenth International Trade Law Seminar held in Canberra on 18 and 19 June 1983. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —On behalf of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), pursuant to section 122 of the Repatriation Act 1920, I present the Repatriation Commission annual report for 1982-83 together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs relating to the report. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island Ltd for 1982-83. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members I present the Canberra Development Board report for 1982- 83. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —Pursuant to section 63 (H) of the Audit Act, I present the National Exhibition Centre Trust annual report for 1982-83. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Defence Support) —For the information of honourable members I present the Department of Defence Support annual report for 1982-83. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for the financial year 1982-83, which also includes a report on the operation of the adult migrant education program which is required under the Immigration (Education) Act of 1971. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —Pursuant to section 148 of the Social Security Act 1947, I present the Department of Social Security annual report for 1982-83. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CONNOLLY —I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr CONNOLLY —The Minister for Territories and Local government (Mr Uren), in answer to a question from my colleague the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), made certain allegations to the effect that the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, under my chairmanship, conducted a vendetta against the members of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority Board. He referred specifically to the Chairman, Mr Pead. He also tried to seek the support of the House to table a letter from the Attorney-General in response to an earlier letter I had written asking for the advice of the Attorney-General and his Department on the handling of a certain aspect of this inquiry. I want to emphasise one point: We were not conducting a vendetta. Mr Uren —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. In what way did I misrepresent the honourable member? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is proceeding to that. The Minister will resume his seat. Mr CONNOLLY —The Minister mis- represented me in that he has mistaken the basis upon which the Committee made its recommendation that those officers not be reappointed. He has mixed that up with the question of allegations which were made by other witnesses before the Committee concerning the handling and security of tender documents. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is not entitled to debate the matter. He must quickly indicate where he has been misrepresented. I take it that this misrepresentation is with the Committee, but he is not to debate the matter. Mr Uren —It is not my interpretation. Mr CONNOLLY —It is the Minister's interpretation. If the Minister would only read the first report and compare that with the realities of the evidence given in the Public Accounts Committee he would understand-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to rectify a matter. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member wish to make a personal explanation? Mr CADMAN —Yes indeed, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CADMAN —Yes, I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr CADMAN —As a member of the previous Joint Committee of Public Accounts and the current Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I really do claim to misrepresentation when the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) attacks the integrity of that Committee and its members. That Committee comprises members from both sides of the Parliament and at the time of its official report it had three members who are currently in the Ministry. I resent that misrepresentation very much and wish the Minister to refrain from those reflections and from misrepresenting the Committee. Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a personal misrepresentation. Other procedures are available. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr UREN —I do. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr UREN —To clarify the situation, in my Press statement I said: . . . the 214th Report of the PAC was a document which added nothing to the original allegations made against Mr Pead and the CCDA in 1980. I want to stress that I have never said that the criticism levelled by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts as at 1980 had not some relevance. I said I would try to rectify those matters involved. Mr Connolly —Mr Speaker, the Minister has not been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —That is right. The Minister will resume his seat. Mr Connolly —I will debate with the Minister on this subject on the floor of this House at any time. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have just heard two honourable members and the Minister show that they do not understand the process of personal misrepresentation. I must ask the Minister to resume his seat. Mr UREN —Mr Speaker, with due respect-- Mr SPEAKER —I remind the Minister that Standing Orders do apply to him also. The procedure open to him is to explain where he has been misrepresented. Mr UREN —It was said by both the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) and the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) that I had attacked the Authority and had made a wrong interpretation. I have not done that. In fact, my criticism had been levelled at the Public Accounts Committee. Since the earlier decision my position has been, and I want to stress this-- Mr SPEAKER —The Minister might want to stress it but he is defying the Chair. I ask him to observe my ruling. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOWARD —In the course of Question Time the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), while inviting me to apologise to the Treasurer (Mr Keating), claimed that I had falsely accused the Treasurer of having misled this Parliament over the Prime Minister and Cabinet-Economic Planning Advisory Council projections. Let me say to the Parliament that if I am ever guilty of falsely accusing an honourable member opposite of having told an untruth I will readily apologise. I point out to both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that the charge I made against the Treasurer was that he falsely asserted that EPAC had rejected the projections of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, as vindicated and demonstrated by the minutes of the EPAC meeting that I tabled in this Parliament, to the great embarrassment of the Treasurer. At no stage did I accuse the Treasurer of having lied to the Parliament about the contents of those projections. Rather, I accused him of having told a lie about the response of EPAC to those projections . That charge remains undisputed and, as far as I am concerned, I have no intention of apologising. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation on the same point. Mr SPEAKER —Does the Treasurer claim to have been misrepresented? Mr KEATING —I do. Mr SPEAKER —The Treasurer may proceed. Mr KEATING —This mealy-mouthed charge has been thrown around now for a couple of weeks-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Treasurer that he must proceed to show where he has been personally misrepresented. Mr KEATING —This charge has been thrown around by the champion wrecker of the economy, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). I have been misrepresented in that the projections are the property of the Economic Planning Advisory Council. It was made clear in the minutes which the honourable gentleman had as to whether or not the Council wished to publish them. It made clear that it did not. So I was not embarrassed by the minutes. The only embarrassment is on the part of the honourable member in trying to assert that the projections were forecasts when they were not. Today's national accounts have thrown all of that well and truly into the dustbin. Motion (by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith the motion of censure of the Government of which he has given notice for the next day of sitting. Motion of Censure Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.35) —I move: That this House censures the Government for its failure to act on the advice of its Attorney-General and Solicitor-General with respect to a possible breach of section 79 (3) of the Crimes Act by the honourable member for Port Adelaide in the light of the report of Mr Justice Hope. This matter should have been brought on this morning immediately I gave notice of motion. From the answers of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) today it is clear that the Government will not act on the motion. There is clearly a conflict between the political desires of this Government and its legal advice. I gave notice of this motion this morning on the basis of answers given in this Parliament yesterday, but we also addressed questions to the Prime Minister today. The Prime Minister completed his answer to a question I asked him about referring the matter back to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) with the following words: 'The whole point is that the impropriety has been dealt with, and dealt with by the resignation in July'. I want to nail that for the deception it is. The fact is that the former Special Minister of State, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), was forced to resign in July because he had breached Cabinet secrecy. He could not, either at law or in fact, have been sacked for 'an unauthorised and improper disclosure of national security' because that finding had not been made back in July. The report came in only last week. Indeed the Prime Minister indicated when the Minister was forced to resign that the very issue of an unauthorised and improper disclosure was to be considered by Mr Justice Hope. We now have a finding by His Honour that there was an improper and unauthorised disclosure of national security but there is to be no legal penalty or political sanction for that. Indeed, the Minister is to be promoted. Let us not again hear the words of the Prime Minister that the whole point-that is, impropriety-was dealt with by way of resignation in July. I return therefore to the point that brought about this very important motion moved by the Opposition. Yesterday in this House the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) asked a question of the Prime Minister. It is worth quoting the question. He asked: I ask the Prime Minister whether he recalls the Attorney-General's opinion that , if Mr Walsh's account were to prevail, 'as a matter of law' it is possible that an offence may have been committed under the Crimes Act. The honourable member for Gwydir went on to ask whether the matter would be sent back to the Attorney-General. In reply the Prime Minister said: The answer to his first question is no. That is, the Prime Minister indicated that he would not refer the matter to the Attorney-General, and he so indicated again today. The answer to the second question posed by the honourable member for Gwydir was also no; that is, that the Prime Minister does not consider that this failure to request further advice from the Attorney-General places the honourable member for Port Adelaide above the law. The Prime Minister then amplified his reply with comments to the effect that, firstly, the Attorney-General has already made a decision on this isue and , secondly, the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies had an opportunity to recommend further action but did not do so and no further action is required. Mr Hunt —He was wrong on both counts. Mr PEACOCK —He was absolutely wrong. That answer led to the motion before the House today because it exposed this Government as being intent upon protecting the honourable member for Port Adelaide from the due process of the law and intent upon placing that honourable member in a privileged position above the law. The Opposition rightly suggests that this House should-indeed must-condemn the Government for that action. This House sets the standards for the rest of the community to follow. As the honourable member for Port Adelaide said early last year: Nothing is more important than the way in which these people who are called Ministers behave themselves and set an example to other people in Australia. The other side of the coin is, of course, that Ministers and ordinary citizens should be treated equally under the law, for if this does not happen-if Ministers receive favourable treatment-the result will be an erosion of the community's faith in the impartiality and equity of our legal system. This House can have no confidence in a government which places a member's position in Caucus ahead of that member's duty to uphold the law of the land. Let me remind the House that it was not the Opposition which called for the commencement of an examination of a possible breach of the Crimes Act. We did not initiate that examination. It was the Prime Minister who wrote to the Attorney-General on 14 July seeking an opinion. But now Mr Young has the numbers and the Prime Minister wants to drop the whole affair. Having been commenced, the examination must be brought to finality. Once the Prime Minister decided to walk down that path he removed the option to drop the matter. This nation must never have a Minister of the Crown who has potential criminal charges hanging over his head. Once the Prime Minister commenced an examination of possible action under the Crimes Act it had to be pursued. To do less is to make a mockery of the whole process, the Attorney- General, the Solicitor-General and this Parliament. Let us examine the requirements of section 79 (3) of the Crimes Act and the way in which the actions of the honourable member for Port Adelaide have been considered by the Solicitor-General, the Attorney-General and Commissioner Hope. Section 79 (3) of the Crimes Act provides: If a person communicates . . . prescribed information, to a person, other than . . . Penalty: Imprisonment for two years. That section requires proof of three elements: A communication of prescribed information without authorisation or a duty so to communicate. Both Senator Gareth Evans, the Attorney-General, and the Solicitor-General were asked to provide opinions as to whether Mr Young may have breached the section. In Senator Gareth Evans's opinion, delivered in a letter dated 29 August 1983 to the Prime Minister, he firstly weighed up the evidence presented to the Hope Royal Commission as at that date; secondly, concluded that in ascertaining the facts of the matter a choice is ultimately forced between Mr Walsh's account and Mr Young's account and, thirdly, decided: If . . . Mr Walsh's account were to prevail, the question of the application of Section 79 (3) would be, in my view, much more finely balanced. He went on: As a matter of law it is possible that an offence may have been commited. Sir Maurice Byers, in his opinion, noted: . . . should Mr Walsh's evidence be accepted, it would be open to a jury to find that Mr Young had committed a breach of Section 79 (3). In other words both the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General were of the view that if Mr Walsh's evidence were accepted there were prima facie grounds on which to prosecute Mr Young. The Attorney-General next considered whether, if there were a prima facie case, criminal proceedings should be commenced against Mr Young. He said that as Attorney-General the discretion whether to prosecute was his and his alone. Secondly, he said: . . . in the official secrets area, sanctions that have been traditionally regarded as appropriate to Ministers are not those of the criminal law but the political sanctions of resignation or dismissal. Thirdly, he said that a conviction under section 79 (3) would result, even if no actual gaol term were imposed, in Mr Young's automatic disqualification from the Parliament pursuant to section 44 of the Constitution. He went on to say: This gives further weight to the argument that the traditional political sanctions are the appropriate ones. The Attorney-General was being deliberately cautious in his findings. He explained: . . . my decision on the particular question of criminal prosecution-for which, as Attorney-General, I have the ultimate Constitutional, and in the case of Section 79, statutory responsibility-should not be regarded as in any way pre- empting- that is, pre-empting Mr Justice Hope's- findings on the matters in issue before him. There the matter rested until last Tuesday. The decision whether to prosecute stayed pending the findings of Mr Justice Hope. What did the Commissioner find? He said: In coming to my findings, I have borne in mind the submission of Counsel for Mr Young that the serious consequences of a finding adverse to Mr Young require me to be satisfied considerably beyond the bare balance of probabilities. I accept this submission and I have applied it in coming to my findings, as I have elsewhere in this Report. In other words the Commissioner applied the strictest burden of proof applicable to criminal cases. He then said: Having regard to the whole of the evidence, I am satisfied that, although Mr Walsh professed to give the substance, rather than the actual words used by Mr Young, it was a substantially accurate account. In other words the Commissioner fully accepted the account of evidence by Mr Walsh in preference to Mr Young's account. However, Mr Justice Hope declined to express a conclusion on whether he considered that Mr Young had breached section 79 or whether proceedings should be commenced against him. He explained that as the Attorney-General has refused to prosecute it would be oppressive to express an opinion because Mr Young would not be able to defend himself against the charges. Mr Justice Hope went into some considerable detail in explaining this matter of legal restraint at chapter 7, clause 31, page 193 of this report. He concludes that in the circumstance it would be oppressive for him to record a finding. Nevertheless, Mr Justice Hope then addressed himself to whether each of the three elements of section 79 (3) had been breached and he found that they had. His Honour said: Notwithstanding the view which I have just expressed, the provisions of Section 79 are relevant in considering the type of duty which a Minister may have in relation to confidential information. Sub-section 79 (3) makes it an offence for a person to communicate prescribed information, as far as relevant for present purposes, to a person other than a person to whom he is authorised to communicate it. As we all know, Mr Young communicated information which he had received that day from the Cabinet committee-the National Intelligence and Security Committee-to Mr Walsh in the carpark of the 19th Hole Motel. His Honour went on to deal with this prescribed information and in the end he said: In my opinion, a Minister is, for the purposes of this provision, a person who holds office under the Queen. His Honour analysed every element of the section. Clearly Mr Young was a Cabinet Minister and the information which he conveyed was obtained by him in the course of his duties. There we have elements one and two. The third question arose whether Mr Young had authority to make the communication. His Honour was unequivocal. He said: It follows from what I have said that the disclosures made by Mr Young were unauthorised. The next question to be considered is whether they were improper. On this question submissions were made to Mr Justice Hope that the disclosures were not improper for a variety of reasons. His Honour's conclusion about those submissions is unambiguous and emphatic. He said, quite simply: 'I cannot accept these submissions that the disclosures were not improper'. The reasons for his conclusion emphasised the gravity of the offence of the honourable member for Port Adelaide. To state some of them briefly, Mr Justice Hope states: (1) In my opinion, each of the disclosures was related to a matter of national security. (2) The potential, rather than the actual, damage to national security is what must be considered in determining impropriety. He goes on to spell that out. He also states that notwithstanding his 'short Ministerial experience, it should have been apparent to Mr Young that he should not make the disclosures'. The sheer logic of these submissions leads to the inescapable conclusion: . . . that the disclosures by Mr Young to Mr Walsh on 21 April 1983 were both unauthorised and improper. So whereas Mr Justice Hope would not state a conclusion on the matter, it is crystal clear from within his findings that, firstly, he applied the criminal burden of proof in reaching his findings; secondly, that Mr Walsh's evidence should be preferred to Mr Young's; and thirdly, that each of the elements of section 79 (3) had been breached by Mr Young. In other words, Mr Justice Hope found that section 79 (3) had been violated by Mr Young. There had been communication; it was of prescribed information; and it was without authority. This was the decision that the Attorney-General had awaited in his August opinion before committing himself. When the report was presented it said, in effect, that a prima facie case had been found. Now we have arrived at the crux of the present situation. The Royal Commission, instituted by this Government, has all but concluded that a prima facie case exists that Mr Young breached the Crimes Act. It is there. I have quoted it to honourable members. The Attorney-General previously considered that criminal proceedings should not be commenced but that political sanctions, and by that he meant resignation or dismissal from the Ministry, were more appropriate. But this Government refuses to apply those more appropriate political sanctions. The Prime Minister has announced that Mr Young is to be promoted to the Ministry, indeed to the Cabinet. So now, in the absence of political sanctions, the Attorney-General should follow that course suggested in his opinion and consider again the question of possible legal sanctions for Mr Young's 'improper and unauthorised disclosures'. He should consider whether Mr Young should stand trial on a charge of breaching section 79 (3) of the Crimes Act. However, yesterday and today the Prime Minister indicated that he does not want the Attorney-General to fulfil his political and legal duty. He does not want the Attorney-General to follow the course appropriate to this new situation. He intimated in the Attorney-General's opinion that he does not see any need at all for the Attorney-General to contemplate whether criminal proceedings should now be commenced. In other words, the Prime Minister wants to have it both ways. There will be no political sanctions and the Attorney-General will not be asked to look at whether Mr Young should face the legal process that would be faced by any normal citizen in the same circumstances. It is recognised in the Attorney- General's opinion that this is the appropriate course. It is recognised that the decision to prosecute is his and his alone. It is an absolute duty. I have a wonderful quote from Lord Shawcross, a Labor Attorney-General in the Attlee Government, who summed it up. I will release it to the Press. It is a devastatingly accurate description of Lord Shawcross laying down that the first duty of an Attorney-General is to the public and not to his ministerial colleagues, no matter how painful that may be. The Prime Minister is seeking to use his influence to suborn the Attorney-General to withhold exercising his discretion and that is tantamount to the worst form of perverting the course of justice. I commenced by reminding the House that it was not the Opposition but the Government which initiated an examination of the applicability of the Crimes Act . What we have now, tragically, is a situation in which we do not have any political sanctions applying to this member; he is going to be returned to the Cabinet. We do not have any legal sanctions applying because no prosecution is going to be launched. No wonder the Prime Minister is refusing to answer the question. No wonder he has ducked the question and run away. No one in this House would be under any illusion that if it were David Combe who had breached the Crimes Act the Prime Minister would not hesitate to ensure that the full process of the law be observed. But it is Mick, his mate, who is involved. It is Mick who has the numbers and Mick has different rules anyway. For that the Prime Minister and his Government deserve to be condemned. Honourable members will recall the morality of the honourable member for Adelaide; it is a morality where only numbers count. Honourable members will recall that on the first day of the sitting of this session of Parliament he came in here and said: 'If you have the votes you might as well use them'. He is using them to suborn the Attorney-General through the Prime Minister. There is no political sanction; no legal sanction. No Australian citizen would get away with what he is getting away with to date. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the motion seconded? Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(3.39) —I second the motion. To favour one individual over another in the administration of the criminal law is to debase the administration of that law and everybody in Australia must ask themselves this question: What else is happening here? To put in context the legal obligations of this Government of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), let me put a few propositions to the House that are fundamental to the administration of criminal justice. They are: That justice be administered without fear or favour; that justice not only be done but that it be seen to be done; and that the higher the level of responsibility at which a decision to prosecute or not to prosecute is made the more stringently must those rules be applied. Let me put one or two other propositions to the House that nobody could deny. Whatever his rank, office, power or influence, no one is above the law. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right which none may deny. It is not a favour granted by a citizen to his country. I put another proposition. In determining whether or not to authorise a prosecution, the Attorney-General is not to be placed under any pressure by his colleagues. That is to be found in the prosecution policy which has been adopted by this Government and handed down by the previous Government. Let me go to the same prosecution policy and quote some of what is said in paragraph 19 on page 8. It states: A decision whether or not to prosecute, must clearly not be influenced by: the offender's . . . political associations, activities or beliefs; a possible political advantage or disadvantage to the Government or any political party; personal feelings concerning the offender . . . Where does that leave us in the application of these principles to the case of the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young)? Have those principles been observed? Would any impartial and uninfluenced person conclude that those principles had been observed, that the Prime Minister had the least intention of observing them? The answer would most certainly be no. Let us look in particular to the fact that, under the rules as they apply to this offence, the prosecution can be initiated only by consent of the Attorney-General. That is because the offence is one of the few groups of offences in the Crimes Act under the heading , 'Espionage and Official Secrets' which attract that prerequisite for prosecution. When we consider the application of that prerequisite let us also remember what was said and what has always been said about the right to bring private prosecutions. This is also mentioned in the 'Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth'. It states: The right of a private citizen to initiate a proscution for a breach of law has long been regarded as a 'useful constitutional safeguard against capricious, corrupt or biased failures or refusal of authorities to prosecute offences against the criminal law'. That document goes on to state that this is recognised in our Crimes Act, as indeed it is, subject to the kinds of exceptions to which I referred. Therefore, in coming to a decision upon the matters that the Attorney-General must consider he needs to be scrupulous in his impartiality, as does the Prime Minister. Where have we seen that impartiality? Where have we seen that concern for principle? It is put by the Prime Minister to this House, in his casual, off-hand and somewhat contemptuous fashion that the book is, in effect, closed. But the book in criminal cases is rarely closed. We have the findings of Mr Justice Hope and the inevitable need to reconsider the opinions that have been given, particularly the opinion of the Attorney-General. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has clearly set out the elements of the offence. I shall restate them very briefly. The offence under section 79 (3) of the Crimes Act is that there has been an unauthorised communication of information which the offender obtained owing to his position as a person who held office under the Queen and which, by reason of its nature or the circumstances under which it was obtained, he was at duty to keep secret. The National and International Security Committee of the Cabinet is probably the most secret of all Cabinet committees. Can anybody in this House imagine a body whose deliberation should more be accorded the need of secrecy? What did Mr Justice Hope find? As the Leader of the Opposition said, Mr Justice Hope found that he accepted the evidence of Mr Walsh. That evidence contained three additional elements which the Attorney-General referred to in his opinion as being of great importance. I freely concede that no court or jury is bound by the findings of Mr Justice Hope, notwithstanding his eminence, notwithstanding the fact that he is a judge of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, notwithstanding that he saw the witnesses and assessed them and notwithstanding that he saw and heard their advocates and assessed their arguments. But it is conceivable that findings on a central question, that is, whose evidence should be accepted, can be so contemptuously disregarded by this Government? Let us look now at the opinions which have been given. The Attorney-General, in his opinion, started by stating amongst other things: As a result of certain conflicts in that testimony . . . the factual situation remain less clear at this stage than I thought it would be when I wrote to you on 18 July. The House will recall that in the meantime testimony had been given. The Attorney goes on to state: Because of that uncertainty, there is much to be said for my further opinion to you awaiting the findings of His Honour on this issue. What was the issue? The issue was whose evidence was to be accepted, that of Mr Young or that of Mr Walsh. The Attorney went on to say that he had been asked to , in effect, give that advice. He states his reasons for doing so and gives his advice on the basis of the material now at hand. It is perfectly plain that the Attorney-General thought that it was premature to give his opinion when he gave it. It is perfectly plain that on the basis of what he set himself he would have preferred to await the findings of Mr Justice Hope. He need await no longer because we have those findings before us. Those findings are extremely clear. Let us now turn to page 7 of the Attorney-General's opinion. This has already been referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. I quote from it again very briefly. The Attorney said: As a matter of law, on the basis that Mr Walsh was accepted- it is possible that an offence may have been committed. The information in question would be seen to squarely relate to national security and foreign affairs matters of great delicacy and sensitivity, and of such a nature that its premature disclosure would put at risk ongoing security and intelligence operations. We all know that was so. We all know that that opinion has been borne out. The Attorney then stated his reasons why he would not prosecute. One reason was the obscurity of the law. This was taken up by the Prime Minister today. There is not obscurity, because Mr Justice Hope has examined the law. Indeed, the Solicitor-General has expressed his views upon the law. So we can put that reason to one side. The Attorney gave as another reason the need for deterrence. To be stood down for six months with the full pay and privileges of a parliamentarian and then to be reinstated in the Ministry-is that a deterrence? The Attorney also gave as a reason the seriousness of the offence. He said that damage did not occur. That is perfectly right. But it was quite fortuitous. Damage may well have occurred. It did not matter a damn to Mr Young when he made his disclosures to his friend. The Attorney referred to the automatic disqualification provision that is contained in the Constitution. For some reason he drew some comfort from that and said, in effect, that if Mr Young were convicted he would not be able to come to Parliament. Why do we suppose the automatic disqualification provision was inserted into the Constitution? It was inserted into the Constitution for precisely that reason. Are members of the Parliament to be placed above the law because they are here and their friends want them to stay here? No. It is absurd , unconstitutional and irrelevant for the Attorney-General to have even entertained that kind of consideration. As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, the Solicitor-General was very clear in his opinion. Let me remind the House of what he said. I conclude with what he said in paragraph 17: I think, therefore, that should Mr Walsh's evidence be accepted it would be open to a jury to find that Mr Young had committed a breach of section 79 (3) . . . In summary, therefore, what do we have? We have the Attorney-General reluctantly agreeing that there was a prima facie case, but, on the basis of reasoning which has been destroyed, concluding that Mr Young should not be prosecuted. We have the Attorney-General giving the opinion before the findings of the judge were given, findings which he wanted to have so he could know whose account should be accepted. We have the Solicitor-General expressing a very clear view on the basis that Mr Walsh's evidence was accepted. Does anyone in this House doubt that there was a duty to keep secret and that that duty was breached by the Minister? Is there anyone in this country who doubts that proposition? Not one single person would do so. The only question is whether prosecutions should be launched against Mr Young. We have heard the old mates' argument. We have had that ad nauseam from the Prime Minister. Yesterday, when the Prime Minister was asked by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) what he proposed to do in regard to this matter he said: 'Well, no. I am not going to do anything. I am not going to seek further advice'. He referred to Mr Justice Hope. He said: He has addressed himself to the question of the Crimes Act and Mr Young. He went on to say: . . . that if the Royal Commissioner had made such a recommendation specifically-he had full opoportunity to do so-then that would have been something that we obviously would have had to take into account. We all know what took place before the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. The Royal Commissioner quite properly accepted the submission of the counsel of the honourable member for Port Adelaide that it would be oppressive in the circumstances to make a finding. It was on that basis that he did not make a finding as to a breach of the Crimes Act. But it is perfectly plain that on the basis of his findings of fact in relation to the honourable member's conduct he accepted each of those three elements as having been made out. It is wrong, misleading and mischevious for the Prime Minister to pretend that by some means or another the Hope Royal Commission lets them out. Let me put this general proposition to the House: The fact that a royal commissioner makes no recommendation as to a prosecution on facts found by that royal commissioner can never exculpate the Attorney-General from his duties. Does anyone, for example, suggest that if a royal commissioner records the fact that somebody shot somebody in Hyde Park but says nothing about whether it was a murder that would exculpate the Attorney-General or the relevant authority from examining what took place and from deciding whether to launch a prosecution? Of course it does not. Here we are dealing with a report which Mr Justice Hope knew would be a public report and, therefore, it was all the more necessary that nothing should be said by him which could in any way prejudice the fair trial of the honourable member if that occasion should ever arise. It is the duty of the Crown to assess what took place and what is recorded by the Royal Commissioner. It is astonishing that the Prime Minister cannot understand something which is once so obvious and so fundamental to the administration of justice. What if the Director-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation had made the same disclosures to a friend for the same reasons? What would have been his fate? Would he have been told that it was all right, that he could stay out of the Organisation for six months? Do honourable members think that if anyone else were in the same kind of situation that person would have been given effectively a free ride, a free pardon? There is a public duty which remains on the Prime Minister and on the Attorney- General to consider what took place and what is recorded by the Royal Commissioner. It is a duty which they cannot avoid. There is an independent duty on the Attorney-General, because he as first law officer must reach a decision independently of all political considerations and independently of any pressure or advice that he may be given by the Prime Minister. Indeed it is his duty on the basis of the facts to come to an assessment. If that situation is allowed to continue and if no advice is to be sought we will know that this Government has decided to rewrite one of the fundamental maxims of law, that is, that we are all equal before the law. The answer will be that we are all equal before the law, but on the Government's rewriting some will be more equal than others, and if one is a member of Caucus most certainly one is more equal than others. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(3.53) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr Ruddock —Where's Hawke? Mr HOLDING —The Prime Minister is not required to attend debate on this censure motion because, as a censure motion, it is a political beat-up. In its own wording and terminology it consciously misleads the House. Let me read the terms -- Mr Newman —I raise a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, we would appreciate a serious ruling on this matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —What is the point of order? Mr Newman —Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be well aware that this is a very serious debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! What is the point of order? Mr Newman —I am explaining the point of order. This is a very serious debate. I cannot think of any other censure motions which have been brought forward by the Opposition-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable gentleman does not state his point of order I will require him to resume his seat. Mr Newman —I am coming to the point of order. Is it fair, in that case, for a junior Minister to defend the Government? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HOLDING —Let us look at the terms of the censure motion. It refers to the Government's failure to act on the advice of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Solicitor-General with respect to a possible breach of section 79 (3) of the Crimes Act. The simple answer to that allegation is that the Government has acted on the advice of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor -General. What we have seen today in this Parliament is another example of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) slandering and running away, as he has done throughout the whole-- Mr Anthony —The Prime Minister is running away. Mr HOLDING —Where is the Leader of the Opposition? I ask the honourable member to go and get him. Perhaps he is outside brushing his hair. Let us look at the terminology of this censure motion. Mr Ruddock —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member wish to raise a point of order? Mr Ruddock —No, it is not a point of order. I draw attention to the state of the House in order to give the Prime Minister an opportunity to come in. (Quorum formed) Mr HOLDING —I say that this contemptible censure motion is a beat-up because it refers to the opinions of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. The Leader of the Opposition knows that the opinion of the Attorney-General has been given, as has the opinion of the Solicitor-General. What he has chosen to do has been really the most disreputable thing that I have seen him do to date. He chose to take certain selective quotes. He knows as well as I do that the opinion that was given by the Attorney-General was given on the basis of an analysis of all the evidence that was put before Mr Justice Hope-all the evidence by Mr Walsh and all the evidence by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). The Leader of the Opposition knows that. It is set out in the opinion. But the Leader of the Opposition did not want to refer to that fact because it is a bit embarrassing. He did not want to refer to the fact, as the Attorney-General himself has said, that in giving that opinion he took a worst case scenario. I note that when he came to dealing with the opinion of Mr Byers, Mr Byers did not even rate a mention. What is the simple answer to this censure motion which requires the government to act upon the advice of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General? I would like to know why it was that the Leader of the Opposition chose not to refer to that very simple passage, that conclusion, in the opinion of the Solicitor-General, Mr Byers, in which he says: I think that no proceedings should be taken against Mr Young. That was the opinion of Mr Byers and the Attorney-General. Mr Peacock —Read it all. Mr HOLDING —The Leader of the Opposition does not like being caught out on a lie . He does not like being caught out on misleading the House. The Leader of the Opposition asked us to take the opinion of the Solicitor-General, but when we do and we quote from it he does not like it. The Leader of the Opposition involved himself in a series of selective quotes. He knows that the opinion of the Attorney-General was given on the basis of the worst scenario. The Attorney- General looked at the evidence that was given by Mr Walsh and the honourable member for Port Adelaide, took the worst scenario and also reached the conclusion which is set out. The Leader of the Opposition has read that conclusion but he has not had the inegrity or the guts to read it honestly. The Leader of the Opposition comes into this chamber acting like a police pimp. He has not had the decency to read this conclusion honestly. Did he get up in this chamber and say that the Attorney-General has produced a false or a specious legal opinion? No; he sailed around it. He took selective quotes. Then the final and most contemptible exercise of all- Mr Spender —You had better go back to petty sessions. You would be more at home there. Mr HOLDING —If I had been in petty sessions I would not have had any difficulty beating a mug such as the honourable member for North Sydney, and I would not have charged as much. Mr Howard —That is about your standard. Mr HOLDING —Honurable members opposite are in no position to talk morality. They have not been prepared to look at the conclusions that were reached by the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. Their motion says that the Government should follow the advice. We have, but honourable members opposite do not like that advice so they try to rewrite those opinions to suit their own shallow political perspectives. What is the next exercise of the Leader of the Opposition? He will rewrite the findings of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. What did Mr Justice Hope find? Anybody listening to the address of the Leader of the Opposition would have thought that the honourable member for Port Adelaide had been selling secrets to the Russians. In fact, what did Mr Justice Hope find? He found, that there was an indiscretion. That has been admitted, that has been dealt with. It was handled by a resignation. Why did the Leader of the Opposition not put this matter in its proper context? Mr Justice Hope made it perfectly clear. This is the quote that should have been referred to by the Leader of the Opposition: In the present case there is no evidence that national security was damaged by what Mr Young said to Mr Walsh. This is Mr Justice Hope's conclusion, having examined all the evidence: 'There is no evidence of any damage being done to national security'. It was in that context, because there was no damage done, that on the submissions that were put to him he had no difficulty in saying that to suggest that a prosecution ought to be launched was, in his opinion, oppressive. Those were his terms. We are in a unique position. We have the opinion of the Attorney-General. We have the opinion of the Solicitor-General. We have the opinion of Mr Justice Hope. All those people say that no prosecution ought to be launched. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to drum up a prosecution. Of course, honourable members opposite are trying to lecture us about political morality. My heart was moved by the pleadings of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). I just wonder why it was, when honourable members opposite were in government and had the opportuity, that they did not practice what they preached-this great morality about prosecution. The Leader of the Opposition was in government- perhaps at that stage he did not have the benefit of the advice of the honourable member for North Sydney-when a Minister of the Crown was trying to smuggle a colour televison set into the country. It was nothing as heavy as having a talk with a friend in a hotel dining room, but it was pretty ignoble. That Minister signed a false declaration form for Customs-a clear beach of the law. Where was the Leader of the Opposition then? Did the Leader of the Opposition come into this Parliament and say: 'Oh dear me, a Minister has clearly broken the law and has to be prosecuted'? Not a bit of it! When the Leader of the Opposition was choosing his shadow Cabinet-I will say in his defence that he did not have much to choose from-this gentleman was put back into the shadow Cabinet. He may even be the Minister for Customs; he knows a bit about it. The Leader of the Opposition would have to consider him for that job on his track record. Honourable members opposite are in no position to walk into this House, with their track record, and lecture us on political morality. Mr Porter —We are talking about national security. Mr HOLDING —In terms of national security, if we look at the findings of Mr Justice Hope he indicated that there was no danger or there was no threat. Mr Howard —There could have been. Mr HOLDING —Why does the honourable member not look at the report? The reality is that, caught with an incompetent Leader of the Opposition, the best that honourable members opposite can do is come into this House with a censure motion saying that we will be censured for our failure to act on the advice of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. What nonsense! They know because they have seen the legal opinions, and we know that we have acted on the advice. We have acted on the advice of the Attorney-General and we have acted on the advice of the Solicitor-General. To suggest anything else is palpably false and untrue. It is just one more desperate exercvise by the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition made a whole series of allegations about lies and deception by the Government and the Prime Minister when he had the opportunity, and he has had the opportunity over the last three days. For all his allegations about breaches of civil liberties, all his tugging at the heart strings about the awful injustice done to Mr Combe, all the allegations about deceptions and lies. When he had an opportunity, faced with the findings of the Royal Commission, he ran away from it. On every major point- Mr Sinclair —Nonsense. Mr HOLDING —The Deputy Leader of the National Party cannot even have lunch with his bookmaker without a commission of inquiry being set up. He should not ask us to listen to talk about his credibility. No wonder he stood on a political slogan at the last election: 'Sinclair forges ahead'. This censure motion is a political beat-up by a desperate and a discredited Opposition. The House will have no hesitation in rejecting it. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(4.9) —Mr Deputy Speaker- Motion (by Mr Dawkins) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Everingham, D. N. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Reeves, J. E.Fry, K. L. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Hawke, R. J. L. Steedman, A. P.Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Anthony, J. D. Katter, R. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. Newman, K. E.Cowan, D. B. O'Keefe, F. L.Dobie, J. D. M. Peacock, A. S.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Robinson, IanFife, W. C. Rocher, A. C.Fisher, P. S. Ruddock, P. M.Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. E.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Jones, Barry Street, A. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Peacock's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Anthony, J. D. Katter, R. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. Newman, K. E.Cowan, D. B. O'Keefe, F. L.Dobie, J. D. M. Peacock, A. S.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Robinson, IanFife, W. C. Rocher, A. C.Fisher, P. S. Ruddock, P. M.Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. E.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, B. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Everingham, D. N. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Reeves, J. E.Fry, K. L. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Hawke, R. J. L. Steedman, A. P.Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Street, A. A. Jones, Barry Question so resolved in the negative. Ministerial Statement Mr HAWKE(Willis-Prime Minister) —by leave-This House is well aware of the main features of my Government's approach to foreign policy. While pursuing an independent and self-respecting foreign policy based on an objective and hard- headed asessment of Australia's genuine national interests, ours is also a policy which recognises and accepts the constraints on our capability and the limitations of our influence. Without being prepared to sacrifice principle, my Government's approach is guided by considerations of realism and relevance. In this regard we have consistently said that the highest priority will be given to our relations with our neighbours of the Asian and Pacific region, and to the major industrialised countries with which we share significant relationships, especially the United States and Japan. This approach and this emphasis was given further substance by my visit to Bangkok between 20-22 November and to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in New Delhi between 22-29 November. I was accompanied on the first leg of my trip by the Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden) who subsequently visited Burma and Indonesia. I take this opportunity to again pay tribute to the outstanding contribution he is continuing to make to the conduct of Australia's international relations. My Government has made clear from the outset its conviction that both Australia 's geographical location and the economic dynamism of the region require that we have balanced and productive relations with the members of the Association of South East Asian Nations. I regard this as exiomatic and was therefore concerned when, following Australia's decision to support but not co-sponsor the ASEAN resolution on Kampuchea at the United Nations, the differences in perspective involved came to be exaggerated to the point where our fundamental identity of interests with the ASEAN countries was obscured. During my recent overseas visit, for which I was accompanied by the Foreign Minister in Thailand, I met with Thai Prime Minister Prem and Thai Foreign Minister Siddhi and with the Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Kwan Yew and the Foreign Minister of Singapore and Malaysia, Dhanabalan and Ghazalie Shafie, in New Delhi and Goa. The Minister for Foreign Affairs met separately with Indonesian Foreign Minister Mochtar-Chairman of ASEAN-in Jakarta on 26 November. I am pleased to inform the House that following these meetings such misunderstandings as may have existed between Australia and ASEAN have been clarified to our mutual satisfaction. We recognise that in the future there will be differences of emphasis and approach between us, as is entirely appropriate and what one would expect between sovereign nations. But on the fundamentals we are in full agreement, and this has subsequently been publicly confirmed by the Prime Ministers of both Thailand and Singapore. The substantially sound relationship that exists between Australia and the ASEAN countries has not only been confirmed, but strengthened. As to the substance of these discussions I repeated what both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I have said consistently in this House and elsewhere, namely : condemnation of Vietnam's invasion and continued occupation of Cambodia; that there should be a phased withdrawal leading to a total withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Cambodia; and that there should then be an act of self-determination for and by the Cambodian people, and the creation of conditions which would permit displaced Cambodians to return to their country and formal relations to be resumed between Veitnam, China, the ASEAN countries and the international community at large. I indicated that Australia attached very considerable importance to ending Vietnam's present political and economic isolation and her growing reliance on the Soviet Union which was, in our view, entrenching great power rivalry in the region. But as Australia saw it, that isolation reflected a choice of Vietnam itself; it was not something imposed on it by the ASEAN countries. I further indicated that Australia, while intending to proceed with an offer of disaster relief assistance to Vietnam necessitated by recent typhoons, had taken no decision in practical terms to resume development assistance to Vietnam. I also pointed out that while Australian aid was continuing to be directed to displaced Cambodians in the Thai/Cambodia border area, we remained of the view that meeting the needs of returnees inside Cambodia was also necessary. I made very clear in these discussions Australia's very great concern at the possibility of any return to power of a regime as brutal as the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Out of these discussions it emerged very clearly that Australia and the ASEAN countries are agreed on the essentials of the Cambodian situation and on their implication for peaceful relations among all the countries of the South East Asian region. Australia and the ASEAN countries will continue to work in the closest possible contact and communication on these matters of mutual interest. This I believe is an entirely satisfactory outcome. When Prime Minister Prem said at the state dinner on 21 November: Thailand regards Australia as belonging to the Asia-Pacific nations. We value you as a member of the family-a family member especially close to us, Thailand and ASEAN. The future of peace and stability of South East Asia therefore rests also on Australia's contributions- he, Prime Minister Prem, was charging our country with an important responsibility. With the significant coincidence of interests between Australia and the ASEAN countries we are confident that Australia will fully live up to the Thai Prime Minister's expectations and those of his fellow ASEAN countries. We shall do so in a forthright and principled way-by putting views independently formed, but views directed to the realisation of our shared objectives. The implications of this approach do not begin and end with the Kampuchea issue . While in Bangkok I suggested that the countries of our region apply their full and united weight to the achievement of an appropriately structured round of multilateral trade negotiations-negotiations that should go to issues of great importance to countries of the region; specifically the reduction of non-tariff barriers to trade in industry and agriculture, primarily government subsidies. If it should not be possible to initiate a new round of multilateral trade negotiations on a basis satisfactory to the countries of the region, then I suggested there would still be scope for negotiations on trade expansion among countries within our own region, on a non-discriminatory basis, but focused on commodities in which countries in this region are the most competitive suppliers . The modesty and realistic scope of these proposals distinguishes them, as does their focus on common regional economic interests. I am gratified to have received a letter from the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) since my return from overseas fully supporting the views that I expressed. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to his own efforts to achieve trade liberalisation in the Western Pacific region. In this regard I indicate that my Government intends following this matter through in close consultation with th countries of this region in the months ahead, including during my own visit to the countries of North Asia and to Singapore in February. For its part CHOGM was valuable in a number of ways. It provided an opportunity for me to establish personal rapport with a number of Commonwealth leaders. Lee Kwan Yew has already referred publicly to the value of our contacts at CHOGM. The Meeting also provided the occasion for bilateral discussions with a number of regional heads of government, as well as the Prime Ministers of Great Britain and Canada and a number of African and Caribbean leaders. Secondly, the Meeting enabled me to put Australia's views on the Grenada situation and to participate actively in debates on Cyprus, the Middle East and Southern Africa. On Grenada I was impressed that the position agreed by the Commonwealth, rather than indulging in recriminations about the past, looked instead to the future. I made clear that Australia, although not prepared to participate in a forms of civilian assistance should that be deemed necessary by the countries of the region. On Cyprus I put the view strongly that the Commonwealth should do all it could to restore the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus, as well as to safeguard the legitimate interests of the two communities on that island. The decision of the Meeting to establish a Commonwealth five country action group including Australia is a useful, practical step designed to pursue whatever action possible alongside the United Nations to bring an end to the unhappy and potentially tragic situation on Cyprus. On Lebanon I was particularly concerned to ensure that the Commonwealth adequately addressed the realities of the tragic situation that has been unfolding in that ravaged country. As I have already indicated to the House I urged that the Commonwealth call for the withdrawal from Lebanon of all armed forces other than those present at the express request of the Lebanese Government, including in that call the forces of both Israel and Syria. This, I believed, went to a matter of principle-namely the right of a sovereign government to determine which foreign forces it wished to have or not have on its own soil-and with the support of many countries from the Caribbean, Asia, Africa, the United Kingdom and Papua New Guinea, the point I was making prevailed. I should say to the House that the position taken by Australia on this issue at CHOGM has since been widely supported by our Lebanese community. I put the Australian position on Southern African issues firmly to the Meeting. I commended the Fraser Government's position on Southern African issues-a stance which I would suggest had its origins in the fundamental reorientation of Australia's African policies under the previous Labor Government. I indicated that my Government saw room for still stronger policies in this area and had acted accordingly. I made clear Australia's rejection of both the linkage concept and of the apartheid system as a whole. I rejected the South African consitutional proposals as a sham and charade, which they are. I reported to the Meeting on the measures taken by my Government to strengthen Australia's policy on sporting contacts, and on how both The South West African People's Organisation and the African National Council had been invited to establish a permanent presence in Australia. I also indicated that a scholarship program for South African blacks had been initiated and that a program of visits to Australia by prominent opponents of apartheid was being introduced. Finally, I observed that a review of Australia's aviation links with South Africa had been commenced. This presentation was widely welcomed by both African and Asian leaders. President Kaunda, for example, noted that robust anti-apartheid policies like Australia's helped governments such as his own to contain the inherent feelings about white racism that African populations possessed. Sam Nujoma, President of SWAPO, was particularly appreciative of our decision to allow a SWAPO presence in Australia. The third way in which the Meeting was useful was in providing a forum for me to put Australia's views on disarmamemt and international security issues, and on international economic issues, and to debate these matters with leaders of aligned and non-aligned, developed and developing countries. In the discussion of disarmament and international security issues, I sought to bring a balanced and realistic perspective to the debate, and particularly to take issue with the tendency of some countries to attach almost exclusive responsiblity to the United States for present East-West tensions, and the apparent breakdown in dialogue between the super-powers. Australia's disarmament approach was, I said, guided by three general principles. First, the security of all states at the lowest possible level of armament; second, stability in the nuclear balance; and third, adequate verification of disarmament agreements. In line with these objectives I stressed that we attached particular priority to efforts to secure nuclear disarmament through reductions in the nuclear arsenal. We regarded the upholding of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the complete cessation of nuclear testing as particularly important steps towards this. Accordingly it was with particular satisfaction that I was able to report to the meeting that on the previous day, 23 November, a resolution co-sponsored by Australia, had passed First Committee of the General Assembly which I am hopeful will open the way to the commencement in 1984 of negotiations on a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. I argued strongly that the NPT must remain the cornerstone of other international treaties to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. The gravity of the risks associated with horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons to countries such as South Africa was at least as great as the dangers associated with vertical proliferation. It was a matter of disappointment to me that the Goa Declaration on International Security, while adverting to this point, did not give it much greater emphasis. In the context of this discussion of nuclear proliferation, I acknowledged that Australia, as a producer and exporter of uranium, had an obligation under Article 4 of the Treaty to facilitate the participation of other countries, particularly developing countries, in the peaceful use of nuclear energy. In this regard Australia accepted that it had a particular responsibility to secure improved international safeguards against the diversion of uranium supplied for peaceful purposes into use for the manufacture of weapons. Australia was also, I said, pressing ahead with a number of other initiatives, including the development in Australia of more effective monitoring and verification facilities, the strengthing of existing conventions regarding chemical and biological weapons and the promotion of the concept of a South Pacific nuclear free zone. The seriousness of the problems confronting the international community in securing long term economic growth and development naturally commanded the close attention of CHOGM. I put it to the Meeting that ultimate progress towards these objectives hinged on measures being adopted which would contribute to long-term solutions. As such, four essential preconditions had to be satisfied: (a) The domestic enconomic policies of the major industralised countries had to be compatible with sustained economic recovery; (b) A free and open international trading system had to be established; (c) Existing international financial institutions had to be strengthened; and (d) The primacy of appropriate domestic economic policies had to be recognised. On this basis I suggested that five major tasks should be tackled, namely: (a) The promotion of growth in both developed and developing countries; (b) The revival of trade; (c) The promotion of the adjustment process in debtor countries; (d) The redution of exchange rate fluctuations; and (e) The facilitation of lower interest rates. I stressed that Australia was especially sensitive to the dangers posed to the international trading system by the increasing resort to protectionist measures, and to the fact that trade and financial policies were closely interrelated both domestically and internationally. I expressed particular concern that the aggressive use of subsidies and credit arrangements by the European Economic Community and the United States, as well as the tendency for the majors to settle trade disputes on a bilateral basis ignoring the interests of smaller trading nations, have evoked particular concern in countries such as Australia. I also told the Meeting that Australia recognised the international financial institutions had already played a crucial role and must continue to play such a role in the adjustment process through providing a critical backdrop, as well as a channel for the devising of co-operative arrangements between debtor nations and both creditor nations and major banks. I suggested in this regard that the vital bridging role of the major international financial institutions depends importantly on the capacity of these institutions to exercise their mandate role . In my Government's view those institutions have shown a striking degree of adaptability in recent years, and I put it to the Meeting that the emphasis, rather than being on new institutions or systematic reform, should be on continuing to improve and enhance their operation. The real task was to marry the dimensions of the problems with the capacities of the institutions. To concentrate on increasing the effectiveness of existing institutions, if necessary through the provision of additional resources, stood the greatest chance of securing the necessary support and involvement of the major powers. The realism of this approach was, I believe, appreciated by other heads of government and was reflected in the terms of the decision of the CHOGM to establish a consultative group to promote an international consensus on the issues involved. Quite correctly that decision takes full account of international consultations already under way, and is directed at establishing the most effective way of securing action. Demonstrable progress was achieved, largely at Australia's behest, in some important areas of functional co-operation between Commonwealth countries. It was agreed, for example, that a meeting of Commonwealth Ministers responsible for women's affairs should be held in 1985 on the eve of the conference being held to review progress in the United Nations Decade for Women. This should not only provide useful background to the latter Conference but should also serve to see Commonwealth activity in the field of women's affairs given impetus. It was also agreed, in line with an increasing awareness on the part of Commonwealth heads of government of the importance of labour and employment matters, that the Secretariat should designate a permanent capacity to deal with such matters. In this regard the value of Commonwealth Trade Union Council activities was recognised. It was agreed that priority should be given to those activities, especially those concerned with trade union training. Finally I should mention that there was informal discussion between regional heads of government about the future of the Commonwealth heads of government regional meetings. It was decided that no formal summit would be held in Port Moresby next year. Most heads of government, honourable members will appreciate, will have met only a couple of weeks beforehand on the occasion of the South Pacific Forum. It is nonetheless possible that those heads of government in Port Moresby at the time for the opening of Papua New Guinea's new Parliament House will meet briefly to consider any matters that might normally have arisen under CHOGRM auspices. It will be apparent that the character of foreign policy under an Australian Labor government is now well established. Our priorities and preoccupations are clear. We bring an independent, principled and realistic perspective to issues in a way that is gaining increasing respect for Australia in countries throughout the world. But as both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I have observed since the time we assumed office, we recognise the limitations on our influence, and we shall not indulge in international grandstanding. Within these constraints we shall make every effort, as the people of Australia would wish us to, to foster international conditions of peace, security and prosperity. I believe such an approach serves Australia well. I present the following paper: Australia's International Relations-Ministerial Statement, 8 December 1983. Motion (by Mr Kerin) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Motion (by Mr Kerin)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition speaking for a period not exceeding 23 minutes. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(4.45) —Mr Speaker- Mr Dawkins —Andrew, where are your supporters? Mr PEACOCK —That is the degree of interest honourable members opposite are showing in a foreign policy statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). When I became Leader of the Opposition I said that I would support the Government when I believed that it was correct. I looked forward to receiving the statement today, because I anticipated that there would be much in it which I could support. Instead, I find that I must disagree with the very first sentence of the Prime Minister's statement. He said: This House is well aware of the main features of my Government's foreign policy . I ask: When has this House been informed? In the nine months since it came to power, the Government has made no statement on the overall direction of Australia's foreign policy. We have had dribs and we have had drabs of information coming through answers to parliamentary questions and Press reports, often disturbing and confusing, of the forays abroad of both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), but there has been no clear indication of the Government's overall strategic thinking. The need for a global view is a basic principle in foreign policy. I would not anticipate that the Prime Minister would understand that, but I would anticipate that the Foreign Minister would understand it. The need for a global view is an absolutely fundamental approach when a government first draws up its foreign policy. The fates of regions and nations around the world are intertwined. No one area of the world can pull up the draw bridge and ignore the problems elsewhere. The fundamental linkages and interdependences must be recognised. This is as true for a country such as Australia as it is for a super-power such as the United States. If a government does not have that world view it will not get its other policies right. There will be no coherent framework for determining regional policies, for example. This absence of a world view is patently clear in this Government's foreign policy. At times it appears that we are neither fish nor fowl; neither in one camp nor another. In many cases Australian foreign policy is erratic, ambiguous, inconsistent and downright confusing. It is certainly unstable. Under the Hawke Government Australia's foreign policy has jolted from one unnecessary crisis to another. We have had the much-vaunted Indo-China initiative and the fall-out from the bomb the Government dropped on our Association of South East Asian Nations partners. Similarly, the United States must be, and indeed has been, concerned and confused by conflicting signals from Australia on important foreign policy issues. I refer to the ANZUS review, Australia's policy towards Central America and the Caribbean and its attitude to South East Asia. It could even be that further confusion may emerge when the truth comes out on the scandal which arose today involving the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes)- certainly not the Foreign Minister-on his handling of the docking facilities of HMS Invincible. What will that mean for the five-power arrangements? What will it mean for ANZUS? These questions are worthy of being posed. None of this would have happened, as indeed it should not have happened, if the Government had any clear perception of where Australia's basic interests lie. Nowhere is the overriding significance of international interdependence and the need for a global application of world affairs better illustrated than in the Commonwealth. Indeed, as is often said, the Commonwealth is a genuine microcosm of the world community. The coalition partners have always regarded the Commonwealth as being extremely important to Australia's foreign policy interests. It brings together over 40 disparate countries, representing a quarter of the world's population, in a forum which transcends differences in race, wealth and ideological outlook. It can draw on a reservoir of good will and understanding based on common language and common experiences. The Commonwealth leaders' meetings are particularly useful because of the personal contacts made, their informality, their workman like atmosphere, and their concentration on finding practical solutions to important problems. If I may use the words of the Commonwealth Secretary-General, Sonny Ramphal, he said: The world becomes a slightly saner and safer place when the representatives of one human being in four can spend a few days together, talking and making friends, even if sometimes agreeing to disagree. More than that, we on this side of the House support the Commonwealth for what it can achieve. In the recent past we have the notable example of Zimbabwe and of the Commonwealth assistance to other areas which do not get sufficient attention in wider forums, especially the particular problems of the small states. The small states in the South Pacific ought to be of major concern not just to Australia but to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has made a significant contribution in the economic field, particularly in advancing the North-South dialogue, for example, on issues such as the common fund and protectionism. In all these areas the Commonwealth has been an active and important contributing factor to broader international forums and, more importantly, to reminding its member states and their leaders of the need to work together on all these fronts. The communique of the Delhi meeting and the Prime Minister's statement show that these achievements continue most notably with respect to Grenada and Cyprus . The communique demonstrated that an accommodation can be reached even when opinions are initially widely divergent. The Opposition welcomes the communique and we are pleased at the success of the meeting. I will return in a moment to the substance of the matters discussed in Delhi. We are pleased also that the Prime Minister has attached significance to the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, although we would have hoped for a rather more enthusiastic approach from the Prime Minister-comments about the mysticism attaching to the Commonwealth are hardly helpful-and there was no major Australian initiative at CHOGM. Indeed, it is hard to find evidence that the Prime Minister initiated anything at all. He has continued the trend started in March, regrettably, of Australia becoming increasingly a nonentity in world affairs. It is a pity too that the Minister for Foreign Affairs did not accompany the Prime Minister to such an important meeting. No doubt his absence reminded other countries of the tensions which exist at the very highest levels in the determination of foreign policy. It would have reminded them also of the contemptuous attitude the Foreign Minister has to the Commonwealth. He has dismissed it, as I recall, as being anachronistic. If I do him a disservice I will correct that. Mr Hayden —You read my speeches for inspiration. Mr PEACOCK —I recall seeing the word 'anachronistic' and that has been confirmed . I get a great degree of inspiration from reading the Foreign Minister's speeches because I can set them as a nice contrast to the programs allegedly enunciated by the Prime Minister. As does every member of the Opposition, I get a degree of comfort and inspiration from knowing that the warring faction still exists on the other side of the House. I turn to an assessment of the Prime Minister's trip. Frankly, on any objective assessment of the Prime Minister's visit we would have to conclude that his performance was fair to average. As far as we know, Australia made no new enemies, even if we did not make too many new friends, but the Prime Minister did not do as well as he would like us all to believe. The Prime Minister's public squabble with Mrs Gandhi does not reflect creditably on him. It is more reminiscent of the Foreign Minister's insensitive and intemperate outbursts. It is clear that African leaders, while polite, were not more than lukewarm towards the Prime Minister be comparison with their attitude to the previous Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser. Nevertheless, we are pleased to note the significance the Prime Minister has attached to the Commonwealth in his statement today. I said that I had anticipated that I would agree with much of what the Prime Minister had to say in this statement, and indeed, I do. The Opposition supports much of what is said in the communique and supports many of the positions the Australian Prime Minister took on particular issues. I should like to comment on some of the more significant elements of the communique. I would not like the Foreign Minister to think that I was being churlish and disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. Mr Hayden —You just be yourself. Don't change. Mr PEACOCK —Indeed, I will. The Minister knows how welcome that is giving credit where it is due, and analytical, constructive criticism where it is also due. The Opposition warmly welcomes the attitude taken by the Commowealth leaders towards Grenada, and in particular their determination to look to the future and to put their efforts towards assisting the peaceful restoration of democracy to that island. The Opposition also welcomes the Prime Minister's indication that Australia would be prepared to offer civilian assistance if sought. We regret, however, that the Government ruled out so prematurely any suggestion that Australia would contribute to any peacekeeping force the Commonwealth might establish on Grenada. That decision, of course, was symptomatic of the absence of a global appreciation to which I referred earlier, as was the subsequent criticism of the United States action and, indeed, the fiasco of the United Nations' vote on that issue. The Government clearly failed to recognise and identify Central America and the Caribbean as being of vital strategic significance to the United States and, indeed, to the whole of the Western world. It therefore failed to appreciate the importance to Australia of developments in that region. The Government also down played the threat posed by the activities of the Soviet Union in its Cuban and other surrogates in the region which justified the action taken by the United States and East Caribbean countries. It is to be hoped that the overwhelming evidence of mischief-making by the Eastern bloc countries in the region has made the Government more sensitive to those considerations and to Australia's responsibilities as an ally of the United States. The Opposition also welcomes the Commonwealth leaders' firm condemnation of the unilateral declaration of independence by the Turkish authorities in the occupied north of Cyprus and their decision to establish a high level action group. I am particularly pleased that Australia has agreed to participate in this group, not only because I believe we have a contribution to make but also because this demonstrates at least some awareness that Australia's interests and usefulness extend beyond our immediate horizon. It will be recalled that the Government agreed to raise this issue at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting only when I, on behalf of the Opposition, asked the Prime Minister whether he would do so. So I am pleased that as a consequence of this matter being raised in the House and the Prime Minister agreeing to respond to an Opposition initiative Australia is contributing in this important way. Similarly, the Opposition supports the Government's contribution to the discussion on the Lebanon, although we regret the manner of the intervention and , in particular, the public brawling with the Indian Prime Minister. In the limited time available I do not wish to comment on the discussion of Southern African issues, which the Prime Minister dealt with in his statement, except to say that I believe the Prime Minister showed a singular lack of grace in failing to acknowledge the very substantial contribution made by the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser. I have no doubt at all that African leaders in Delhi would have impressed upon him their indebtedness to the coalition Government for advancing the interests of African nations, reminding him yet again that Australia's interests and influence extend beyond our immediate region. As the Prime Minister informed the House, the leaders most appropriately addressed themselves to the vital issues of disarmament and international security. At a time of increasing concern about relations between the super- powers and around the world, this is an issue that goes to the very future of mankind. Let me say yet again that the Opposition endorses the points made by the Prime Minister about the need for realism and balance in this debate. I congratulate the Prime Minister for criticising the anti-American bias apparent in the approach of many countries to this issue and, indeed, to many other international issues. I also applaud this honest recognition of Australia's responsibility as a supplier of uranium and the contribution it can make to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Unfortunately, one can only wonder whether the Prime Minister would have been so forthright had the Foreign Minister been on his side on this issue. He said, in effect: 'We are strongly in favour of the mining and export of uranium and glad to have you with us on this issue'. The Opposition believes that the approach adopted on economic issues was both realistic and constructive. In particular, the recognition that solutions to the very serious economic problems which undoubtedly exist do not lie in radical reforms to international economic institutions and structures. I mention radical reforms; I do not rule out reforms to the system. But the aim should be to make institutions operate more effectively. Of course we should also pursue appropriate domestic policies. I should not neglect what the Prime Minister put at the top of his list of achievements at New Delhi; that is, the establishment of 'a personal rapport' with Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore. Why is this rapport so important? Is it because the Prime Minister is aware of the apalling deterioration of Australia's relations with the Association of South East Asian Nations since this Government came to power? Is that the major reason for this rapport being put so high on the list? The Prime Minister has trumpted the success in patching up relations with ASEAN leaders both in Bangkok and New Delhi, but the situation should not have been allowed to develop in the first place. The rift which occurred as a result of the Government's misguided Indo-China initiative, and in particular its stand on Cambodia, was absolutely unnecessary. I have no doubt that it did lasting damage to the trust, confidence and the shared sense of purpose which should have existed and which had previously been the basis of our relations with ASEAN. I am confident that yesterday's statement by the Foreign Minister would have reassured ASEAN countries. Having said that, I welcome the agreement reached in Bangkok that Australia and ASEAN will work together towards the expansion of trade, both internationally and regionally. I am pleased the Prime Minister mentioned the letter he received from the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) supporting this approach. As the Minister for Trade, the Leader of the National Party worked actively to achieve a liberalisation of world trade. He consulted me about that letter to the Prime Minister and I indicated to him that I agreed with the views he expressed. As I said at the outset of my speech, many of the deficiencies in Australia's foreign policy stem from the lack of a clear perception of where Australia's long term interests lie. It boils down to the continuing tension between the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister, and between the left and right wings of the Australian Labor Party. We will not get our foreign policy right unless we can indicate our global appreciation and unless, having indicated it, we understand it. If there is no comprehension of the global scenario of the East-West relationship and our role within it, we will not get our regional relationships right. If we mean what we say about an interdependent world we ought to know, within that interdependence, upon whom we are dependent, with whom we are tied and with whom we should stand. That is why such initiatives as a dalliance with Vietnam do not sit with an Australian position in the East-West relationship when we examine the Chinese- Soviet setting behind Vietnam's incursion into Cambodia. If we overlook that role and our role in the Western Alliance we will get every other element wrong, whether it be small or large. We have waited all year for a statement from the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister indicating their strategic assessment and their global appreciation and Australia's role within it. We are still waiting for it. Until they give us that report and, more importantly, comprehend it, they will not get their policies right. We will continue to be the nonentity we are rapidly becoming at present, losing that degree of purchase and leverage not only with ASEAN, north-west Asia, the South Pacific, but when also at the Commonwealth meeting about which we heard from the Prime Minister today. I do not dismiss the Commonwealth as anachronistic, as some people do. It is a microcosm of the world community. We have played an extraordinarily important and leading role in the Commonwealth in recent years and we should affirm our role in that body in the years to come. I find it a matter of regret that the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meetings are to be deferred, but I accept the Prime Minister's explanation of the coincidence of meetings of the South Pacific Forum leaders and the CHOGRM leaders. I hope it is not, as I suspect it may be, the first step in Australia seeking to have the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meetings abolished. The Opposition is forced to conclude-with all the good points within the statement of the Prime Minister and within the communique that one could endorse so wholeheartedly-that there is much to be done to repair the damage of the past nine months. Much of that repair will be made easier if the Government discovers our role in this world and our role within the Western alliance. The Government can then move more constructively to play the significant role that Australia ought to play within a grouping such as the Commonwealth. The Opposition is forced regretfully to conclude that while the Labor Government remains in power Australia's foreign policy will continue to be unstable and that Australia's international stature and influence will continue to decline. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(5.07) —I note that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) delivered his statement to the Parliament on this matter in characteristic style, somewhat reminiscent of the sustained gush from a punctured bellows in a village smithy's shop. It is quite apparent that he seeks to frame the myth about himself, just as his colleagues equally conscientiously seek to frame a political coffin for him, that he is internationally celebrated and never forgotten as a world authority on foreign affairs and that he is remembered for having strutted the stage with glorious if even gaudy display. Therefore it is something of a traumatic shock for us to read the Plain Truth. In the November-December 1983 issue appears an article headed 'The Conservative World Comes Together' which states: Representatives from 19 Western countries have launched a worldwide conservative association called IDU-the International Democrat Union. Then, prominently featured in the article, is the splendid unforgettable quote: Australian Opposition Leader George Peacock began his talk . . . Such are the recollections of the people of the world of his contribution. It has endured almost as long as his mark has endured in this Parliament. It is unfortunate that in a churlish frame of mind he could not acknowledge the very generous comments of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in respect of the contribution of his predecessor, Mr Malcolm Fraser. Whatever one might say critically of the previous Prime Minister, he certainly contributed energetically and constructively in the Commonwealth forums. It goes to the merit of the Prime Minister, to the respect of the Government he leads and to the honour of this country, that he discharged himself so adequately and impressively at the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in New Delhi . I shall refer to that matter in a few seconds. For my part-as the Leader of the Opposition has set the tone that egocentricity is an appropriate quality to display in this sort of debate-I confess some nostalgia at discussing this matter; the sort of nostalgia that comes from recalling growing up, as a young chap, when the Commonwealth was the Empire, and the sun never set on it. We made the mistake of failing to distinguish between a late twilight and what was thought to be a high noon. My recollection is of a rather austere schoolroom with its bare cold floor and impersonal environment and almost single ornamentation. I recall an insurance company map which, year after year, in unchanged form, was stuck to the wall. It had broad, scarlet slashes across the map of the world distinguishing the extent of the British Empire. It was a time of bombast, of 'the land of hope and glory', of jingo, of Kipling's 'lesser breeds' before the sun. It was fascinating to recall the conflict which took place between imperialist colonialists and anti-colonialists , nationalists, and then find that the people engaged in that conflict subsequently participated in meetings like that which recently took place at Delhi. I also find it fascinating to see those people together, basing their shared experiences as the foundation for the dialogue that took place. They overcame vast differences in language, culture, values and a whole range of other fields. I raise those matters because the lasting lesson that I draw from this remains with me like a scar from a hot branding iron, and that is the way in which mistakes can be made and repeatedly made in the course of history. We learn that the most important lesson of history is that we do not learn much from the lessons of history. I am talking about the excoriated exiles who emerged from bushlands in former colonies to become feted in capitals and called upon for advice and afternoon tea at Buckingham Palace. I find it necessary to mention that because we have had in this Parliament a failure to distinguish between genuine and legitimate nationalistic aspirations and what are unacceptable forms of dissidence and activity designed to bring about the destruction of reasonable and liberal states. Kenyatta, reviled as he struggled for the independence of his country, was mourned as his death as a great statesman. A Marxist such as Mugabe was put into place under the protective right wing of a former Prime Minister of this country. The lesson I draw from this-it is pertinent to so many things that are happening in the world today-is that legitimate protests based on the experience of social, political and economic discrimination and repression have to be recognised as such and have to be respected. More than that; rifles, claymore mines and napalm are no solution to those sorts of problems. Euphemisms which convert 'search and destroy' into 'winning hearts and minds' are no resolution to these sorts of problems. If we go in that direction we will repent at leasure the error of tolerating, of excusing and of even sponsoring tyrants or oppressive juntas in developing countries for short term advantage and long term disruption to the sorts of objectives for which we stand and work. The distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable tyranny which we hear debated from time to time become nothing more than a fine shaving of casuistry. I mention that because these are issues which are highly relevant to the experiences of the people who participated as heads of government in many cases at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Delhi recently. They understand the discontent that comes from poverty in the suburbs of their undeveloped countries and from the needs of the peasants in the countryside. They understand the sort of anger that can be generated from an alienated middle class unless they are given adequate opportunity to economically develop and redistribute the benefits of that development socially and economically for the mass of people in the community. It was rewarding to note that our Prime Minister participated energetically, constructively and in a most informed fashion on these matters and related them to the international economic situation. Of course, it is one thing to have this sort of compassionate commitment; it is another thing to relate it to practical responses. I believe that that is what the Prime Minister did in the course of his contribution on this subject at CHOGM. He developed the themes of growth, trade, indebtedness; the problems of exchange rate movements in all their vagaries and unpredictabilities; the problem of the interest rates of developing countries being wracked most because they are the weakest and are punished in excess when economic conditions are in sharp downturn, as we have seen most recently. Perhaps in association with that is a concern we should all share about the problem of developing countries trying to handle that single issue of indebtedness, one of the many he referred to in his contribution. The New Republic of 28 November states: A simple moratorium of, say, one year's interest and principal payments from Latin American debtors would not only wipe out all the profits of the big bank it would devour much of their capital. With a huge loss of capital, they would have to reduce lending greatly (they lend at a ratio of about 20 to 1 against capital). Loans dry up, the debtors can't borrow, the merry-go-round stops. And if just Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina decided to repudiate their debts altogether, the nine largest U.S. banks would be wiped out. The consequence of that is that we would be cast into catastrophe. We would have a depression at least as bad as that which arose in the 1930s. That is why Australia-the Prime Minister at CHOGM-found it necessary to rivet attention to these pressing issues which have the potential for so much disorder in our time and in our international economic environment. Let us not fool ourselves. If the developing countries fail on this issue of indebtedness they will take us all with them. On the other hand, as the Prime Minister properly pointed out, it is not the sort of problem that can be fixed up with magic solutions. It is the sort of problem that requires an elaboration, and improvement in existing institutions and an understanding of the support for both the debtors and the creditors. This must be done in ways which at the same time keep their responsibility in place. That is no easy task but it is a necessary one. Let me move from the problems in that dimension to the problems in another dimension-the international global problem of nuclear escalation. It would seem that we reach out, in all our foolishness, determined to offer the world a patrimony of a poisoned civilisation and a global suicide. Accordingly, this Government has put at its masthead its concern about the need to control the nuclear arms race, to bring about a freeze of armaments and, after suitable negotiation, to bring about a reduction. That is no easy task but it is one which we are working at energetically, and I believe with some effect. The Prime Minister pointed out that in respect of the non-proliferation treaty, the comprehensive test ban proposals have gone through the first committee and are now to go before the General Assembly. He mentioned too that the whole nub of our concern in this area is revolving around the non-proliferation treaty. The non-proliferation treaty is the key to the success of any endeavours which any of us make in this area of arms control and disarmament. In 1985 the treaty comes up for renegotiation. There is a prospect-regrettably a growing prospect- that this treaty may fall apart. It may fail. Mr Jacobi —It will be a disaster if it does. Mr HAYDEN —It will be an absolute disaster. At the present time we have developing countries saying: 'The rich developed countries, the powerful ones with nuclear weapons, the two super powers, the other three nuclear powers, have not fulfilled their undertakings under the non-proliferation treaty. They promised not to proliferate. They said: ''We will not proliferate. We will guarantee world order through deterence. Trust us and do not move towards nuclear armaments yourselves''.' What has happened? They have moved; they have accelerated the race in nuclear armaments. The under-developed countries are now saying: 'We cannot trust you. We have to look after ourselves. You say we cannot be trusted but on your record you are the failure.' How can we argue against that sort of logic? It is difficult. The other aspect of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons which the Prime Minister mentioned concerns Article IV. In response to a challenge by the Leader of the Opposition I interjected that I am a uranium miner, an exporter, according to the principles of our policy, which we apply. The reason, very simply, is that Article IV imposes upon us certain obligations. Article IV of the treaty requires that: All the parties- it was a Labor Government that ratified their treaty- undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information . . . And so on. In the case of materials such as processed uranium U308 I find it necessary to have the most effective safeguards in place but at the same time to make sure that we fulfil our obligations under that treaty. If we do not, we make a damaging and dangerous contribution to those forces which are at work today internationally to destroy the central feature which holds together the whole array of nuclear arms control and disarmament treaties at that international level. There are many other favourable features for which the Prime Minister deserves bipartisan commendation. These include his approach to apartheid, his approach to Namimbia, the way in which he unambiguously declared the position of Australia on Grenada-a point of view which was upheld by the other delegates, including the representatives of the East Caribbean States. Let us not try to mangle and misrepresent the situation. The role of the Prime Minister in regard to the Commonwealth Action Group on Cyprus also deserves commendation. Finally, in regard to the Opposition not being prepared to acknowledge the success of the Prime Minister's role, let me say that I find one test most effective for establishing whether one has been successful at international forums. That is the vinegar test-surviving the cutting bite of someone such as Laurie Oakes. Mr Oakes said: Prime Minister Bob Hawke has made quite an impression at his first Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting here in New Delhi. That was printed in the Sunday Telegraph on 27 November, a very flattering but, I think, a justified account of what was a most successful enterprise on behalf of the country. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(5.23) —In opening my remarks I say-in, I hope, a most helpful way-to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) that he does himself no credit at all in the very personal way he addresses some of his remarks to members of the Opposition or to people who draw his ire. He occupies a very significant position in the Government of this country. I hope that in the future he removes that aspect of his behaviour from his remarks in this House. He made some very interesting points concerned with his own history. I was interested in the development of his own attitudes over the years. But this is no substitute for a considered statement to this Parliament. I hope that it will not be too long before we have a full statement from the Foreign Minister as to the Government's foreign policy overviews. I join the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in thanking the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for bringing to the House this report of his recent visit overseas. I think it is in line with precedents established by past Prime Ministers. It is something I think that the Foreign Minister could also take into account, because the Prime Minister has come back and given the House and the people of Australia the benefit of his views as to his performances and his experiences overseas. If the Prime Minister had made this statement on Tuesday instead of today, I would have chosen to say very little by way of comment on his constructive efforts to defuse the problems with the Association of South East Asian Nations. These problems had developed into a heated public dialogue, particularly-let us not shy away from this-as the result of public remarks made by the Australian Foreign Minister. It is clearly in the interests of us all that we endeavour to build on the Prime Minister's efforts to establish a dialogue with ASEAN which is purposeful and positive. I have chosen throughout this whole issue to be critical of the Prime Minister on only one point. That point put simply is that he gave the Foreign Minister's viewpoint too free a rein and that it was a viewpoint which produced a public crises, exemplified by the strong statements made in New York by the Thai Foreign Minister, followed by ASEAN colleagues, the postponement of the meeting of the ASEAN-Australian Forum-a somewhat petulant and abusive response by Australia to the remarks of the Singapore Foreign Minister. All these developments had been sanctioned by the Prime Minister, who issued statements of reassurance and endorsement for his-I think one could describe him as boat- rocking Foreign Minister. It was the failure of the Prime Minister to acquaint himself early with the issues which contributed to the crisis. I said that if this statement had been made last Tuesday, my comment would have been very limited indeed. But yesterday the Foreign Minister chose to make a statement which introduced major propositions not disclosed in the Prime Minister's statement. The effect of this statement made the Prime Minister's statement today somewhat out of date. For the Foreign Minister, in a sophisticated and articulate way, has repeated those aspects of his position which ASEAN found most offensive. The Prime Minister traces ASEAN concern to Australia's refusal to co-sponsor the United Nations-ASEAN resolution on Kampuchea. But, as I pointed out yesterday, the developments which surrounded ASEAN expression of concern in New York were generated by the Foreign Minister's presentation and performance at the meeting with ASEAN Foreign Ministers last June. Now and yesterday the Foreign Minister renewed those points, almost, one would think, to pre-empt the credibility of today's statement by the Prime Minister. Because of developments yesterday, and given the substantially different statement by the Prime Minister today, I feel obliged to point out to the Prime Minister what it was in June which caused ASEAN its concern. I will draw on the statement of yesterday to demonstrate that as far as the Foreign Minister is concerned, the core differences with ASEAN remain undisturbed by the Prime Minister's discussion. In June the Foreign Minister challenged ASEAN policy of support for resistance movements opposing Vietnam's occupation of Cambodia. There are three components of resistance. In addition to Pol Pot, there is the resistance quite separately organised on the ground of Son Sann, the former Prime Minister, and there is the leadership of Prince Sihanouk. To enable a smooth transfer of the UN seat, ASEAN created the concept of a coalition. That arrangement allowed all parties to accept aid from external supporters quite independently of the other, which meant in effect that support for Son Sann by ASEAN was given international legitimacy. ASEAN support for Sihanouk to succeed to the representation in the UN also flowed from this arrangement. So effective has this move been, that the Soviet bloc for the first time did not press the credentials issue to a vote. It is corrupting the public image of what is occurring for the Government to dismiss Sihanouk and Son Sann as men in the grip of Pol Pot by virtue of an ASEAN arrangement designed to put Sihanouk into the UN and to strengthen the non-communist resistance of Pol Pot. Thus the coalition has little substance as a coalition. That is clear. But non-communist resistance and ASEAN support for it is a substantial question in the UN and internationally. Prince Sihanouk is clear on this point as there is no integration or association of the component political movements and associated armed forces. The coalition is a piece of paper, through which Sihanouk took the seat at the UN. The Foreign Minister said at an Australian Press Conference in Bangkok that he told ASEAN Foreign Ministers that it will become increasingly evident that the ASEAN initiative has not worked and that he considered that there was no future in ASEAN policy. That is what got under ASEAN's skin. The Foreign Minister was urging them to discard resistance and put all their eggs in our basket of appealing to Hanoi. Yesterday the Minister returned to a put-down of ASEAN policies. He said that Son Sann and Sihanouk were good people but that they were 'locked in' to Pol Pot. That really misrepresents what has occurred. In pooh- poohing ASEAN policy yesterday, the Foreign Minister has reopened the problem. I only hope that the Prime Ministers position may not be overwhelmed by yesterday' s statement. The Prime Minister has shown a great deal of correspondence in his position and that of ASEAN. Indeed, he chooses to emphasise the similarities, and this is to his great credit. The Foreign Minister, in his statement, introduced major differences, differences which ASEAN will find difficult to reconcile with the view of the Prime Minister. The statement of the Prime Minister contains another important difference with the Foreign Minister. The Foreign Minister, in this House, has taken the view that Vietnam has been isolated by a policy of external powers and, by implication, by ASEAN. Yesterday he said: . . . I do not accept any policy of isolation and punishment of Vietnam. In his statement today the Prime Minister said: But as Australia saw it, that isolation reflected a choice on Vietnam itself; it was not something imposed on it by the ASEAN countries. Clearly, the Prime Minister and his Foreign Minister must develop a capacity to be consistent in tone, emphasis and substance. Otherwise we must surely have a continuance of misunderstandings. I repeat: I have no problems with what the Prime Minister says in his statement; I do have a problem with the spaces he left and the fact that the Foreign Minister chose to fill them in yesterday. On the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, it is clear that the Prime Minister left Australia with a view on Grenada which was reshaped by the discussion in Delhi. Firstly, it is clear that the constructive atmosphere in Dehli had much to do with the fact that world opinion had been stood on its head a few days after the intervention by the East Caribbean states represented at the conference, in association with the United States. When the extent of the Cuban presence was revealed, world opinion reassessed the situation also. It is clear also that the legitimacy of Sir Paul Scoon had been established internationally, recognised as he was by the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. But it is not a very good comment on Government performance for the Prime Minister to have to discover elements in the post-intervention situation which might have been available here. Yet, reading between the lines, I am sure that his instincts were such as would ensure a fair-minded discussion at the Commonwealth meeting on this issue. Certainly, the communique is worth quoting. I would like to do just that. It reads: Heads of Government agreed, however, that the emphasis should now be on reconstruction, not recrimination. They welcomed the establishment of an interim civilian administration in Grenada. They looked forward to its functioning free of external interference, pressure or the presence of foreign military forces and noted its intention to hold, as early as possible, elections which would be seen by the international community to be free and fair. On this basis, and given the readiness of the countries of the Caribbean community to assist in the maintenance of law and order in Grenada if so requested by the interim administration, Commonwealth leaders confirmed their readiness to give sympathetic consideration to requests for assistance from the island state. In doing so, they stressed the importance they attached to and early return of Commonwealth countries of the Caribbean to the spirit of fraternity and co- operation that had been so characteristic of the region. I am sure I would be correct in taking a view that the outcome owes something to the Prime Minister's work at the conference. On that presumption, I congratulate him and the Australian delegation. I regret, however, that the Prime Minister has not been able to indicate the nature of the assistance which Australia might contribute as a form of civilian assistance to the reconstruction of Grenada. Our position in this respect contrasts with that of New Zealand, where there is no Labor government. New Zealand has indicated that it will provide a police element which is already in training. Australian participation in efforts to settle down the Cyprus issue has the Opposition's full support, as the Leader of the Opposition has already made very clear. The statement in the communique on Lebanon is, I believe, very sensible. It is clear that the British Government had a very strong position on the need to break the linkage between Namibia negotiations. The reason is clear enough. It threatens to stalemate the forward negotiations on Namibia. I feel sure that Mrs Thatcher was grateful for Australian support on this issue which, if it is settled, will greatly improve prospects for stabilising relations in southern Africa. I note in passing the Prime Minister's remarks on the African National Council and the South West African People's Organisation, two very different organisations. I find it difficult to reconcile the Government's position of welcoming the ANC in particular, which has recently undertaken a policy of violence and terrorism in order to extend its influence in South Africa. On disarmament, I draw the attention of the House to the Prime Minister's statement of three general principles: The security of all states at the lowest possible level of armament, stability of the nuclear balance and adequate verification of disarmament agreements. I believe the Prime Minister has been wise to adopt these principles. I feel sure that they are the basis on which the United States is at present negotiating. It is certainly a position which rejects unilateral disarmament. The principles will be a fundamental guide to the sensible emphasis which the Government is placing on this question. I note that the fate of the concept of the Commonwealth regional meeting is in the balance. I believe there is a case for meetings at the summit on a periodic basis. The value of these meetings to regional members is demonstrated by the view of Malaysia, which places superior emphasis on the regional meeting above the main summit. I hope that the Prime Minister will discount any negative vibes he may have from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs and do his best to maintain a momentum in developing regional Commonwealth relations. I agree with the Prime Minister's view on the need to retain the major international financial institutions and to ensure that they are adapted to meet new challenges. Only when they are clearly seen to be incapable of effectively meeting these challenges should consideration be given to new institutions. I note also the view of the Foreign Minister in relation to repayments of debts incurred by developing countries. Certainly, it has been and is a major problem which needs to be overcome if the whole stability of the economic order, apart from anything else, is to be preserved. I believe the Prime Minister has acted with a sense of responsibility in his obligations to this House by making a report to it of this visit overseas. The fact that his having done so is in keeping with precedent must be kept in mind, but his action is no less appreciated because of that. I finish by asking the Foreign Minister to note the appreciation which the Prime Minister has received for his action and to consider making as soon as possible a full statement on foreign policy which can be debated by members of this House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beazley) adjourned. Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the amendments recommended by His Excellency the Governor-General to the Taxation Administration Amendment Bill 1983. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Precedence Motion (by Mr Dawkins) agreed to: That Government Business take precedence of General Business for this sitting. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Senate amendments- No. 1-Page 1, clause 3, before the proposed definintion of ''Australian Capital Territory Representation Regulations'', insert the following new definition: '' ' ''Australian Capital Territory'' includes the Jervis Bay Terrritory;''. No. 2-Page 3, clause 4, paragraph (f), proposed new paragraph 4 (2) (ga), line 41, after ''Officer'', insert ''in a manner necessary for those purposes''. No. 3-Page 4, clause 4, paragraph (f), proposed new paragraph 4 (2) (gb), line 1, after ''Officer'', insert ''in a manner necessary for those purposes''. No. 4-Page 4, after clause 5, insert the following new clause: ''5A. Section 6A of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: '(3) No moneys shall be expended by the Commonwealth in respect of the presentation of the argument in favour of, or the argument against, a proposed law other than in respect of- (a) the publication of the pamphlet referred to in this section and any translation into other languages which may be authorized and advertised by the Chief Australian Electoral Officer; or (b) meeting travelling, accommodation or other ordinary expenses of members of the Parliament, including Ministers, that are lawfully payable by the Commonwealth.'.''. No. 5-Page 5, clause 9, before paragraph (a), insert the following new paragraph: ''(aa) by omitting from sub-section (1) 'may' and substituting 'shall';''. No. 6-Page 5, clause 9, paragraph (a), line 27, leave out ''in the case'', insert ''in a manner necessary for the purposes''. No. 7-Page 5, clause 9, paragraph (b), proposed sub-section 14A (2), lines 38 and 39, leave out ''in the case'', insert ''in a manner necessary for the purposes''. No. 8-Page 5, clause 9, paragraph (c), line 41, leave out ''in the case'', insert ''in a manner necessary for the purposes''. No. 9-Page 6, clause 9, paragraph (d), line 1, leave out ''in the case'', insert ''in a manner necessary for the purposes''. No. 10-Page 6, clause 9, at end of clause, add the following new paragraph: ''(f) by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: '(5) The ballot-papers referred to in sub-sections (1) and (3) may, in a manner necessary for the purposes of voting by Australian Capital Territory or Northern Territory electors, be modified by the Chief Australian Electoral Officer.'.''. No. 11-Page 13, after clause 28, insert the following new clause: ''28A. After section 41 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted in Part VII: Forms of certain ballot-papers '41A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other section of this Act relating to the forms of ballot-papers to be used for the purposes of a referendum, the language to be employed in the forms of ballot-papers (other than the forms for the purposes of voting pursuant to sections 91A, 121 or 121A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918) to be used for the purposes of the submission to the electors of the following proposed laws shall by in accordance with the language employed in the forms set out at the end of this section: 1. Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) 1983 2. Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) 1983 3. Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) 1983 4. Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) 1983 5. Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) 1983. '(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other section of this Act relating to the forms of ballot-papers, the language to be employed in the ballot-papers to be used for the purposes of the submission to the electors or the proposed laws referred to in sub-section (1), being electors who claim to vote in pursuance of section 91A, section 121 or section 121A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, shall be in accordance with the language employed in the forms set out at the end of this section to be used by an elector voting as an absent voter, and for that purpose, the words ''ABSENT VOTE '' appearing on those ballot-papers may be struck out and ''Section 91A'', '' Section 121'' or ''Section 121A'', as the case requires, may be substituted. '(3) The reference in sub-section 14A (3) to Form D in the Schedule shall, for the purposes of the submission to the electors of the proposed laws referred to in sub-section (1), be read as a reference to Form 1 set out at the end of this section. FORM 1 BALLOT-PAPERS Commonwealth of AustraliaReferendum (Constitution Alteration) Act[Here insert name of State or Territory] Referendums on Proposed Constitutional Alterations DIRECTIONS TO VOTER You must write ''YES'' or ''NO'' in the space provided on EACH ballot-paper for EACH of the FIVE proposed constitutional alterations set out below. The proposed laws which make these alterations are, in order: 1. Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) 1983 2. Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) 1983 3. Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) 1983 4. Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) 1983 5. Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) 1983 1. SIMULTANEOUS ELECTIONS: To ensure that elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives are always held on the same day and to adjust the terms of Senators accordingly. DO YOU APPROVE THE PROPOSED ALTERATION? * 2. PARLIAMENTARY TERMS: To extend the maximum life of Parliaments from 3 to 4 years. DO YOU APPROVE THE PROPOSED ALTERATION? * 3. INTERCHANGE OF POWERS: To enable the Commonwealth and States voluntarily to refer powers to each other. DO YOU APPROVE THE PROPOSED ALTERATION? * 4. ADVISORY JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT: To enable the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory more easily to obtain from the High Court its views on certain constitutional questions. DO YOU APPROVE THE PROPOSED ALTERATION? * 5. REMOVAL OF OUTMODED AND EXPENDED PROVISIONS: To remove from the Constitution certain provisions that have no further application or relevance. DO YOU APPROVE THE PROPOSED ALTERATION? * FORM 2 The elector must not mark his vote on this ballot-paper until after he has first exhibited the ballot-paper (unmarked) to the Authorized Witness. POSTAL BALLOT-PAPERS Commonwealth of Australia[Here insert name of State or Territory] Referendums on Proposed Constitutional Alterations DIRECTIONS TO VOTER You must write ''YES'' or ''NO'' in the space provided on EACH ballot-paper for EACH of the FIVE proposed constitutional alterations set out below. The proposed laws which make these alterations are, in order: 1. Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) 1983 2. Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) 1983 3. Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) 1983 4. Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) 1983 5. Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) 1983 1. SIMULTANEOUS ELECTIONS: To ensure that elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives are always held on the same day and to adjust the terms of Senators accordingly. DO YOU APPROVE THE PROPOSED ALTERATION? * 2. PARLIAMENTARY TERMS: To extend the maximum life of Parliaments from 3 to 4 years. DO YOU APPROVE THE PROPOSED ALTERATION? * 3. INTERCHANGE OF POWERS: To enable the Commonwealth and States voluntarily to refer powers to each other. DO YOU APPROVE THE PROPOSED ALTERATION? * 4. ADVISORY JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT: To enable the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory more easily to obtain from the High Court its views on certain constitutional questions. DO YOU APPROVE THE PROPOSED ALTERATION? * 5. REMOVAL OF OUTMODED AND EXPENDED PROVISIONS: To remove from the Constitution certain provisions that have no further application or relevance. DO YOU APPROVE THE PROPOSED ALTERATION? * FURTHER DIRECTIONS: Fold the ballot-paper, place it in the envelope addressed to the Divisional Returning Officer and fasten the envelope. FORM 3 ABSENT VOTE BALLOT-PAPERS Commonwealth of Australia[Here insert name of State or Territory] Referendums on Proposed Constitutional Alterations DIRECTIONS TO VOTER You must write ''YES'' or ''NO'' in the space provided on EACH ballot-paper for EACH of the FIVE proposed constitutional alterations set out below. The proposed laws which make these alterations are, in order: 1. Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) 1983 2. Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) 1983 3. Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) 1983 4. Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) 1983 5. Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) 1983 1. SIMULTANEOUS ELECTIONS: To ensure that elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives are always held on the same day, and to adjust the terms of Senators accordingly. DO YOU APPROVE THE PROPOSED ALTERATION? * 2. PARLIAMENTARY TERMS: To extend the maximum life of Parliaments from 3 to 4 years. DO YOU APPROVE THE PROPOSED ALTERATION? * 3. INTERCHANGE OF POWERS: To enable the Commonwealth and States voluntarily to refer powers to each other. DO YOU APPROVE THE PROPOSED ALTERATION? * 4. ADVISORY JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT: To enable the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory more easily to obtain from the High Court its views on certain constitutional questions. DO YOU APPROVE THE PROPOSED ALTERATION? * 5. REMOVAL OF OUTMODED AND EXPENDED PROVISIONS: To remove from the Constitution certain provisions that have no further application or relevance. DO YOU APPROVE THE PROPOSED ALTERATION? * FURTHER DIRECTIONS: Fold the ballot-paper so that the votes cannot be seen and return it to the Presiding Officer before whom you made your declaration. No. 12-Page 13, after clause 29, insert the following new clause: Operation of Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, &c., in relation to a referendum ''30. (1) The succeeding provisions of this section shall have effect after the commencement of the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act 1983 (in this section referred to as the 'Amending Act'). (2) For the purposes of a referendum- (a) the amendments made by the Amending Act to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, other than the amendments made by sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 150 of the Amending Act, shall be deemed not to have been made; and (b) the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act 1906, the regulations referred to in sub-section (3) and the regulations that were, immediately before the commencement of the Amending Act, in force under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act 1906, shall have effect accordingly. (3) Notwithstanding the repeals effected by section 151 of the Amending Act- (a) the Australian Capital Territory Representation Regulations that were, immediately before the commencement of the Amending Act, in force under the Australian Capital Territory Representation (House of Representatives) Act 1973; and (b) the Northern Territory Electoral Regulations that were, immediately before the commencement of the Amending Act, in force under the Northern Territory Representation Act 1922 and the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, shall continue in force for the purposes of a referendum. (4) For the purposes of the application, in relation to a referendum, of any law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory, or any order or instrument under any such law, in relation to anything done or to be done after the commencement of the Amending Act- (a) a reference to the Australian Electoral Office shall be read as a reference to the Australian Electoral Commission established under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 as amended by the Amending Act; (b) a reference to the Chief Australian Electoral Officer or to the Chief Electoral Officer for the Commonwealth shall be read as a reference to the Electoral Commissioner appointed under that Act as so amended; (c) a reference to a Commonwealth Electoral Officer for a State or to an Australian Electoral Officer for a State shall be read as a reference to the Australian Electoral Officer for the State appointed under that Act as so amended; (d) a reference to a Returning Officer, in relation to a Division of the Australian Capital Territory or in relation to the Northern Territory, shall be read as a reference to the Divisional Returning Officer for that Division or that Territory, as the case may be; and (e) a reference to a Registrar, in relation to a Subdivision, shall be read as a reference to the Divisional Returning Officer for the Division of which that Subdivision is part or, if an Assistant Divisional Returning Officer has been appointed for that Subdivision, to that Assistant Divisional Returning Officer.' '. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State) —I indicate to the Committee that the Government proposes that amendments Nos 1 to 3 and 5 to 12 be agreed to and that amendment No. 4 be disagreed to. I suggest, therefore, that it might suit the convenience of the Committee first to consider amendments Nos 1 to 3 and 5 to 12 together and, when those amendments have been disposed of, to consider amendment No. 4. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Child) —Is it the wish of the Committee to take that course of action? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That amendments Nos 1 to 3 and 5 to 12 be agreed to. Mr NEWMAN(Bass)(5.40) —Madam Deputy Chairman, you must be aware that we are trying to keep up with the amendments that have come in on the Referendum ( Constitution Alteration) Amendment Bill, a very important Bill which is seeking to take to the people of Australia a referendum in February. We have had no time to examine what the Senate has done. The amendments to this legislation are being rammed through this House, although I appreciate the concern of the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley), who is at the table about what is happening. He briefed me a few moments ago as to what was happening, and he has at least agreed to allow us to put a point of view. Of course, I am not putting the view of the Opposition parties, but it is the view of several members of this House who are opposed to this referendum-to each and every question that the Government will be putting to the people. I wish to deal with amendments Nos 5 to 12, and I hope that I am covering them correctly. I stress again that I have not had time to read the amendments in detail. Amendments Nos 5 to 10 seem to me to be giving the Electoral Officer the ability to make amendments, through regulation, to very crucial papers that will be involved in a referendum; that is, the papers that will go to the people at the ballot box. That means that the Electoral Officer can make changes without reference to the Parliament. I ask all honourable members to consider what we are doing here. In a sense we are abrogating our right to decide quite specifically how, for example, questions should be put to the people. We should not leave it to the Electoral Officer to make regulations, perhaps by direction from the Government, that could be quite important. I hope that I am reading the amendments correctly. As I have said, we simply have not had a chance to look at them in detail. I come now to amendments Nos 11 and 12. These amendments change the normal way in which referendum papers have been put to the people. At the back of the papers we have form 1, the ballot paper, and also ballot papers in form 3 for absent voters. What is interesting about this whole question is that the Government has performed extremely badly in the open way in which it is allowing both cases, the Yes and the No case, to be fairly put to the Australian people. I have already said that, on a very important Bill for a referendum to change the Constitution, the members of the No group who wish to support a No case have really been given no consideration in the time that they have had to study these papers and put a proper case. We are doing it on the run. I say to the Government, which continually espouses consensus and time to think and argue about important issues, that it is simply not doing the right thing by doing it this way. This legislation has come into this chamber and it will go out again in a matter of minutes. I do not expect that the people of Australia will really appreciate that an important referendum on five important questions is being dealt with in this way. There are more essential criticisms of the Government and specifically of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). As I understand the situation, in all previous referendums the case has been put by using the full title of a Bill, following the way it was debated in this House, and that is important. It is essential that the Parliament decides the questions that will be put to the people. If, as I understand it, the Government is arguing that the titles of the Bills involved in this referendum are too complicated, then they should have been changed by the Parliament before we got to the stage of putting them on the ballot paper. I agree that the titles of the Bills may be complicated, but that is not the question. The real problem is this: It is up to the Parliament to decide specifically what will be proposed to the people by way of questions on the ballot paper, and that has not been done. That is the second criticism of the Government, a criticism which again leads me and the rest of my colleagues who will be putting the No case to believe that we are not getting a fair go, that the Government by subterfuge and, again, by ramming this legislation through, is not allowing us time for proper consideration in order to ensure that the referendum is fairly put. The third criticism relates to the way in which the questions are being framed. Once again, it is very difficult to go into detail without actually having had time to study these amendments. Let us take the first question, headed ' Simultaneous Elections'. It states: To ensure that elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives are always held on the same day, and to adjust the terms of senators accordingly. That is not the be all and end all of this question. It is simply not about simultaneous elections. Quite clearly we say that the problem of simultaneous House of Representatives and Senate elections could be easily overcome if the Government or the Prime Minister of the day simply did not call early elections. This would mean that there could easily be simultaneous elections. The ability to do that is there now. We believe that the way this question is being put does not reflect what was debated in the House and it does not reflect that sort of sentiment. We then come to the second question, headed 'Parliamentary Terms'. That states: To extend the maximum life of Parliament from 3 to 4 years. I am sure that when the people go to the ballot box they will look at that question and say 'What a good idea. We want consistency of government. Four years will allow a government to be consistent in developing its policies and we will not have frequent elections'. Of course, what is unsaid is that this will give senators eight-year terms. We may as well give them a ticket for the Public Service and all the retirements benefits now, because that is what that will mean. They will be elected and, at the end of eight years, they will claim their parliamentary superannuation. What will senators with eight-year terms do? Will they be responsible to their electorates? The answer is clearly no. Eight years is too long for anybody to go without having to face the ballot box, without having to face the criticisms of the electorate, and without being judged properly. That question which the Government has framed is clearly not honest. It is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the electors because it is not stating the essential thing, that is, the eight-year term for senators. The third question is headed 'Interchange of Powers', and it states: To enable the Commonwealth and States voluntarily to refer powers . . . I object to the word 'voluntarily' in that question. The Federal Labor Government will be able to blackmail the States or, where there is a government of its own ilk in another State, it will be able to put the pressure on-I am sure honourable members could conjure up the circumstances-into giving away powers to the Federal Government. By gosh, when they do they will never get it back either. So to put the word 'voluntarily' in that question is again misleading the people as to the true intent of the Government. The true intent of the Government is to centralise more power in Canberra, particularly at the expense of the small States. The fourth question, headed 'Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court', states: To enable the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory more easily to obtain from the High Court . . . That is deception of the highest order. They do not have that ability now. By putting in the words 'more easily to obtain', the Government is again trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the people. That sounds as if this is a position the States now have and now the Government is just going to make it easier. The States do not have that ability to do it now and to put the words 'more easily' in the legislation is clearly incorrect and misleading. I summarise by saying that the Government is going out of its way to make sure the No case is not heard in this country. It is misleading the people as to what the real questions are and it is misleading the people as to what its objectives are; that is, to centralise more power here in the Federal Government at the expense of the States and particularly those small States of less population which cannot have the say that the bigger States have. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(5.51) —I appreciate the time constraints. I would like to join with other members of the Parliament in agreeing with the remarks made by the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman). I do not want to go over that ground again, but I do want to say and I say it in the spirit of debate in this chamber -the special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) is at the table-that I am somewhat surprised at the way in which this matter has developed since it was last debated in this House. In particular, the form of the questions to be put to the people in the referendums is a matter of considerable concern to me. The provisions of the Act under which referendums are conducted have always provided-this has always been the situation since Federation-that the question is put in the form of the long title of the Act. There is a very good reason for that. Firstly, it defines the proposed amendment in legislative form. Secondly, it will keep governments and draftsmen honest to ensure that the long title of the Act correctly summarises what the legislative enactment will do. To move, as has been the situation here, by regulation to put, for example, a question to the people which does not draw to the attention of the electors that the term of senators is to be increased to eight years is, in my humble opinion, not to put the question properly and fairly to the people. I have already, on a previous occasion, indicated my strong opposition to three of the referendum proposals. There is argument in relation to the other two proposals and I do not want to delay the chamber on that matter. I believe the people of Australia will come to recognise in the run-up to the campaign on 25 February when the ballot is taken that effectively the matters which are being put to the people will have two basic and fundamental consequences: Firstly, they will weaken the power of the Senate and under our bicameral system and our Federal system of government that is contra to the interests of the states and contra to the interests of the Federation; and secondly, they will strengthen the power of the Executive vis-a-vis this Parliament, this House and the Senate. I, therefore, endorse the remarks of the honourable member for Bass. My position in relation to the referendum proposals is clear. I do not think anybody should be in any doubt as to the course I will be recommending to the constituents to whom I have the opportunity to express a view. I believe the proposals are bad. They are bad for Australia, they are certainly bad for Tasmania and the smaller States and they are absolutely bad and, in my view, intolerable for the Federation. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(5.56) —The Opposition supports the proposals being put to the public. I want to make that clear. I thought the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) might like to hear that. The Opposition supports the intent of the proposals put in the long titles of the Bills. The contention that we have is not, therefore, on the merits of the questions but the way in which they are being put. This is a question which has been argued at length in another place. It will not serve the purpose at all-I agree with the Minister in this regard-to expand it here. I think it is necessary to clearly state again that the Opposition supports the merits of the cases. It does not support substituting for the long title of the Bill which has always been in the past put by way of a question of referenda to the public of Australia. It does not believe that precedents should be broken. As has already been stated by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), this does place the draftsmen of these long titles in some invidious position because it means that, in some way, their descriptions are inferior to someone else's outside of any known drafting area of expertise. We might find that there is some political input beyond the normal, non-political input of a draftsman who is a technician in this regard and a trained specialist to translate the intentions of people and of Ministers into words which are legally correct and binding. In that regard, the Opposition does not support that amendment and supports its colleagues in the Senate who have fought hard and valiantly to have this matter restricted-I do not say in the positive sense-and simply brought back to the long title of the Bill so that we can all, Opposition and Government , go out to the public of Australia and support the merits of the cases which we have already done before. Question put: That the motion (Mr Beazley's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 43 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Baldwin, P. J. Keating, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. 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, AllanDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Everingham, D. N. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Reeves, J. E.Fry, K. L. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Hayden, W. G. Steedman, A. P.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wells, D. McM.Hurford, C. J. West, S. J.Jacobi, R. Willis, R.Johnson, Les Young, M. J. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Anthony, J. D. Hunt, R. J. D.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Newman, K. E.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Jones, Barry Street, A. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State (6.05) —I move: That amendment No. 4 be disagreed to. This amendment, if carried, would place a prohibition on the expenditure of $1. 25m which has been allocated to assist in conveying the Yes case to the Australian people. It needs to be remembered, when considering the vote on this proposition, that close to $5m on an even-Steven basis is to be spent on the Yes and No cases, ensuring, at least in pamphlet form and in a complex fashion, that those two cases are placed before the Australian people. The Government is determined in this instance to proceed with this expenditure on the Yes case. The expenditure of those funds will ensure that the Yes case, which is well supported by the Opposition as well as by the Government, will have an opportunity to be placed more firmly before the Australian people and properly explained to them. That is a desirable objective which ought to draw support from both sides of the chamber. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(6.07) —This is one of the more unprincipled moves of the Government since it came to office in that here it is diverging from the stance that it has taken on all matters electoral. It is taking a totally different attitude in relation to a referendum. During the study of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform the Australian Labor Party was keen to join in public funding. Despite opposition to it from the coalition parties, it was generally agreed that we should arrive at a fair system-a system governed by the number of votes, above a certain basic number, obtained by each of the competing parties or individuals. On that basis funds are to be allocated. One cannot say in all fairness that that system can be seen to be unprincipled or unfair to the contestants or to the public in general, although we maintain that the principle of public funding itself is intrinsically wrong. This is the most one-sided electoral proposal ever to be put in this country. It hurts me to say that because I support the merit of all five proposals, as does the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley). But it makes the offence all the worse that the major parties in this Parliament agree that these measures should be passed, at least the long titles of the Bills which we maintain should be put to the public. Do we agree, therefore, to vote ourselves $1.25m of public money to make sure that our general agreement on these issues becomes an overwhelming rush in the Australian community over any opposition to these proposals which may develop? I will fight politically the opponents of these proposals, but I will give here all the support I can muster to the right of the opponents of these proposals to put their case fairly. Every right thinking person who believes in democracy would support that proposition. What do we find? The Minister, after the Senate has put some element of justice into this Bill-it simply knocked out the proposal to spend $1.25m on one side of the question-says that he is determined to defeat the fair principle that honourable senators introduced into the legislation. He has no reason other than that he is determined. In this chamber he has the numbers and he can be determined, he can override the principles for which the coalition will vote; but he will have to take the legislation back to the Senate and I wish him well in trying to override its principles. I hope that it will stand for what it has applied to this Bill. I believe that the Government is to be condemned for saying to the Australian people: 'We will spend $1.25m of your money to put the most one-sided view that we can ever support-one part of a two-part decision'. I ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to reconsider if only as a matter of convenience. If he believes in obtaining this Bill in the late hours of this Parliament, he ought to take a strategic view and realise that he is more likely to get the referendum put to the Australian people if he agrees to this amendment. If he does not agree to it, he will prejudice the very putting of the questions. I can only say that the Opposition deplores the Government's attitude. It is totally unprincipled. We will oppose its view and support the amendment. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(6.12) —I must say that I am absolutely disgusted with the attitude adopted by the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) to this issue. I have had great respect for him in other matters to which he has addressed himself in this Parliament but on this issue he is aligning himself with the tactics that are adopted by totalitarian regimes in other parts of the world. I am disgusted with his attitude and I am quite sure that his father, who had a great reputation in this Parliament, would also be disgusted with it. This proposal is for the expenditure of $1.25m of public funds to support the advertising of the case that the Government wants to put to the people. The Government will not allocate any money to the opposite view being put to the people. The Minister is using the weight of government and the public funds that are made available by hard-working taxpayers of this country in order to bolster the propaganda that he is trying to spread among the people of this country. This is not democracy. The Minister is adopting the tactics of totalitarian regimes. He is breaking the very democratic principles upon which this country is founded. The Senate is trying to save the Minister and his Government from the disgraceful tactic that he is using. I strongly urge him to rethink, to go back on what he is doing. At least if he cannot be even-handed in providing money for both sides of the argument to be put fairly, he should provide no money for either side of the argument to be put. At least that would show some semblance of even-handedness. Mr NEWMAN(Bass)(6.14) —This, as my two colleagues who have already spoken have said, is yet another example of the unfair way in which the Government is tackling this referendum. We have seen that the way in which the Government has phrased the questions to be put to the people is deceptive and now, on top of that, it is determined to ensure that the No case is hampered, restricted, through having no money to spend on a campaign, while the Government will make the taxpayer expend $1.25m in putting the Yes case. As the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr), who spoke before me said, that is a travesty of democracy. When the founding fathers first produced the Referendum (Constitution Alteration ) Act, they went out of the way to make sure that the two cases were produced in an even-handed way. For example, they legislated for the necessity for the Yes and the No arguments to be put in a document by the Electoral Officer and sent out to every household in this country so that the voters would see the arguments for both cases. The Government, without any precedent whatsoever-there is no precedent for what it is doing here; none at all-has decided to engage in an advertising campaign to the tune of $1.25m to ensure that the Yes case is put, and put at the expense of the No case. That goes right against the principles, the philosophy that was put into the legislation under which every other referendum in this country has been mounted and argued. It is a complete travesty of the history of referenda in this country. It is difficult to understand why the Goverment is doing it, except for the reasons which have already been put, that it will simply squash the No case and promote its own case. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has been putting reasons. He has been saying that the Yes case always starts from behind and that to catch up the Government has to put $1.25m into it. I ask all honourable members to think about this. If the Yes case is so bad-it seems that implicitly the Attorney- General recognises that it is so bad, because that is the only reason why it would start behind the No case-it is unfair to try to bolster the case by putting $1.25m of the taxpayers' money into it. The second reason he gives is that the Premiers of Tasmania and Queensland will campaign for the No case and he assumes-I suppose it is right to do so because the Premier of Tasmania has said it-that they will put some money into promoting the No case. This, of course, absolutely ignores the facts of the matter. The Attorney-General, by his own admission, agreed that the Government was looking at this matter way back in August. Letters were sent out testing whether the Government could get money in this way to finance its Yes case. Anyway, it was after my colleague the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) asked the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) whether any money was to be made available for the No case that it was revealed in this chamber that no money would be available for that case. The Minister, in a very arrogant way, said that there would be no money for the No case. It was only then that Premier Gray of Tasmania said that if that were the case he would campaign and would put some money into making sure that there was a fair No case. So much for that argument. The third reason that the Attorney-General gave was that he believed that because there was bipartisan support in this chamber that was enough, that because there was support only for a Yes case it would be wrong to put money into the No case. Let me tell the Attorney-General, the Government and the Opposition in this chamber that at least 20-odd honourable senators and honourable members in this Parliament will fight this case tooth and nail and put to the people of Australia that there is an argument for the No case and that they should consider it carefully when they cast their vote on 25 February. There is a lack of consensus on this matter. Not only 20-odd members and senators but also delegates to the Australian Constitutional Convention were against the Yes case. As I have already said, a clear case is being put by the governments of the small States-Tasmania and Queensland and as I understand it, the Opposition party in Perth in Western Australia will put an argument for the No case. So there is far from a consensus. There is an argument for the people to look at the No case. It is totally unfair and unreasonable of the Government not to see fit to ensure that those people who are arguing the No case get part of this money. I know others want to speak so I will finish. A proposition has been fairly put by the Senate which should be supported. That is that if there is to be no money for the No case there certainly should be no money for the Yes case. This amendment seeks to ensure that there will be even-handedness by providing for the withdrawal of the $1.25m which the Government was determined to spend on the Yes case. There is another point. As I understand it, not only is the Goverment indulging in deception in the way it is putting the case-that is, the way the questions are being framed-not only is it unfair in the way it is determined to ensure that no extra money is spent on the No case; it is now using threats against our colleagues in the Senate. It has said: 'We will see this Bill back here tonight and if you dare maintain your support for this amendment to take away the money we will not put this Bill through at all'. That would mean that the people in the Territories would not get a chance to vote. This is jackboot tactics of the worst kind. So the Government is piling sin upon sin in the way it is conducting this matter. I have one more thing to say, and I say it to my colleagues in the Opposition. The Opposition is supporting the Yes case, yet we have heard speakers here tonight condemn the way in which the Government is putting the Yes case. They have been saying, as I have been saying, that there is deception in the way in which the Government is putting the case and there is unfairness in the way in which it is allocating money. I am asking my colleagues here in the Opposition to look very carefully at the way in which they are supporting the Government in this matter. It is time that the Opposition saw through what the Government is trying to do; that is, to get more power for Canberra at the expense of the small States. Opposition members should renege and change their policy. I am speaking particularly to the shadow Minister of State at the table, the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall). Here is a chance for the Opposition to change its opinion and its policies-to show a bit of leadership. If ever a demonstration of leadership were needed by the Opposition and by the leadership of the Opposition, it is needed to support the No case, because we have seen the way in which the Government is conducting itself in this matter. Mr HODGMAN(Dension)(6.21) —The people of Australia should know, as the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) has pointed out, that the members who support and the members who oppose the referendum proposals on this side of the House are united in their condemnation of the Government's attitude in respect of this proposal to give more money to the Yes case. I commend the Senate for its action in proposing an amendment to the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Amendment Bill. I appeal again to the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) to recognise that Australians believe in a fair go. It is not a fair go if taxpayers' money is used to support one side of a case. Under the provisions of section 6A of the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act the Goverment will be spending of the order of $9.4m. That section requires the Government and the Chief Electoral Officer to forward to every elector in Australia a pamphlet which sets out in not more than 2,000 words the Yes case and in not more than 2,000 words the No case on each proposal. Every elector in Australia will receive a copy of that pamphlet. It will set out the Yes case and the No case, and that is fair. But for the Government to say: 'We are going to take another $1.25m of taxpayers' money and spend it on one case and give nothing to the other- Mr Donald Cameron —Let the Labor Party pull it out of its pockets. Mr HODGMAN —I agree with what the honourable member says. That is what happens in totalitarian states. I blame the Minister's colleague in the Senate, the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), for a lot of what is happening. Already we have a situation in which the questions which are to be put to the people are crook questions, as has been pointed out by the honourable member for Boothby and the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman). They have different views on the referendum proposals but are united on the point that the questions are crook. If the Senate sticks to its guns and says that it will not permit $1.25m of taxpayers' money to be used so unfairly in putting only one side of the case, the quid pro quo will be that the people in the Territories will not get a vote I appeal to the Government, if it believes as it says it believes in public funding for elections, to give everybody an opportunity to put his view. The Government put up in this Parliament a proposal which it said would lead to fairness if there were public funding, so that all parties would be able to put their views to the people. How can the Government reconcile that with its decision to put only one side of the case to the people on these referendums? I cannot believe that the Government genuinely and sincerely believes in the reasons it is putting forward for rejecting the Senate's amendments. I have to say that the Government is well on its way to destroying its referendum proposals. If the game is crook before the ball is even bounced, not too many people out there will take kindly to the way in which this matter is being handled. I appeal to the Government to think again and to do the right thing. If the Government is going to spend any taxpayers' money over and above that required in section 6A-I would oppose such a proposal-it should split it. Is that not a fair go in Australian terms: 50 per cent and 50 per cent? Dr Klugman —According to the numbers in the Parliament. Mr HODGMAN —But it will not do that. For the honourable member to be supporting this proposal, having been the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, which recommended public funding for political parties, demonstrates to me that he believes in public funding which is one-sided and not equitable. I do not believe that the honourable member can credibly say that his position is justifiable. I do not believe that the Australian Labor Party can hold up its head for one day if it intends to spend $1.25m of taxpayers' money money in puting only one side of the case. Shame on it. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —I wish to make a personal explanation, Madam Chair. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Child) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Dr KLUGMAN —Yes. My suggestion on this matter would have been that the money spent on the referendum be divided in proportion to the way in which honourable members voted in this chamber, which was approximately 105 to three in favour of the Yes case. Motion (by Mr Beazley) put: That the question be now put. A division having been called and the bells being rung- Mr Goodluck —Madam Deputy Chairman, I wish to take a point of order. Is is fair that a member who voted against the decision to have a referendum has not been able to express an opinion while other members in this House who voted for it have had many words to say about it? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 43 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Keating, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. 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, AllanDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Everingham, D. N. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Reeves, J. E.Fry, K. L. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Hayden, W. G. Steedman, A. P.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J.Hurford, C. J. Willis, R.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J.Johnson, Les Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Anthony, J. D. Hunt, R. J. D.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Newman, K. E.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Jones, Barry Street, A. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That amendment No. 4 be disagreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 43 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Keating, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. 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, AllanDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Everingham, D. N. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Reeves, J. E.Fry, K. L. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Hayden, W. G. Steedman, A. P.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J.Hurford, C. J. Willis, R.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J.Johnson, Les Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Anthony, J. D. Hunt, R. J. D.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Newman, K. E.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Jones, Barry Street, A. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Committee of Reasons Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That Dr Klugman, Mr Scott, and the mover be appointed a Committee to draw up reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to amendment No. 4 of the Senate. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State)(6.39) —On behalf of the Committee appointed to draw up reasons for the House disagreeing to amendment No. 4 of the Senate, I bring up such reasons, which have been circulated to honourable members. Thereupon the Clerk read the reasons as follows- Amendment 4 is not acceptable because, subject to very limited exceptions, it would prevent the expenditure of any public moneys in respect of the presentation of arguments for or against any proposal put forward to amend the Constitution. In the case of the proposed alterations to the Constitution now under consideration it is proper for the Government to expend public moneys to provide positive support for the proposed laws which is supplementary to, and not in substitution for, the formal 'yes/no' pamphlets to be distributed by the Australian Electoral Office. The proposed laws embody changes- which have both Government and Opposition support in the Parliament; which have been supported unanimously or by significant cross-party majorities in the Australian Constitutional Convention. An additional reason for not agreeing to the amendments is that no comparable limitation applies, or is proposed to be applied, in relation to expenditure of public moneys by any of the States in respect of the presentation of arguments for or against proposed laws to alter the Constitution. The amendment in question would prevent any response at the Federal level to correct or answer arguments publicly funded from State sources. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the Committee's reasons be adopted. Mr Steele Hall —I should like the Minister's assurance that the reasons have been circulated. This document is not signed. There is no authenticity about this document at all. Mr Cadman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This piece of paper was circulated in the House before the Committee was formed. It was on the table before the Committee was formed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! There is no point of order. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Mr Burr —Could we have the minutes of the meeting tabled before we are asked to vote? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Honourable members interjecting- Mr Dobie —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I must confess to being absolutely clueless as to what the motion is, thanks to the rabble that has come from the Government side. I should like you, before the motion is put, to explain and to state the motion to the Parliament, not just to the Opposition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The question that I am obliged to put is that the Committee's reasons be adopted. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Mr Shipton —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. To say the very least, there is some uncertainty about the document that the Minister said was circulated in the House. I believe it would be a courtesy to the House for the Minister clearly to identify the document that was circulated. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Dobie —Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak as the Opposition Whip-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Is the honourable member taking a point of order? Mr Dobie —Yes, I am, Mr Deputy Speaker because the question you put to us relates to a document which was stated by the Minister to have been circulated. That is an absolute untruth. It has not been circulated amongst the Opposition. Honourable members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I understand the document was circulated at 5.41 p.m. Mr Donald Cameron —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Would it not be easier to call off the referendum altogether? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Scholes —Mr Deputy Speaker, in view of their lack of knowledge of the Standing Orders, could you explain to honourable members opposite that documents are circulated to honourable members who are in the House. They were absent. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr MacKellar —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. How could the Minister circulate a document which purports to be the results of a meeting of a committee which has not yet been established by this Parliament? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I am not obliged to answer that question. Mr Steele Hall —There has now been a limited circulation of this document. I should like to read a couple of excerpts from it in order to illustrate how misleading it is. Honourable members interjecting- Mr Steele Hall —I am speaking to the motion, having risen previously on a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! What is the honourable member seeking to do? Mr Steele Hall —I am seeking to explain-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no prerogative to explain anything. If the honourable gentleman is not taking a point of order he will resume his seat. Mr Steele Hall —Mr Deputy Speaker, I now rise on a point of order. Is there a substantive motion before the Chair? Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I cannot hear the honourable member for Boothby because of the interruptions from his side of the House. Mr Steele Hall —Mr Deputy Speaker, my point of order is this: Is there a formal motion before the House? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Yes, there is. Mr Steele Hall —In that case I ask your permission to speak to it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The motion is that the Committee's reasons be adopted. Mr Steele Hall —I am standing here to speak to that substantive motion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(6.47) —I have read portion only of this document because, in the limited time available, it is difficult to peruse all of it. I point the attention of the House to this document which states: The proposed laws embody changes- which have both Government and Opposition support in the Parliament; which have been supported unanimously or by significant cross-party majorities in the Australian Constitutional Convention. I believe it is a furtherance of the Government's lack of principle to use that support in this context. It is completely out of context to say that the Government has the support on the merits of the questions of the major parties in this community. To use that support to put forward a Committee proposal to the Senate as to why we should disagree with the amendment which we on this side have voted to support is totally unprincipled. It is unprincipled to use the support in merit and for the Government to present a most one-sided case to the public of Australia. I ask honourable members to consider-I ask the Minister to reconsider-the wording of this motion. No one wants to take from the Minister the right to go through the procedures of disagreement with the Senate. But on behalf of the coalition I ask the Minister to remove from this document-I put this seriously to the Minister-any reference to the coalition or other parties apart from his own that implies that the coalition or any other party supports his motion. I ask the Minister to remove the reference to the Opposition. I believe that is fair. The Opposition does not want to be associated with this disagreement with the Senate. It is utterly wrong to use our name in this regard . In fact, I shall move an amendment. Mr Beddall —Did you circulate it? Mr STEELE HALL —I shall circulate it. I shall give the Government the courtesy that it gave us. I move: Delete the words 'The proposed laws embody changes' and all words thereafter down to and including 'the Australian Constitutional Convention'. That will delete from this proposal those words-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! I advise the honourable member for Boothby that the question before the House is that the Committee's reasons be adopted. No amendment to that motion is proposed. I am therefore unable to accept his proposition. Mr Steele Hall —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am proposing-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I have given a ruling. That is not an amendment, as advised. Honourable members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I point out again for the benefit of the House that the motion before the House is that the Committee's reasons be adopted. The only amendment that can be accepted by the Chair is an amendment to that motion. I have, I think correctly, interpreted that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Boothby is inappropriate and have ruled it out of order. Mr STEELE HALL —I give notice of a further amendment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman cannot proceed all night in this lackadaisical fashion. Mr STEELE HALL —The Opposition has no alternative but to vote against the proposition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question is: That the motion be agreed to. Mr Cadman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. We are supposed to hear a report from a Committee that has considered this matter. Will you please identify the document? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! That is no point of order. Question put: That the Committee's reasons be adopted. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 43 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Keating, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Everingham, D. N. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Reeves, J. E.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Fry, K. L. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Steedman, A. P.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J.Hurford, C. J. Willis, R.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Anthony, J. D. Hunt, R. J. D.Braithwaite, R. A. Katter, R. C.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. Newman, K. E.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. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Jones, Barry Street, A. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative Sitting suspended from 6.58 to 8.15 p.m. Motion (by Mr John Brown)-by leave-agreed to. That in accordance with the provision of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951 the following members be appointed members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts: Mr Kent, Dr Klugman and Mr McGauran. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(8.16) —I move: Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 16 to 19 (1983). The Proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 16 (1983) is operative on and from 1 January, 1983 and contain, in the main, changes to the New Zealand Schedule of the customs tariff. These changes: restore the lower levels of customs duty applying before tariff simplification to certain goods which New Zealand regards as sensitive or in which it has a significant trade interest; implement the first tariff reduction under the closer economic relations agreement in relation to electronic goods; relax the wool content requirement in relation to wool-rich carpet for a period of one year; correctly implement the CER tariff reductions for certain whitegoods and parts; and rectify certain anomalies in the New Zealand schedule as implemented on 1 January, 1983. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 16 (1983) also reduces from 15 per cent to 10 per cent the developing country duty rate for esters of acetic acid classified in paragraph 29.14.26 in Schedule 3 to the Customs Tariff Act. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 17 (1983), operative on and from 1 March, 1983 propose changes arising from amendments to the South Pacific regional trade and economic co- operation agreement. These changes implement amendments to the Schedules to that agreement and are concessional in nature. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 18 (1983) contain, in the main, further changes to the New Zealand Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act. These changes make further amendments to the New Zealand Schedule as implemented on 1 January, 1983 in order to rectify certain anomalies. However, the changes included in Customs Tariff Proposals No. 18 (1983) involve an increase in duty and accordingly, these proposals operate from tomorrow. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 18 also contain an amendment to legal note 7 of chapter 84 to Schedule 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. This legal note has been re-drafted so that it correctly reflects the Government's policy intention in relation to tractor bases. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 19 (1983) operate on and from 1 January, 1984 and contain the following changes: The introduction of the phasing duty arrangements in accordance with the provisions of the CER agreement; amendment of developing countries preference arrangements for goods which are subject to the textiles, clothing and footwear sectoral policy; amendments arising out of the Government' s acceptance of the recommendations of the May report of the textiles, clothing and footwear advisory committee; amendments to Part II of Schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act following the settlement of premium tender rates of duty applicable to the 1984 textiles, clothing and footwear import quota allocation. These changes also include phased duty reductions in certain base tariff quota items for goods of New Zealand origin; The insertion of the necessary amendments to give effect to the quota provisions applicable to steel imported from developing countries. This action is part of the Government's steel industry plan; restoration of the 80 per cent wool content requirement for wool-rich carpet imported from New Zealand; and the deletion of paragraph 29.14.26 from Schedule 3 to the Customs Tariff Act, consistent with the objective of customs tariff simplification. A summary of alterations contained in these Proposals has been prepared and is being circulated for the information of honourable members. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Motion (by Mr John Brown)-by leave-agreed to: That Tariff Proposals Nos 2 to 14 (1983) and Excise Tariff Proposals Nos 1 to 8 (1983) constituting part of Order of the Day No. 40, Government Business, be discharged. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Leader of the House) —I ask leave of the House to amend Notice No. 1 in the terms of the amended motion circulated to honourable members . Leave granted. Mr DAWKINS —I move: That, unless otherwise ordered, the following amendments to the standing orders be adopted to operate from the first sitting in 1984, for the remainder of this session: Days and hours of meetingStanding order 40 be amended to read- 40. Unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the despatch of business - (a) in the first sitting week, on- Tuesday, at 2 p.m. Wednesday, at 10 a.m. Thursday, at 10 a.m. Friday, at 10 a.m.; (b) in the second sitting week, on- Monday, at 2 p.m. Tuesday, at 2 p.m. Wednesday, at 10 a.m. and Thursday, at 10 a.m. From the termination of the last sitting in the second week, the House shall stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on the third Tuesday after that termination, unless Mr Speaker shall, by telegram or letter addressed to each Member of the House, fix an alternative day or hours of meeting. The 4-weekly cycle will then be repeated. Adjournment and next meetingStanding order 48A be amended to read- 48A. At 10.30 p.m. on each Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, at 7.30 p.m. on each Wednesday and at 4.30 p.m. on each Friday the Speaker shall propose the question -That the House do now adjourn-which question shall be open to debate; if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress and upon such report being made the Speaker shall forthwith propose the question- That the House do now adjourn-which question shall be open to debate. No amendment may be moved to this question: Provided that- (a) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced; (b) if, on the question-That the House do now adjourn-being proposed, a Minister requires the question to be put forthwith without debate, the Speaker shall forthwith put the question; (c) a motion for the adjournment of the House may be moved by a Minister at an earlier hour; (d) any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of the adjournment shall be set down on the Notice Paper for the next sitting, and (e) if the question-That the House do now adjourn-is negatived, the House or committee shall resume the proceedings at the point at which they had been interrupted: Provided further that, if at 11 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, at 8 p. m. on a Wednesday or at 5 p.m. on a Friday the question before the House is-That the House do now adjourn-the Speaker shall interrupt the debate, at which time- (f) a Minister may require that the debate be extended until 11.10 p.m., 8.10 p .m. or 5.10 p.m. as the case may be, to enable Ministers to speak in reply to matters raised in the preceding adjournment debate; at 11.10 p.m., 8.10 p.m. or 5.10 p.m., as the case may be, or upon the earlier cessation of the debate, the speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting, or (g) if no action is taken by a Minister under paragraph (f), the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting. Routine of businessStanding order 101 be amended to read- 101. The House shall proceed on the days indicated with its ordinary business in the following routine: Monday and Tuesday1. Giving notices. 2. Questions without notice. 3. Presentation of papers. 4. Ministerial statements, by leave. 5. Presentation of petitions. 6. Matter of public importance. 7. Notices and orders of the day. Wednesday and Thursday1. Presentation of petitions. 2. Giving notices. 3. Notices and orders of the day. 4. Grievance debate or general business (at 12.25 p.m. on Thursday). 5. Questions without notice (at 2 p.m.).6. Presentation of papers. 7. Ministerial statements, by leave. 8. Matter of public importance. 9. Notices and orders of the day. Friday1. Presentation of petitions. 2. Giving notices. 3. Presentation of papers . 4. Ministerial statements, by leave. 5. Matter of public importance. 6. Notices and orders of the day. Question timeNew standing order 101A be inserted- 101A. at 12.45 p.m. each Wednesday the Speaker shall interrupt the business before the House in order that questions without notice can be called on at 2 p. m.: Provided that- (a) if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress; (b) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced, and (c) the Speaker shall fix the time for the resumption of the debate on any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of interruption. Precedence for government and general businessStanding order 104 be amended to read- 104. Unless otherwise ordered, government business shall, on each day of sitting, have precedence of all other business, except that on the sitting Thursday alternate to the sitting Thursday to which standing order 106 applies, general business shall have precedence of government business commencing at 12. 45 p.m. At 2 p.m. the Speaker shall interrupt the business before the House and forthwith call on questions without notice: Provided that- (a) if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress; (b) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced, and (c) the Speaker shall fix the time for the resumption of the debate on any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of interruption. Grievance debateStanding order 106 be amended to read- 106. Notwithstanding standing order 105, the first order of the day, government business, on each alternate sitting Thursday commencing with the first sitting Thursday after the Address in Reply to the Governor-General's Speech has been adopted shall be a question to be proposed by the Speaker ''That grievances be noted'' to which question any Member may address the House or move any amendment. The order of the day shall stand postponed until 12.45 p.m. and if consideration of the question has not been concluded at 2 p.m., the debate thereon shall be interrupted and the Speaker shall put any questions then before the House, and, after resolution of those questions shall forthwith call on questions without notice. General business and grievance debateNew standing order 106A be inserted- 106A. At 12.45 p.m. on each Thursday the Speaker shall interrupt the business before the House in order that general business or grievance debate, as the case may be , can be called on: Provided that- (a) if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress; (b) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced, and (c) the Speaker shall fix the time for the resumption of the debate on any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of interruption. Matter of public importance Standing order 107 be amended by omitting ''at least one hour before the time fixed for the meeting of the House'' and subsituting '' not later than 8.30 p.m. on each Friday and 12 noon on each other sitting day''. General business-priority to notices Standing order 109 be amended by omitting ' 'for 2 hours after the meeting of the House'' and substituting ''until 1.45 p.m. ''. This motion seeks to establish for the next sessional period of Parliament, which is due to start at the end of February 1984, a new pattern of sittings for the House. Until now we have been used to a pattern which involves three weeks of sittings. In each week we sit for three days: Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday . It is now proposed that we should sit for two weeks: Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday in the first week and Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday in the second week. That would be succeeded by a two-week break. Perhaps I anticipate some of the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) in indicating that this is not an entirely new approach but, in fact, one that has been tried before. I suspect it is fair to say that there are as many proposals for the sitting hours of this House as there are members of this House. Everyone seems to have a different idea of how the place would work best. In trying to come to an arrangement which suits everybody, it is necessary to take into account a variety of different circumstances. For instance, in this House we have members who represent places very far away from Canberra, such as the North-west of Western Australia, the north of Queensland and the Northern Territory. At the same time, we are always conscious of the fact that the majority of members of this House will always come from places which are really quite close to Canberra, such as Sydney and Melbourne, or slightly further away, such as Brisbane and Adelaide. Therefore, it will always be difficult to come to an arrangement which suits everybody's circumstances. Under the current arrangements we sit for three weeks. We sit on three days of each of those three weeks and then have one week's break. That has been found by a number of members to be unsatisfactory. They would prefer to have the sittings of the Parliament more concentrated, which would allow them to spend more time in their electorates and at home. What has to be understood is that for people who come from places remote from Canberra there are quite substantial inconveniences involved in terms of separation from their families, not to say their electorates. Mr Sinclair —You have a pretty fair separation from your Party at the moment, too. Hello, you have one supporter. Mr DAWKINS —I must say that on this issue there is enormous support. Mr Sinclair —Yes, he has just come to join you. Mr DAWKINS —The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Saunderson) was one of the architects of the proposal which we intend to agree to tonight. The other architect was the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth). Mr Sinclair —He has gone home. I don't blame him. Mr DAWKINS —The honourable member for Perth is, of course, a very distinguisthed Australian sportsman. He also represents in this place a very important group of Australians who live in Perth. As I have discovered over the last X number of years, Perth is a long way from Canberra. For those people who are young and have young families it is difficult to find a pattern of sittings which allows them to discharge their duties in Canberra, as dedicated representatives of their electors, and at the same time sustain anything like a meaningful family situation. I do not pretend that the proposals we are putting to the House tonight are necessarily ideal. What I am saying, however, is that they are certainly worth a try. I said earlier that there are probably as many suggestions for sitting hours of this House as there are members of the House. It is always a question of coming to some kind of compromise which will accommodate the needs of most members. The Deputy Leader of the National Party is to follow me in this debate. He has always been fairly cynical, I think, about reforms of sitting hours. I suspect that that arises from both his long experience, not only as a member of this House but also as one who has had responsibility, either in government or in opposition, for managing the affairs of the House. I recognise that it will always be difficult to have a pattern of sittings which will accommodate both back benchers, coming as they do from the four corners of Australia, and the Government, the Cabinet, which is trying to sustain a pattern of sittings of Parliament which allows the business of Government to proceed alongside the business of Parliament. It has to be understood that before measures come before the Parliament they have to go before the Cabinet. If we are to have long months of sittings, as we do, the Cabinet has to work effectively, both when the Parliament is sitting and when it is not sitting. The motion which I have presented to the House tonight represents a departure from the pattern that we have been used to over the last number of years. I think 1978 was the last time we experimented with the kind of pattern that we are proposing tonight, in which we have two weeks of sittings and in each of those two weeks we sit for four days and then have two weeks without any sittings. I think it is important that in a circumstance in which it is probably idle to think that we will have a pattern of sittings which will suit everybody, it is worth experimenting with a variety of sittings. The pattern we have adopted over the last few weeks has been an enormous advance on that which preceded it. Although we have kept to the pattern of sitting for three weeks followed by one week off, we have introduced into the pattern of sittings a tradition of having Wednesday nights free for members. It has been a matter of enormous concern to me that so many people should gather in Canberra to participate in the decision-making process of the Federal Parliament -after all, the main reason for the existence of Canberra is that it is the national capital and the home of the national Parliament and we go to a great deal of expense and trouble to ensure that nearly 130 members of the House of Representatives and over 60 senators can gather here on a regular basis to discharge the business of the Parliament and make laws for the people of Australia-yet we end up knowing very little about the national capital and having very little to do with the citizens who live here or the international community which is represented here. Mr Reeves —Or the senators. We never see them. Mr DAWKINS —I think that the last point that I made, without the assistance of the honourable member for the Northern Territory, was important. The reason the international community is represented in Canberra is that Canberra is the national capital. Yet some people can be members of the House of Representatives or the Senate for many years and have very little to do with ambassadors and others who are located in Canberra and represent other countries. I think that there is an obligation on us as Australians, who are concerned to be active participants in the international community and particularly in our own region, to ensure that when the legislators, the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, gather in Canberra there is ample opportunity for members and senators to meet with representatives of other countries. Yet until now our patterns of sittings have meant that it has been almost impossible to make arrangements to meet with the people who might be in Canberra for reasons which are important to the national Parliament and indeed to the national Government. Therefore, I think that the advance that we have made in the last session in making arrangements for the House not to sit on Wednesday evenings has made it infinitely easier for members of the House to make some contact with those representatives of the international community and the people who actually live in Canberra. I think it is a bit of an anachronism that we in this national Parliament still have control over the affairs of the people who live in Canberra, but that is a matter which is being brought to a conclusion fairly speedily. As long as we pretend to make laws for the people of Canberra I think it is only reasonable that we make ourselves available to them and make ourselves aware of the kinds of problems which concern them. This new pattern of sittings provides an opportunity for those people who come from the more remote areas of Australia to spend more time in Canberra. If we sit, as we do at the moment, on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, there exists an almost irresistible desire to return home to our electorates for Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday. What happens, as a rule, is that we all get up early on Friday morning, scamper to an early plane, arrive home several hours later, usually feeling like nothing on earth, and we try to pick up the pieces of our electorates and our families for the next two or three days. I think that is an entirely unsatisfactory arrangement. No sooner have we gathered up the pieces than we have to climb back on a plane on Monday at lunchtime and make our way back to Canberra to participate in the national Parliament on Tuesday. These proposals provide for two weeks of more concentrated sittings, followed by two weeks when members, particularly those members from more remote areas, can have an unbroken stretch to re-establish themselves not only with their electorates but also, I might say, with their families. I think under circumstances where more and more younger people are deciding to stand for Parliament and are being elected to Parliament it is increasingly important that we take account of their circumstances. Implicit in these new arrangements is that those from more remote areas would remain in Canberra during the weekend which separates the two more concentrated weeks of sittings. Honourable members can imagine the situation where people would arrive in Canberra on a Monday night, attend the Parliament on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, and remain in Canberra for the Saturday and Sunday. The Parliament would sit again on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and then people would return home for an unbroken period of two weeks. I think that is an entirely sensible and healthy development. Whilst some people might be disparaging of Canberra, I think it is increasingly important for us, as serious members of the national Parliament, to take more interest in the national Parliament and to adopt the practice which has been adopted in many other federal systems, particularly large federal systems in the geographic sense, whereby the national capital becomes a focus, and an important focus for people from all over the country. In places such as Washington, for instance, we find that people representing constituencies, whether in the House of Representatives, or in the Senate in Congress, tend to spend very much more time in Washington than we typically have spent in Canberra until now. If one of the results of this changed sitting pattern is that members and senators are encouraged to spend more time in the national capital-I hope that more and more people will bring their families to Canberra-I think that will be an entirely satisfactory result. We cannot expect people who are trying to live normal, or semi-normal, lives as individuals with their families to continue forever to put up with the enormous burden of travelling thousands of miles every week in order to discharge their duties in the national Parliament. The consequence of the re- assessment of our roles will be that we will take much more seriously our roles in the national Parliament. Indeed, we will be much more effective members of the national Parliament on behalf of our constituents. I think it is entirely unsatisfactory if we are preoccupied while we are in Canberra with notions of simply getting home as quickly as we can. Whilst that is an entirely understandable instinct for all of us to have, it is necessarily a distraction from what we are really here to do. Therefore, I hope that, not only as a result of changed sitting hours but also as a result of perhaps changed policies in relation to the support of members and senators while they are in Canberra, whether with their families or not we might have a much more civilised arrangement for the transaction of the important business of this country. Let me now state the basis of the motion which I am now putting to the House. I apologise for the fact that there has been a recent and slight amendment to the proposal, but that is because it is very difficult to have a model proposal that will suit everybody. The minor variations which I have brought in tonight take into account a couple of points which the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), has raised with me on behalf of the Opposition. This means that in the two-week sitting pattern we will sit on Tuesday from 2 p.m. until 6.30 p.m., with a break until 8 p.m. and will sit again from 8 p.m. until 11 p.m., with a half-hour adjournment debate from 10.30 p.m. to 11 p.m. On Wednesday we would sit from 10 a.m. to 12.45 p.m., with a break until 2 p.m and we then sit again until 8 p.m., with the evening free. On Thursday we would sit from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m., with the normal lunch period being taken up by the grievance debate. We would recommence at 8 p.m. and sit until 11 p.m., again with an adjournment debate. On Friday we would sit from 10 a.m. until 12.45 p.m. and from 2 p.m. until 5 p.m., again with an adjournment debate from 4.30 p.m. until 5 p.m. The next week we would sit on the Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday in roughly the same way. It is a fact that we will be sitting in Canberra for fewer weeks as a result of this change. Instead of sitting for 11 weeks, typically, in autumn we would be in Canberra for only eight weeks, but we would sit for about the same number of days. We would sit for 32 days instead of 33 days. In terms of the total number of hours, there would be slightly-- Mr Donald Cameron —We would save a lot on air fares. Mr DAWKINS —I hope that we will save a lot on air fares. Mr Steele Hall —We can spend more on the referendum. Mr DAWKINS —I think the honourable member for Boothby is being facetious, but I will take up the point made by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron). It is a fact that people from more remote areas will tend to travel backwards and forwards on fewer occasions than they would under the current arrangements. I think the honourable member for Moreton probably agrees with me that to scamper home every weekend is a pretty idiotic exercise and that it would be better to have a more civilised way of doing business. We will probably retain about the same number of hours of business in the House , and that is important because we have important business to transact. Importantly, we will do it in a way which will concentrate our sittings through fewer weeks, slightly fewer days, and in a way which will allow all members to have more time in their electorates and more time to attend to the important duties in their electorates. Whilst some important activities occur on weekends, lots of other things occur during the week. If one has a two-week stretch in the electorate one is much more likely to keep in touch with events and to be able to attend the important functions which go on. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(8.39) —These proposals mean that the House will sit for fewer hours during the next session. The high salaries that parliamentarians are paid to attend parliament will be reflected in less sitting time in parliament. It will mean that the Parliament will have more time for government business and less time for private members' business. Instead of having Question Time on nine days over a three-week sitting period, we will lose one Question Time in each of the fortnightly sitting periods. As we will be sitting over two lunch hours there will be two occasions when the committees of this place will not be able to sit to examine the legislation and the policies which we are charged to consider. These proposals mean that the Government will be able to run away from proper public scrutiny at a time when its deplorable performance this week has shown it should be subject to proper scrutiny. It means that Ministers will be more able to hide behind their desks, hide away from the Parliament. It means that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who has been to the morning sessions of this Parliament since we sat in the morning and had Question Time at 2 o'clock in the afternoon not once, will not even come into the Parliament, I suspect, on the day when we have no Question Time. These proposals, instead of the Government being properly subject to the scrutiny which changed sitting hours should provide, will give greater opportunity for the Government to introduce and debate its legislation and fewer opportunities for the private members and the Opposition to debate those policies that concern them. The Opposition supports a full session experiment with a two week on, two week off sitting period. We believe there should have been 10 sitting weeks; in other words, five brackets of two at least instead of four. For the Government to come into the House tonight and present itself as the paragon of virtue and to tell us that instead of having nine sitting weeks we will have eight, instead of having more time for public scrutiny of its legislation we will have less and instead of having more question times we will have fewer. This is absolute nonsense. This Government is trying to run away from public scrutiny: Well it might with the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) coming back into the Ministry, and with the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and all these high and mighty principled men, these men who are trying to disguise the real facts of the implementation of left wing Labor policies. The Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) in an infamous way this afternoon has shown that the power of the Left is such that it has destroyed the opportunity of a vessel of the Royal Navy being docked in a Sydney dockyard. What chance has this Parliament- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Will the honourable member return to the subject matter under debate. Mr SINCLAIR —Madam Deputy Speaker, I am delighted to do so. Your intervention identified the concern that elected members of the Parliament will be denied the opportunity of scrutinising legislation which is turning this country from a monarchy into a republic, which is turning this country from a properly administered private sector economy into a socialist economy which is progressively destroying the rights and opportunities of the individual to those which have been superimposed on them by the State. These proposals are not, as the Minister for Finance has just tried to pretend, being put forward to advance the business of this House. Every honourable member on our side of the House welcomes an opportunity for a fair and equitable experiment with a new sitting period. We are delighted that the Minister for Finance recognises that these sitting hours should be implemented for a whole session. We believe they should be not for four two-week periods but for five. We see that there is a disability in having one less sitting week. At the moment we have a period of nine sitting weeks that has been generally distributed around this place. We would have hoped that it would have been not eight sitting weeks but 10. It would only have been a matter of having another two sitting weeks superimposed at the end of this period and it would have removed one of our principal concerns. But let us put that aside. Let us have a look at the program itself. The Minister for Finance has intimated that he has accepted a number of proposals that I put to him for some modification of the sitting hours. The result is a net plus for the Government over each of these sitting weeks of an extra hour. I suggested that instead of starting at 10.30 a.m. we start at 10 a.m. I certainly was concerned on a Wednesday night that the Clerks at the table, the Hansard writers, those who look after us in the dining room, the attendants and even our parliamentary liaison officer and his beautiful Anne Marie, who serve us all so well, do not stay in the House and unnecessarily service us for what I think is an intolerable period, from 2 o'clock to 8.30 p.m. without a break. What other member of the Australian work force works six and a half hours without an opportunity to go for a reasonable break? The Government demonstrated so aptly before the suspension of the sitting for dinner its ineptness in being able to handle the procedures of the Parliament. If it is unable to control its program we may have extended sittings and instead of six and a half hours it could be seven, eight, nine and 10 hours on a Wednesday. The Minister made great virtue of the fact that so regularly we have our Wednesday nights to meet the diplomats in Canberra. I do not know whether he has looked at the statistics, but we had a magnificent introduction to having an early rising on Wednesday night. The first night I think we sat until midnight. The following week I think it might have been to 11.30. We have had three Wednesday nights when we have been delighted to go, as no doubt you have, Madam Deputy Speaker, with your charm and elegance, that attracts so many of the invitations around this place, to some of these functions. But what happens? The Government cannot control its business. We sit on and on and on Wednesday night we are not able to go and pursue what we would like to. We do not have a reasonable opportunity to meet the diplomats and see Canberra. Instead of that we sit in this Parliament. That is no way to implement changes to the sitting hours. So we give the Government an additional hour, we sit at 10 o'clock instead of 10.30. We go home, thanks to the generosity of the Minister of Finance, at 8 o'clock. Mr Speaker, I welcome you to the Chair and have no doubt that you too are interested in these modifications. Mr Dobie —And just as elegant and charming. Mr SINCLAIR —That is true, as the honourable member suggests. Let us have a look at what the Government is doing. We have two lunch hours and we all know that one of the fallacies of this Government's program to date is that this place and the other place are totally out of phase. I know we have been well out of phase on many matters, but I think that the way this program is structured we will find that neither of those Thursday lunch hours will be any use at all to the multitude of committees of the Parliament and the joint committees of the parties which like to meet and try to deliberate on these legislative and policy matters which are properly their responsibility. Mr Saunderson —Monday morning. Mr SINCLAIR —Well, the honourable member is very welcome. Instead of getting up at 7 o'clock to milk the cows he could attend to the duties of his committee deliberations. What is important is that on two Thursdays we will lose a lunch hour. We will lose meeting time opportunities for committees of this place. The Government is losing a week by the changes it is introducing. As a result, over the whole sitting period we will have two days fewer sitting period when the Senate and the House of Representatives can get together and consider those matters which they properly should. So, on one Thursday we will have the grievance debate from 12.45 to 2 o'clock. On the second sitting Thursday, we will have General Business. I hope honourable members will recognise that tonight we are debating General Business and not attending to Government Business; if that is so why are we debating this matter? The Government wants to run away. It wants to get up tonight. It is afraid the Opposition will ask another question. One can hardly blame the Government. I would like to have an opportunity to ask the Minister for Defence Support what intervention he made on behalf of the anti-uranium lobby in regard to today's decision on HMS Invincible . Mr Saunderson —Come back tomorrow. Mr SINCLAIR —I would be delighted to. I think it is very important that the people of Australia recognise that the reason we want to have a free lunchtime is not to go down to the dining room but to go into the committee rooms. I believe it is important that we do not have a grievance debate and a General Business debate when there is no opportunity to consider the proper matters of concern of private members and the Opposition. Let me assure the Acting Leader of the House (Mr Dawkins) that frankly I can give no guarantees on our part that we will have no quorums, no divisions and no motions to suspend Standing Orders at certain times. I can give no undertaking that any of those lunch hours will be available for honourable members to enjoy the sights and scenes of Canberra, as the Minister for Finance suggested. Those two grievance and General Business Thursdays should be reserved properly for deliberations by committees of this place. Another absolutely fundamental concern we have is that this Government, through its decision to eliminate Question Time on one sitting day for the first time since Federation, is saying to the elected representatives of this place: 'We Ministers are not prepared to face up to the responsibilities for our Executive decisions'. They are running away from the scrutiny which this place provides uniquely amongst Westminster parliaments around the world-a free and open questions without notice period. There are modifications in the States. There are differences in Canada. There are differences in the United States. There are significant differences in the United Kingdom. The precedent of the United Kingdom does not wash. That Parliament sits from Monday to Friday. It sits far longer in the course of a year than the Minister for Finance would be prepared to sit. He has proposed that there be no Question Time on the Friday of the first sitting week. I assure the honourable gentleman that, while he might seek to hide behind the change to Sessional Orders which will deny us the right of a Question Time and while the Prime Minister might seek to hide behind his desk and not even deign to come into this place, as he customarily does with the 10 o 'clock and 10.30 starts to our present Wednesday and Thursday sittings, we in the Opposition are not prepared to accept any change to any sessional order which denies us a Question Time on any sitting day. This proposed program will mean that in those eight sitting days which will replace the present nine sitting days, there will be seven Question Times instead of nine Question Times. Now we begin to see what this is all about. It is not a matter of trying to meet the convenience of honourable members for Western Australia, whose concerns for their families we all respect. The devotion to their electorates of those on this side of the chamber is far more noticeable than the devotion of those on the other side. The Government is trying to run away from proper public scrutiny at a time of questions without notice in this chamber. We assure the honourable gentleman that we will not allow any Government Business to be conducted in this place on the sitting Friday if there is no questions without notice period. I assure the honourable gentleman that this is not acceptable to the Opposition . We are prepared to accept changes in the sitting hours and we are pleased to support a full sessional trial of two weeks on and two weeks off. We are disappointed that there is to be a cut in the number of sitting weeks. We would prefer there to be ten instead of eight. We accept that there should be changes involving some modification of the present sitting periods. We do not accept that on those two sitting Thursdays there should be no lunch hour. But we certainly reject absolutely any suggestion that this Government can run to cover and hide away from the scrutiny that questions without notice represent. I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'the motion be withdrawn and re-drafted to provide for- (1) questions without notice to be called on at 2 p.m. on Fridays, and (2) the House not to sit from 12.45 p.m. to 2 p.m. on Thursdays but provision be made for grievance debate or general business to be called on, alternately, at 8.30 p.m. on Thursdays'. Mr SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr Dobie —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment)(9.00) —We have just witnessed one of the most disgraceful speeches I have ever heard in this Parliament. I am deadly serious. This Government is attempting to get, for the first time, a reasonable and rational approach to the sitting hours of this Parliament. The right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), the previous Leader of the House, was the greatest barrier to any form of advancement. For years members on both sides of the House pleaded with him, begged him and put suggestions to him, but he would not budge one iota to reform this Parliament. We put up all sorts of propositions which had the support of not only this side of the House but also the overwhelming majority of members. He used all forms of trickery and deceit to try to change them. He juggled a ballot so that the preferences worked out in such a way that the status quo remained. We tried reason. We tried argument. We did so not as the Australian Labor Party or the Opposition but as members of the Parliament. Five or six years ago in this House I made a speech begging for reform and setting out what we ought to do. One honourable member after another from the Government side said: 'Move it and we will support you'. We said: 'No, it has to be done by discussion and debate amongst members of the Parliament'. We got support from 80 per cent of the members of this Parliament. We still could not get it through. The then Leader of the House refused to budge one inch because he wanted it that way and he would not move. We have come up with a proposition. It may not be perfect but it is an attempt to get rationality into this place, not for us but for all members of the Parliament. Now we hear that, because one Question Time per fortnight, one hour, is to be lost, the monarchy-for God's sake-is threatened and socialism is rampant! Today the Opposition had an hour at Question Time. We never got an hour when Malcolm Fraser, Billy McMahon or any of their predecessors held the office of Prime Minister. We were lucky to get 40 minutes under the mob opposite. They talk about the sittings. They have been forced to sit here for a couple of hours at night. Under the McMahon Government 17 Bills went through in one night one after the other and we sat until 3, 4 or 5 o'clock. Those opposite should not talk to us about sitting hours. We have heard this blasted nonsense that we should not sit through the lunch time. Because somebody gets hungry, why do I have to stop talking? Why cannot the Parliament sit through the lunch hour, as the Westminster Parliament does? Tonight Westminster has been given as an example of the perfect democratic system. It does not worry about lunch hours, but because the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O'Keefe) gets hungry I have to stop talking. I do not mind his having a meal if he wants to. Let the Parliament continue. We could save three or four hours of debate a day. I was disappointed, in fact depressed, by the speech of the right honourable member for New England because this is a serious attempt not to put one over anybody but to allow members to spend some time in their electorates. The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) pointed out that the system which those opposite had for years and years and which they refused to reform does not measure up to the modern needs of members of parliament. Look at the ages of the young men who become members today. Look at the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown)-not yet 30. He just looks old because he has worked so hard. Look at the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells)-a bare teenager. These are young men with families and young wives who want to spend some time with them. The right honourable member for New England is way beyond his years and it does not really matter how long he spends here in his last few days in this Parliament because nobody wants him at home. These people want to be seen in their electorates as well. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister not to make some of us feel sensitive. Mr COHEN —Mr Speaker, you are one of the young members I was thinking about. I know that your wife, who is sitting up there watching you tonight, would much rather be at home with you than watching you from a distance. This is a dead serious attempt to bring some rationality into the sitting hours. Too much time is wasted under this crazy system whereby honourable members from Western Australia fly from Perth every week to this place. They get on the red eye express at midnight, get off at Melbourne at 5 o'clock in the morning, sit there for hours, get here at midday and then are expected to put in a day's work. Mr Cunningham —What about the honourable member for the Northern Territory? Mr COHEN —They include the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) and the honourable members from north Queensland. They are not just Labor Party members. They are members of parliament from all over this country. The people in the gallery think that we sit for only 66 days a year. Do they realise how much time we waste getting to and from the place? I do not live far away. I live at Gosford. It takes me 4 1/2 hours to get here. One full day per week is wasted just getting to and from the place. I am deeply depressed by the attitude taken the right honourable member for New England, a senior member of Parliament and a former Minister of long standing. He has taken the opportunity to score point after point. If he felt that the proposal was not perfect-maybe it is not-why did he not make a rational speech? Why did he not say: 'Let us look at the matter, let us negotiate'? Mr Sinclair —I did. Mr COHEN —The right honourable member did not. He said that if we adopted this proposal it would be the end of the bloody monarchy, for God's sake! He said that socialism would take over because we would lose a few minutes of Question Time per week. I was not sure whether he was serious or whether he had just gone bonkers. I know that the right honourable member does not speak for all Opposition members. I know of the discussions I have had with all Opposition members over the last five or six years. They agree with the Government. Will they allow the Deputy Leader of the National Party to carry on with this nonsense? This matter is very depressing. I hope that the Opposition will reconsider its position and give the Government support. If the proposal is not perfect, let us talk. For years we had a bipartisan attitude to the rationalisation of sitting hours and tonight we seem to have lost it because of the contribution by the right honourable member for New England. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(9.07) —I have great pleasure in seconding the amendment put forward by the young Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair). Only last night the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) and I were discussing in my office the thrilling 15 years he has had in this Parliament. I can only think that those 15 years were thrilling because something like 11 of them were spent enjoying himself with the coalition Government in charge. I appreciate the comments he has been making, but let me just comment to those on both sides of this chamber who do not sit on the front bench. Mr Saunderson —There are a few over here. Mr DOBIE —I know, there is an awful lot of them. The very point I want to make to my comrades in the Opposition and the Government is that I too read a letter from the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). I know that I have to refer to members as often as I can-as provided by the Standing Orders-as my honourable member comrades of this House. If my colleagues look at these hours, if they sit down and stop being emotive and emotional and amused by the whole issue, they will find the problems that they are facing are the problems that we faced when we were back benchers in government; namely, that the Executive sets the hours to suit itself. This proposal is that there be no Question Time on a Friday, no time for back bench committees during Thursday lunch periods and no time for back bench committees on Wednesday nights. Honourable members opposite should look at the times again and realise that they have been set for the convenience of the Executive. I am disappointed to find that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, who spoke before me, has had to leave. The emotion of speaking has obviously been too much and he has had to go home to an early rest. Mr Cunningham —His wife and kids are here. Mr DOBIE —I delighted to hear that. The reality of the proposed sitting hours is this: The Parliament will not function effectively and the guys on the Government benches will start to realise this. The Government has enjoyed its honeymoon period. The nine honourable members from the Government back bench who are in the House at the moment will realise that they will want more time for debates and to ask questions of their own Executive. It will suddenly dawn on them next year that they have to look after their electorates. They will want plenty of time to ask questions. Even the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) will probably want to ask questions even when there is not an election. Mr Braithwaite —They will have to work hard. Mr DOBIE —They will have to work at it. When there is no Question Time on a Friday and no time for committees they will suddenly become rather irritated and annoyed with their Executive. Believe me fellows I agree with you because we went through the same thing some years ago when our Executive tried to implement a similar proposal. Mr Simmons —I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. The honourable member for Cook keeps referring to 'the guys over there'. I remind him that there are some women members of parliament on this side of the House. The honourable member for Phillip- Mr SPEAKER —That is not a point of order. That is advice. Mr DOBIE —Mr Speaker, I am absolutely charmed that we have in the chamber one of the members of parliament who happen to be not of the male sex. When I talk to groups where we have been I am aware that there is no distinction between sexes in the discussion. The honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) would be the first to admit that the honourable member who rose to support her is the sexist member. Work that through and you will realise that it is near Christmas. All I want to say is that as Government back benchers, honourable members opposite should be as aware of the problems that will be created by these new sitting hours as we in the Opposition are. I warrant that by the end of the session they will start to realise that they will not have the time to examine the workings of their own Executive. Having had an awful lot of experience on the back bench of a government party, I can assure honourable members opposite that this examination will become a very valuable part of their life and of their Government's operation. They should be criticising what their Executive has given to them, despite the fact that it was a Caucus vote, as I understand. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment mentioned that when he was in Opposition he was very much aware that the then Opposition wanted this Parliament to have discussion and debate by members of parliament on the matter of sitting hours. My God, so do we. What do we get? On the same day we were getting four or five variations or versions of a proposal. This morning is the first time that the matter has been mentioned on the Notice Paper in any official sense. Tonight, the last sitting night of the year, is the only occasion that the Opposition has had to debate the matter with Government members. No joint party committees have been formed so that we can discuss our common problems. For all the hysterics that have gone on tonight, the reality is that this Parliament will not function unless we are aware of the role we each have to play. Government back benchers will regret that they have been so supportive of their Executive in opposing, as they obviously are, the amendment put by the Deputy Leader of the National Party with such eloquence and, if I may say so, with such charm. I strongly support this amendment. I hope that wisdom survives or comes to Government back benchers and that they will cross the floor and support us in voting for this amendment. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(9.14) — The issue that we are debating tonight has been bandied around the Parliament for many years. In fact, it was back in the 1970s that the first attempt was made to develop a system of reasonable sitting hours to allow honourable members to have a reasonable family life and also to carry out their jobs as members of parliament. Back in the 1970s that suggestion did not work, mainly for one reason: The right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) was rather determined at that time that it should not work. He did nothing to facilitate its working. He used every possible method of sabotage, as he has tonight. He came into the Parliament tonight and in his speech picked on two very small issues. He raised them as major issues that the Opposition should support in order to frustrate the wishes of the majority of the members of this Parliament. He raised as an issue the fact that under the new sitting hours, the Opposition would not have Question Time on a Friday and that sitting through the lunch hour on Thursday would be such a major problem that the Opposition would have to oppose the amendments to the sitting hours proposed by the Government members. Let me go back through the work done by Goverment members who examined the question. Many honourable members on the Government side, in developing the new proposal for what we would call realistic working conditions for the 1980s, have put in many hours of work-hours and hours of consideration. They have gone back through the records and have had a realistic look at whether this Parliament has been operating on a common-sense basis, whether we have been using to the best of our ability the talents of the honourable members who have come to Canberra from all over Australia. Of the Government members who examined this issue I mention specifically the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth), who put in many hours in negotiating and developing the proposals. He is a new member of this House. He has worked very hard trying to find out why this Parliament and its members have taken the position they have taken for so many years. The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Saunderson) also has worked very hard in an attempt to put forward proposals. Both are new members of parliament. As the Opposition Whip, the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie), has said, when one has been a member for a little while one suddenly realises that experience teaches one things in regard to the Parliament. The two members who put the work into assessing the situation of sitting hours and supported the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen), who has spoken in the House on this matter tonight, went to everybody possible. They spoke to previous Leaders of the House. They spoke to the parliamentary liaison committee. They spoke to every possible person to find out why the House has sat for the hours it has sat in the past, and they found no real logic in the reasons given. When one sits down in the 1980s and assesses the situation one finds that a lot of things that this Parliament has been doing in the past have been done merely because a situation developed. They became part of the system, and there is a resentment to change. I am quite proud to be part of a government which has members who are prepared to look at this issue and to develop their thoughts. The two I mentioned specifically are new members of this Parliament. They have new ideas to bring to government in Australia. If we do not develop new ideas in government, what is the point in having government? We must progress. Society progresses outside the Parliament. We have had massive developments in technology, we have had massive developments in education in the community; but for some reason the right honourable member for New England has come into this House and said: 'No, the Parliament and the people who work in it must stay in the past'. I say that we must develop for the future. We must look to the future . The new members of parliament are young people with families, and one of their major considerations has been that the family unit and their families are just as important as this Parliament. That is a criterion for which I think the Australian public would give credit to this new Government. We do not see this institution just as a parliament; we see it as a reflection of the community. If this Parliament does not reflect the views of the community it is not doing its job. If this Parliament denies the right of the family man to be part of this Parliament it is not doing its job. That very issue has been put forward solidly by the members of the Government committee which looked at the matter. It considered that the Parliament's sitting hours have been to the deprivation of honourable members who have had to travel from Western Australia, the Northern Territory, North Queensland and from country areas Australia-wide. It is all right for honourable members who come from cities such as Melbourne or Sydney- they can hop backwards and forwards within reasonable time-but there has been an enormous neglect in this Parliament of those members who have family obligations . Many new members on this side of the House have young families and have a lot to offer the Government of Australia. The reason we are putting forward these propositions is two-fold: Firstly, we believe that we can improve the Parliament and, secondly, we believe we can improve the family life of those people who come here to represent Australians. That is a major consideration. The right honourable member for New England tells us that because we are not allowing the Opposition Question Time on a Friday and because we would have to sit through our lunch hour on a Thursday this is a calamitous proposition. The Opposition wants to stay in the past. It wants to live in the past. Maybe the right honourable member for New England, as Leader of the House, kept the Parliament in the past for too long. The Australian people made their decision. They wanted no more of the previous Government, they wanted no more of the people opposite who look backwards; they wanted to look to the people who were looking forward. So we have come into this Parliament tonight with a proposition which will make this Parliament work to suit the Australian people and their representatives. I oppose strongly the arguments which have been put forward tonight by the right honourable member for New England, the man who disrupted the previous attempt to put forward new programs. As Leader of the House he disrupted that and would not let it operate. We have a Leader of the House who is younger and who is looking to the future. We have new members in this House who are young, who belong to the newly-elected Government of this country, who look to the future of this country. These new proposals will mean better government, happier family life for the members who work here, happier children within their families, and we will have better government and a better Australia because of it. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(9.27) —May I say at the outset that I found myself in agreement with about 98 per cent of what the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) said. I thought there was only one thing wrong with what the honourable member for McMillan said. I am speaking very seriously. I can come into this place and have a go, and give the odd bash here and there-that will no doubt go on-but on this important matter of sitting hours there are a couple of things I would like to say. I do not want the honourable member for McMillan to characterise what the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) has said as being as negative and as conservative as he has said it is. I believe in parliamentary reform. I think our present sitting hours are crazy. I think they belong to the time when they were geared to the train time-tables between Canberra, Perth and north Queensland. I think the whole concept of our having two parliamentary sitting periods during the year and long recesses is crazy. It is a view which I held when I was in government and my view has not changed. Mr Mountford —Why did you not do something about it? Mr HOWARD —I would love to have a beaut exchange with the honourable member, but I promised the Acting Leader of the House (Mr Dawkins) that I would take only five minutes. I think the idea that we should sit for these tight periods during the year and then have long recesses is crazy. I believe that this Parliament should sit for two weeks on and two weeks off throughout the year with the whole of July in the middle of the year and December and January taken off. I think we should sit rational hours during the two weeks when we are here. Within that sort of arrangement I believe that there would be less disruption to family life . I know what it is like to try to carry a heavy ministerial load when one has young children. I know that just as well as do many of the honourable members opposite. I have every sympathy in the world for what the honourable member for McMillan has said. I do not want to see this Parliament turned back into an institution which is available only to people who are not totally representative of the community. I think the honourable member for McMillan is absolutely right in saying that. I genuinely say to him that the sticking point, the real problem with his proposal when we get down to it, is the loss of that one Question Time. I know it is easy for the Government to say 'You are standing in the way of reform' but I ask the Acting Leader of the House to give this proposition some consideration. During the last year we have had a few exchanges, but I am sure that, particularly at this time of the year, he really is a very charitable person. I am sure he will go back and give this proposition some consideration. I believe in getting better sitting hours; a large number of people, including my close collegue the right honourable member for New England, also believe in parliamentary reform. Okay, we do not like two aspects of what the Government has put forward and we have expressed that disagreement. Across this chamber there is obviously bipartisan support for a greater degree of rationality. I have not consulted anybody about this, but I think I can safely say that if the Government would give a bit on that one Question Time we would give on the other matter. I think it would be a terrible shame if the consensus that exists across the floor of this chamber-in fact I can say that I support 98 per cent of what the honourable member for McMillan has said-is lost and we pass up this opportunity to make a small step forward. I hope I am in this Parliament long enough to see the time when we get rational sitting hours. National government in Australia now is more complex than it used to be. If we had a rational two weeks on two weeks off right through the year I do not think it would be any harder on the Executive. Frankly, the worst burden on the Executive is the legislative indigestion at the end of each session. If we really wanted to stop Ministers, whether Labor or Liberal, becoming mindless captives of their departments on some issues, the best way would be to stop that crazy legislative indigestion that happens at the end of each session. Complicated legislation is thrust in front of Ministers and they are told: 'If you do not get this through, Minister, you will have this problem because Parliament will not be coming back for another two or three months'. I say to the Government with all the best will in the world that that will happen to it, just as it happened to some of us. It will get the Government into trouble and it will make its back benchers angry. It will lose the Government votes, just as it lost us votes. If we have any common sense, if we have any respect for each other, if we really do care about sensible reforms in this institution, if we are prepared to acknowledge, as we ought to, that not all wisdom resides on one side of the chamber, the Government will give on the matter of Question Time and we will give on the other matter. Question Time is what really matters to us, and it ought to matter to people who believe in a parliamentary institution. Many people on both sides in this place believe very dearly in the Westminster system of government. They want Ministers, whether Labor or Liberal Ministers, occasionally to be put on the rack. Government members will want to put their Ministers on the rack in a few months time. They will get very cranky with what the Ministers are doing, just as some of us in the last Government were put on the rack by some of our back benchers. Please do not pass up the opportunity that is now available. If the Government is willing to give on the matter of Question Time, we can make a sensible step forward. The honourable member for McMillan has an interest in this matter. I know the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) has had a very deep interest in rational parliamentary reform for a long time. I have talked to him about it on many occasions and he has held his view consistently. To his great credit, he has not changed his mind now that he is on the front bench and he has a ministerial car. He still has the same view he had nine years ago, when I first came into this Parliament. I hope that this one tentative opportunity that has been produced-let me compliment those on the back bench of the Government who have done it-will not be lost. I say to the Government that what matters, and matters legitimately to the cause of parliamentry democracy, as the right honourable member for New England has said, is that fundamental right to expose to the scrutiny of the representatives of the people those who make the Executive decisions. Any lessening of that opportunity ought to be a matter of concern to democrats. Regardless of whether one is a Liberal or Labour democrat, that ought to be a matter of concern to all. If only the Government would accept that proposition I think we could go along with the other part that we find a little unpalatable. If the Government reduces our Question Time it will put us in an impossible position, and it will throw away the first opportunity for a long time of taking a rational step forward in parliamentary sitting hours. I would not like to see that opportunity lost. I would like to see fulfilled the aspiration the honourable member for McMillan so eloquently explained in his speeech, and I very much support it. If the Government is willing to give ground on the matter of the Question Time I think it will be possible to accommodate that aspiration. If the Government is not prepared to give ground on that it leaves us with no alternative, as the right honourable member for New England properly said, but to do as we have foreshadowed. It is not a laughing matter; it is not a facetious matter. It is a serious parliamentary matter. If the Government is taking away something like 15 per cent of our Question Time, that is a very serious matter. It is not just a matter of one Question Time. It is a very grave infraction of the right of parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary accountability. I think all of us who care about the value of parliament as an institution will agree with what the right honourable member for New England has said about that. I very strongly support the amendment my colleague has moved. I regret that we have had to move it. I ask at this late hour whether the members of the Government will agree to what I have put forward. If they will give ground on that matter they will get the credit for having made a sensible reform and I think we will have a better system. We will be able to co-operate like rational human beings in the operation of the new system and I think the whole process of government will be a lot better off. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Acting Leader of the House)(9.32) —I think this has been an enormously productive debate. I want to thank very much the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) for his contribution. I think what has occurred in the last few minutes is that essentially we have come together on this issue. A number of questions still have to be sorted out. It was the view of the Government that we ought to put up a proposal at the end of this session so that it could be in place when we meet again at the end of February 1984. The reason why we wanted it to be set out now was so that, as the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) has said, we could have a full session trial period . It is important to recognise a couple of facts when we are considering what the changes really represent. The number of the days is to be reduced only from 33 to 32, the number of hours is to be reduced from 280 to 274. That is the total number of sitting hours under the old arrangement as compared with the new arrangement. What necessarily is involved in reducing the number of days is that there will be reduced number of opportunities for those kinds of activities that occur every day. I think what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has indicated is a very important point. It is not the intention of the Government to limit or reduce the opportunities for private members' time or, indeed, for Opposition scrutiny of the Government. This Government does not fly from circumstances or opportunities for close scrutiny. Indeed, if honourable members examine the period of Question Time to which this Government has exposed itself they will find that it has been rather longer than the period available under the former Government. So there are a number of opportunities for discussion. Either we can have longer periods of Question Time on seven out of the eight days, or we can extend to having a Question Time on every day. We are not closed to the proposition the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has put forward of having a Question Time on Friday. I want to make that perfectly clear. I would not want that to be a stumbling block on which this whole reform founders. As the honourable member knows and as we know, all these questions are matters for discussion. For instance, another matter for discussion is the opportunities for the debate of matters of public importance. Those matters are arranged by convention and by agreement. Whether matters of public importance are raised every day and how many speakers are allowed are matters for negotiation. The Government has put forward a basic framework of reform, which I recognise the Opposition appreciates is an improvement. I wish to make it perfectly clear that the Government is not closed to the possibility of making some refinements along the way. It is important, as all honourable members will recognise, for the legislative business of the Government to be transacted. But equally important-I would not want to run away from this matter for a moment-is the essential opportunity that the Parliament presents for scrutinising the activities of the Government and the performance of Ministers. There is no point in the taxpayers paying such an enormous amount of money for a parliament if it does not present the opportunity for regular and consistent scrutiny of the Government which administers the country. This is not an attempt to truncate the opportunities for that kind of scrutiny. The Leader of the House (Mr Lionel Bowen) will have an opportunity to discuss with the Opposition some of the refinements of this matter, and the issues which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition raised will not be excluded from those discussions. As I have said, they are not the kinds of refinements which we necessarily want to make on the run-across the table-tonight. I recognise the Opposition's view and its amendment. But I also recognise that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that the Opposition is prepared to give way in relation to the Thursday lunch hour in return for Question Time. I think that is an entirely reasonable approach to take. Sitting through meal hours is not a terribly attractive proposition for many people. The Deputy Leader of the National Party raised an important point when he said that we ought to maximise the opportunities for members of both chambers to have party meetings and also joint parliamentary committee meetings. These reforms increase the number of opportunities for joint meetings of members and senators. As it happens, on Thursdays the Senate already sits through its lunch hour in order to transact its business. By doing the same we will not necessarily truncate the opportunities for joint activities of members of the House of Representatives and senators. This has been an entirely valuable debate. We all agree that the reforms that have been proposed here tonight are a move in the right direction. I said at the outset that I have no faith that the precise details of this proposal will last forever but I think they are a vast improvement on those which currently exist, and an even more vast improvement on those which existed in the autumn session earlier this year. We have to accept the notion of incrementalism in regard to reform in this place. It is difficult to change things but I think the attitude expressed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition means that between now and the time we again assemble at the end of February we may well have an agreed arrangement which will allow us, in his terms, to transact our business in a more civilised and sensible way and will avoid some of the idiocies to which we have all been exposed under previous arrangements. Whether the Opposition wishes to persist with the amendment in this precise way does not particularly concern me. The stage has been set for us to reach agreement between now and when the House next meets. Whilst I will hand over to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) the responsibilities of the Leader of the House I am quite confident that it will be possible for the Government and the Opposition to reach agreement on the couple of outstanding matters which apparently separate us at this point. Mr SINCLAIR(New England) —by leave-The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) put to the Opposition the fact that he might be prepared to reconsider the matter of Question Time. We certainly see Question Time as fundamental. As I suggested to him yesterday and as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) put tonight , Question Time on each sitting day is fundamental. We do not accept that there are other variants. However, if the Minister is prepared to consider having Question Time on each sitting day we would certainly be prepared to reconsider our position with respect to sitting through the lunch hour on the two Thursdays . On that basis the Opposition will not divide on the proposition. I look forward to resuming this discussion on a successful basis when the Parliament resumes in the new year. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Acting Leader of the House) —by leave-I thank the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) for his comments. I hope this brings in a whole new regime. Question resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER —I have received advice from the National Party of Australia Whip that he has nominated the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) to be a member of the Standing Committee on Expenditure in place of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron). Ministerial Statement Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —by leave-Honourable members will be aware that the Parliament House Construction Authority reports regularly to the Government on the new Parliament House project. In accordance with past practice I inform the House that the updated building budget for the new Parliament House is $439m at September 1983 prices. This figure represents the original budget of $220m at May 1978 prices with adjustments made only for the effects of inflation since that time, and an increase of 3 per cent for additional building requirements approved by the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House. The budget for non-building items has been adjusted to $ 109m at September 1983 prices, reflecting only the effects of inflation. Non- building items include a range of equipment for such facilities as security, communications, furniture, art works and sound and vision services. The Authority has advised that the project continues to make good progress, remaining on the program and within the budget. Construction work in all building areas will have commenced by early 1984 and some areas will be nearing structural completion. As at September 1983 work completed and therefore no longer subject to inflation was estimated at $87.8m. Indicative of the progress that is being made is the increased attention being given to the interior design aspects and the general fitting out of the building. Following the passage of the Representation Bill 1983, the Authority was asked to consider the most appropriate architectural solution for incorporating into the design the additional accommodation resulting from the approved increase in the number of senators and members of the House of Representatives. Honourable members will recall that the design for the building provided an overall plan for future extensions, and the Authority proposes to develop a design for the provision of the additional accommodation in keeping with that overall concept. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —by leave-Thank you, Mr Speaker and honourable members, for giving me an opportunity to speak briefly on this matter. I thank the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) for bringing to the attention of the Parliament the updated building budget for the new Parliament House. This project has enjoyed bipartisan support. I hope it will continue to enjoy bipartisan support as it is brought to fruition as it will be the most important bicentenniary project in this country. Having regard to the place of the Parliament, it is certainly important that this project proceed and that its cost be a matter of public record. The Minister has drawn to our attention that in 1983 prices the cost is now approaching $439m. That is an important matter. However, the most interesting aspect of the Minister's statement is this paragraph: The authority has been asked to consider the most appropriate architectual solution for incorporating in to the design the additional accommodation resulting from the approved increase in the number of senators and members of the House of Representatives. Honourable members will know that approval has been given, with the passage of the Representation Bill 1983, to increase the number of senators in the new Parliament House by something in the order of 12 and the number of members in the House of Representatives by 23. Obviously, if we are going to have an increase in the number of members of Parliament, people are entitled to believe that there ought to be additional facilities for them. One of the matters that was pointed out when the Representation Bill was before the Parliament was that a significant cost was involved. We were advised that $9.6m was the likely cost, on an annual basis, of the increased numbers of senators and members. Here we have the capital cost, and that is a matter which has to be considered by the Parliament House Construction Authority. It is a matter which will be referred to it. Informed guesses may be made as to the likely cost of providing additional accommodation but obviously, if we are going to add significantly to a building that is costing $439m in September 1983 prices, that will not be the ultimate price. So a capital cost will be involved. I suggest that $25m or more will be added to the cost of this building. That is an important factor which should be made known not only to honourable members but also to the people of Australia. This is one of the consequences that will flow from the passing by this Parliament of the Representation Bill. Mr MORRISON(St George) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence I present the Committee's report entitled 'Some Observations on Australia's Diplomatic Representation in Africa and Adjacent Indian Ocean Island States'. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr MORRISON —by leave-This report, which makes some observations on Australia's diplomatic representation in Africa and the adjacent Indian Ocean islands, arose out of the deliberations of the sub-committee of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence dealing with Middle East and African affairs. As honourable members will be aware-I notice that we have in the House tonight the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) who was a distinguished chairman of that Committee over the years-since 1978 the sub-committee has dealt extensively with Africa and has built up a large fund of knowledge about it. Honourable members will be aware of the Committee's reports on Zimbabwe, tabled in May 1980, and on Namibia , tabled in August 1982. This report came out of the inquiry that was held on the Horn of Africa and it will be available in three parts. The first part deals with diplomatic representation, the second deals with aid and humanitarian assistance to the countries of Africa and the third is a more detailed background report on the countries of the Horn of Africa. The inquiry noted that Australia was providing aid to Ethiopia. In fact Ethiopia was the fourth largest recipient of Australia's bilateral aid in Africa south of the Sahara after Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda. During the evidence taken by the sub-committee it was clear that the ability of the post in Nairobi-which is the post that services Ethiopia-to monitor aid activities in the Horn of Africa was limited because of lack of resources. A number of allegations were made to the sub-committee about misappropriation and the misuse of aid in Ethiopia. Many of these allegations were based on hearsay and others appeared to be exaggerated. Nevertheless there does appear- this was the concern of the sub-committee-to be a need for increased staff resources to enable thorough on the ground checks of Australia's aid contribution. The Committee also noted-this is not meant to be a direct reflection on the Department of Foreign Affairs but it does constitute a mild criticism of it-that the Department's ability to provide information on the internal political events in Ethiopia and Somalia were inadequate. As I said, this reflects a lack of resources allocated to this area. After considering the importance of Ethiopia and noting that Addis Ababa is the headquarters of the Organisation of African Unity, the Committee made the following recommendation: The Committee considers that valid reasons exist for the upgrading of Australia 's representation in Ethiopia and recommends that consideration be given to the establishment of a mission resident in Addis Ababa. The Committee is cognisant that financial constraints and Australia's other representational priorities will be factors associated with such a decision. As in the case with other countries with which Australia has diplomatic relations the Committee notes that the fact of having diplomatic relations does not of itself indicate approval of the other Governments' policies or actions. Therefore the Committee is recommending that the Government give serious consideration to opening a resident mission in Addis Ababa. The Committee also considered the post at Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, but believes that we should go no further than invite the Department of Foreign Affairs to pay close attention to the political and economic developments in Somalia. Another matter that is addressed in the report is the representation of Australia in the Francophone countries of Africa, that is, the former French/ Belgian colonies, those areas which are essentially French speaking. During the year we know that Chad was invaded by Libya, an event which had ramifications for a number of the Saharan countries, particularly those with mixed Muslim and Christian populations. Australian coverage of events in the many French speaking former colonies is conducted from posts in former British colonies. The Committee has recommended that: . . . consideration be given to opening a post in a former French colony . . . and observed that: . . . such a post could service other Francophone countries. A recommendation of the Committee which is of particular significance at present relates to our representation in the Indian Ocean area. As honourable members will be aware, in recent years there has been considerable competition among the major powers for port facilities in and around the Indian Ocean. These developments are of direct interest to Australia as a riparian state. In addition Australia hosts a significant expatriate population from Mauritius and the Seychelles in Perth. Honourable members may be aware that Australian tourism in the area, especially to Mauritius, has been growing steadily over the years. This brings us to the possibility of a post in Mauritius. At present Australia's High Commission in Nairobi is accredited to the Seychelles while our High Commission in Dar Es Salaam is accredited to Madagascar and Mauritius and also looks after our interests in the Comoros and Reunion. This arrangement causes unnecessary logistical difficulties, especially in relation to travel between the posts and the countries for which they have some interest. The Committee has therefore recommended that consideration be given to opening a post at Mauritius to promote Australia's interest in Mauritius and among the Island States of the Indian Ocean. The Committee's view is that such a post would be a more rational use of resources than exists at present and would considerably improve our ability to promote our interests in this strategically important region. As the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence I compliment the Chairman of the Sub-committee, Senator Sibraa and also the Secretary of the Sub-committee, Mr Wiber, for the intensive work that they have put into the terms of reference and for the quality of the reports that are being submitted to the House. I therefore commend the report to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —The Chair notes that in tabling the report the honourable member for St George also tabled the minutes of the Committee. Was it his intention that those minutes also be printed? Mr MORRISON —I think that the Committee still operates under a composite of House of Representatives Standing Orders and Senate Standing Orders. If I am not mistaken-I bow to the Clerk of the House in responding-the minutes, at which the report was considered and finalised, form a part of the report. But if it is not necessary for the purposes of the House that the minutes be printed I am happy to withdraw them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —So you are happy for them to be tabled? Mr MORRISON —Yes. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(9.58) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, I present the report of the Committee entitled 'The Way We Play: Commonwealth Assistance for Sport and Recreation', together with the minutes of proceedings, the transcripts of evidence and submissions authorised for publication. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr LEO McLEAY —by leave-In compiling this report the Committee set out to examine the procedures for the allocation and distribution of funds available for sport and recreation through the Commonwealth Budget, the impact of present levels of expenditure in achieving Commonwealth policy objectives in sport and recreation and any changes in the organisation and delivery of assistance to sport and recreation that would promote greater efficiency in administration and effectiveness in the achievement of policy objectives. During the inquiry, the Committee also received evidence on wider questions of sport and particularly recreation, where there is currently no significant Commonwealth Government expenditure. In considering these questions, the Committee attempted to assess whether Commonwealth funds currently being spent to assist sport and recreation were achieving the goals of society. It was not the Committee's primary purpose to recommend changes in the level of funding. The inquiry encompassed the programs and activities of the Australian Institute of Sport, Commonwealth assistance with the development of international standard sports facilities, the Sports Assistance Programs and a number of other smaller programs of financial assistance for sport and recreation. The evidence collected by the Committee focussed, of course, on these existing programs. However, the Committee had drawn to its attention on many occassions the fact that current Commonwealth expenditure on sport and recreation is concentrated on sport rather than other forms of recreation and on elite sport and high performance athletes rather than on the recreational sporting activities of most people. The Committee was conscious that some Commonwealth Government funds find their way into promoting recreational facilities through, for example the construction of school facilities and development of national parks. However, the Committee noted that large sections of the population appeared to be inadequately served with regard to recreational opportunities. In some cases, the problems were created by lack of facilities; in others-the more disappointing situations-facilities existed but were poorly utilised because of administration attitudes on restrictive programs. The Committee considered 171 submissions and spoke to 81 witnesses. In line with the commitment of the Committee of taking parliamentary committees to the people, the Committee took evidence and made inspections in all the States and the Northern Territory. The Committee is particularly grateful to representatives of Commonwealth, State and local government, of sporting and recreational organisations and the individuals who gave so generously of their time and energies to assist in the inquiry. As Chairman, I would like to thank my fellow Committee members who travelled throughout Australia to take evidence. It was difficult, in many instances, for members to fit the additional work into busy schedules but their commitment has made possible the production of this report in such a short time. Thanks are also due to the Committee secretariat. The depth and breadth of this report has been enhanced by the knowledge of the Committee's specialist advisor, Ms Sue Harlow, whose skill in drawing together the threads of the evidence and setting a cohesive framework for our ideas made the final shaping of the report so much easier. The Committee's Secretary, David Worthy, is also worth mentioning because of the very difficult job he had in bringing together a report in such a short time. The many late nights that David put in to ensure that this report was tabled in time is very much to his credit. His dedication was much appreciated by the Committee. I also thank the word processing typists: Betty Williams, Diane Morrison and Jan Burgess for their efforts in getting the report tabled on time. The Committee found that, in the main, existing Commonwealth programs met their objectives efficiently and effectively. A number of shortcomings in program administration were identified and the Committee has recommended appropriate corrective action. The major shortcomings of Commonwealth assistance occur at the macro level, that is, they concern the connections between individual programs and the overall allocation of assistance between sport and recreation and between the various levels of sport and recreation. Commonwealth expenditure on sport and recreation focused heavily on sport at the expense of recreation and on building facilities rather than on ensuring that these facilities are well used. In the sporting field, one example of the Commonwealth's narrowly focused approach was the Australian Institute of Sport. The Committee believed that the Institute, in the short time it had been established, had done a good job but that, if the Institute's work was supported by similar State level institutes, Australia would have a much better system for helping talented sportspeople to develop. The Committee emphasised the need for Commonwealth assistance to go beyond talented sportspeople and to ensure that opportunities for ordinary Australians to make the most of their recreation are enhanced. To this end the Committee has recommended that Commonwealth assistance be make available for a regional recreation catalyst scheme. The Committee believed that a greater investment by the Commonwealth in such human resources would promote fuller use of existing recreational facilities and open up new avenues of recreation for communities. The Committee also examined the need for a National Sports Commission which the Government intends to establish. Although the Committee was not completely convinced of the need for a Sports Commission, members agreed that, should such a body be established, it should be given sufficient powers and resources to enable it to fuction separately from departmental structures and to provide independent advice to the Government. Important among the other issues examined by the Committee was the vexed question of tobacco company advertising associated with sport. Although the Committee believed that the association that such advertising promoted between sport and cigarette advertising was most unfortunate, the Committee was not convinced that the banning of this form of advertising would significantly change smoking habits unless it was part of a wider Government campaign to actively discourage smoking. The Committee agreed that the Commonwealth should not co-sponsor sporting events with tobacco companies and that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's guidelines concerning the broadcasting of incidental advertising by tobacco companies at sporting events should be adopted. I believe that the Committee's report, if adopted, would promote a better balance in the provision of recreational opportunities for people who want to enjoy their leisure time and do not aspire to become elite athletes. The measures recommended would also help talented sportspeople to develop and thus create a wider pool from which Australia's top athletes could be selected. Mr FISHER(Mallee) —by leave-I welcome this report and acknowledge the efforts of the Standing Committee on Expenditure which has produced what will obviously be a most valuable report for future policy development in the sport and recreation area. In the context of the tabling of this report it is important to remember that major initiatives in sports funding and that a proper approach to the needs of sporting bodies at all levels, have only taken place within the Commonwealth during the last four or five years. This report will be significant in that it is reassessing these government initiatives, undertaken I emphasise, by both the coalition and the Labor governments. Obviously, I have not had time to read the report, but I have had an opportunity to listen to the major recommendations just expressed by the Chairman. I wish to comment on what I believe are some of the most important and significant. The report makes reference to other Government departments. I make the general comment that, while liaison between departments is essential, we must be very careful to avoid conflict about the definition of sport and recreation. It is important to know what is sport and what is recreation. It is important to know what falls into the health or education areas and to fund programs accordingly. The many recommendations on disabled sport should be supported by this Parliament. During my contact this year with various sporting groups I found that the most fervent wish of the disabled sporting bodies was that they be integrated as broadly as possible, not only in the usage of sporting facilities but also in the wider social context. As I understand it, the report recommends that the facilities of the Australian Institute of Sport be made available to disabled people. This is important. Disabled teams especially are rarely able to get together prior to competition, whether that competition be national or international. Opening the AIS to disabled people will assist in overcoming this problem. The AIS has been constructed for total community use. The proposed establishment of accommodation facilities to cater for both able and disabled athletes is commendable. The report, I understand, recommends that funds be made available to host the 1988 Olympic Games for the Disabled in Canberra. I have already spoken in the House about this issue. The Government has said that it is reviewing the matter. The disabled sports organisers need to know. They need to have a firm commitment. I call on the Government to react rapidly and favourably to this report and request, as it is essential that the Australian Paraplegic and Quadriplegic Sports Federation, which is handling this submission, knows the Government's response prior to January, when it will be putting the proposal forward in Innsbruch. Our Government's response to this submission will do justice to our maturity as a nation and will complement our bicentenary. Recommendations dealing with the Australian games indicate that funding should be provided for the games, but their objective and scope should be clarified. The concept of an Australian games was an initiative of the previous Government. It was designed to provide much needed high level competition between the staging of the Commonwealth and the Olympic Games. I am disappointed that the first Australian games did not eventuate, largely, I understand, because of a lack of sponsorship but also because of a lack of commitment by the New South Wales Government. I would have thought that, considering the appalling lack of international sports facilities in New South Wales, the New South Wales Government would have been anxious to stage such an event. I understand that one of the recommendations calls for the establishment of a recreation advisory council and suggests the identification of the role of the Commonwealth in recreation matters. I think that the Commonwealth's role in recreation needs to be very clearly defined, particularly in the area of passive recreation. I would oppose Commonwealth funding for passive recreation. That form of recreation should be funded through health programs, or indeed left to the State or the individual. The recommendations on funding of the Australian Sports Commission are extremely important-as the Chairman of the Committee indicated-because I believe the Commission will determine the future direction for Federal Government policies. However, it is important that if the Commission is given statutory body status, as I understand is recommended, the implications of that could well be for sporting bodies and their contacts with and access to the Government. It will also obviously change the authority and influence of existing sports organisations. This should be clearly understood and clearly defined in any future action that is recommended by the interim Sports Commission. I understand there are also recommendations concerning tax concessions on sporting goods and for sportspeople. The Government should give some serious consideration to further major sales tax exemptions for sporting goods, particularly at junior levels of participation. I hope that the economic circumstances of professional sports people has been looked at also. I believe that if tax concessions were extended to include sporting bodies they could well remove a lot of the responsibility from the Federal Government, and therefore the taxpayer, for the construction of sports facilities and would provide greater incentives to local community groups. The construction of local sports facilities is just as important in the community as are aged persons homes and hospitals which rightly attract tax concessions but are equally significant to the health of the nation. I refer-this was referred to by the Chairman-to the situation of the Commonwealth and its relationship with commercial sponsorship and the sporting community. I believe sports sponsorship is a question of freedom of choice-the freedom of individual sporting groups to select the sponsorship they prefer. While we collect millions of dollars in excise from tobacco companies in this country and while we support the production of tobacco, the recommendations that go against companies sponsoring sport are totally hypocritical. Worst of all, these recommendations take out the big stick and threaten organisations to toe the line or else. Mr Leo McLeay —You have not read the report. Mr FISHER —Subsequent recommendations that the Federal Government take up the slack for funding these sports that previously received company sponsorship, even in the short term as recommended, are at the behest of Budget priorities and, therefore, would challenge the continuing confidence and viability of the sporting groups. I agree with the Chairman that I have not had the opportunity to read the report, simply because it has not been made available to me. But I indicate to the Chairman that $50m is expended annually in sports sponsorship, with at least $15m coming from tobacco company contributions. I repeat: It is up to the individual sporting groups to have autonomy in this issue and determine where they get funds. I thank the House and the Chairman of the Committee for the opportunity to speak. Any sports policy should be directed at ensuring the maximum participation of people and the development of co-ordination of skills at all levels, but this will be achieved only by the pursuit of excellence and the encouragement of our top athletes to fully develop their potential with the incentive and motivation existing for people in the community to take part. I commend the Chairman and members of the Committee for their inquiry and for producing a report that is worthy of further Government consideration and study. I re-emphasise that the report, from the remarks made by the Chairman, seems to rest heavily on the recreation side of our activities. I know that I do not have to give any advice to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) in this area, but I ask his Government to recognise the truth in the old axiom that while every valley should not necessarily be exulted, every high hill should not necessarily be made low. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle) —by leave-In speaking in support of the report presented by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, I wish to address the matters raised by the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher), who has just resumed his seat, but firstly I wish to raise the matters contained in the report. This report's development has been very important to me because it has shown me, in perhaps a very short time, what may well be the very best of parliamentary activity, which is a group of members of Parliament from all parties, all sections of the House, looking at Australian conditions in situ , talking to fellow Australians involved in which they have some expertise and attempting to come forward with recommendations and agreements on where those activities should go. That has shown that the concept of a constructive consensus, of a constructive approach by both sides of the House can and does work. The Committee's recommendations have been a matter of consensus. There was a great deal of argument. A fair number of the recommendations were arrived at after some quite strong disagreement, but eventually recommendations were agreed to by all members of the Committee. I think that indicates that consensus can be achieved. I join the Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), in thanking the staff of the Committee secretariat and members of the Committee for their assistance in that process. Let me draw some attention to the remarks of the previous speaker because they were, in fact, out of order in the context of this report. The report was bipartisan. The report was prepared by the process to which I have referred. However, the report did not recommend to the Government to withdraw tobacco company sponsorship. There were various points of view within the Committee, on that matter but the agreed recommendations were that such a course should be considered only if it were to be part of an overall broad government program. With regard to that area, the major recommendation was that the Government should not co-sponsor sport with the tobacco industry. That is not the big stick approach. The recommendation was certainly not made along the lines put forward by the previous speaker. The report did not concentrate on the area of recreation. The fact is that recreation in Australia is very nebulous. It is very hard to pin down and it is very hard to formalise. The Committee realised that very early in its inquiries and came to terms with the need for further consideration of that matter at a later stage. This report is virtually solely to do with sport of both an elite and a competitive nature. I trust that honourable members on the other side will recognise that the report was agreed to by all members, that it was an attempt to find a bipartisan view, which I am sure the other members of the Committee would agree is almost essential in that field. If we are going to divide the Parliament over the matter of sport we will divide the nation. I think the whole sporting area is much too fragile to withstand that division. I trust that in the next few days, when the report is being read and examined, the honourable member for Mallee will recognise that bipartisanship and the need to maintain it . The basis is there and I think it is an excellent basis on which to build. I trust that we will not hear the kind of comments that were being made earlier, which do a great deal of harm to the Opposition members who contributed to those recommendations. I commend the report to the House. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, I present the report of the Committee on lighthouses, together with the minutes of the proceedings and the transcript of evidence. Ordered that Volumes 1 and 2 of the report be printed. Mr LEO McLEAY —by leave-The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure inquiry into lighthouses was undertaken at the request of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). He felt that the inquiry would improve public understanding and assist in the formulation of policy regarding lighthouse manning. The Committee believes that it has achieved both aims. Unmanning of lightstations is a complex social problem which is of great concern to large numbers of the Australian community. This was evidenced by the huge response the Committee received when it advertised its terms of reference, particularly in the response from private citizens. Because of this public concern in particular, the Committee gave special attention to making its inquiry both public and participatory. At various stages of our inquiry we kept those who had made contributions informed of the progress of the inquiry. On behalf of the Expenditure Committee, I wish to thank all those who assisted the inquiry by providing it with submissions and oral evidence. The information we received was of great assistance, and it is in recognition of this assistance that we have compiled, as the second volume of our report, 'Profiles of Manned Stations'. Our special thanks are extended to the Department of Transport, which never failed to meet the numerous and detailed requests for information that we made of it, and the Australian Lighthouse Association for the constant stream of advice it offered the Committee. During our inspections the lightkeepers and their families were always helpful and hospitable. They were interesting people doing a job that many of us would consider romantic. However, when the isolation and hard work is taken into account it seems far less romantic, but it has bred a unique group of people. I also wish to thank my colleagues, fellow Committee members, who found the time, despite busy parliamentary and electoral schedules, to go on inspections, examine submissions, participate at public hearings and offer constructive suggestions in the preparation of the various stages of our report. The Secretary of the Expenditure Committee, Mr Malcolm Aldons, and the Assistant Secretary, Mr Brendan Bailey, laboured hard and long to ensure that this report was available for tabling in the House tonight. My thanks and the thanks of the Committee go to both Malcolm and Brendan for the time that they put into the report. As a Committee we are also grateful to the staff who typed the work and did the word processing. We believe the title of the report captures its essence: 'Do We Keep the Keepers?' Without dwelling for too long at this point on the report, I point out that we have placed great emphasis on the need for effective decision-making mechanisms which would permit consultation at the ministerial levels, both Commonwealth and State, allow for greater community participation, and help in the examination of alternatives to unmanning if the Commonwealth decision is that there is no need for a Commonwealth presence at particular lightstations. In short, the Committee has recommended that eight lightstations be unmanned and automated. Those eight lightstations are Bustard Head, Cape Capricorn, Cape Cleveland, Cape Leveque, Dent Island, Moore Point, Pine Islet and Swan Island. The other 33 manned lightstations the Committee has recommended-- Mr Braithwaite —They are in the Whitsundays. Mr LEO McLEAY —No, it is a different Swan Island from where Australian Secret Intelligence Service is. It is in Tasmania. The other 33 lightstations the Committee recommended should stay manned, either by a Commonwealth Department of Transport lightkeeper or by a State government or other employee. We also recommended that four lightstations, that is, Green Cape, Montagu Island, Smoky Cape and Sugarloaf Point, should be transferred to the New South Wales Government, with an undertaking from it that it would provide a manned presence on some of these stations. We believe that we have gone a long way towards meeting the desires of most of those people who participated in the inquiry. An alternative title which might have captured the atmosphere of the inquiry could well have been: 'The Resolution of Conflict'. There seemed to be considerable bad blood between many of the participants to the inquiry. The Expenditure Committee has provided the mechanism by which this conflict can be resolved. It is now up to those who participated in our inquiry-they will need to participate more closely with one another if our mechanism is accepted-to provide the wherewithal by which the conflict that has existed can be resolved. I commend the report to the House. Debate resumed from 1 December, on the following paper presented by Mrs Darling : Report of the Committee on the Impact of Advertising Standards on Road Safety and on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the House take note of the paper. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(10.23) —Two of the members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety have already spoken to this report during a debate some time ago. Tonight I will be concentrating my remarks on one area, that is, the paper entitled 'The Impact of Advertising Standards on Road Safety' , a report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety. The recommendation on which I will be concentrating is the proposal to limit the times during which alcoholic beverages can be advertised. We conducted a number of hearings before presenting our report. Many citizens were good enough to come before us to present evidence and to allow us to ask them questions. Several witnesses spoke to us on behalf of the alcoholic beverages industry and the advertising industry. I put a number of questions to the witnesses who appeared on behalf of the advertising industry. I would like now to quote from part of the transcript of one such hearing. Question: Do you believe that advertising increases consumption of alcoholic beverages? Answer: No. Question: If it does not increase the consumption of alcoholic beverages, would the advertising industry have any opposition to the banning of advertising of alcoholic beverages? Answer: Yes. Question: Why . . . Answer: . . . because it very much influences brand use. Question: But that would assist only some of your members . . . It would be to the advantage of some . . . if advertising of alcoholic beverages were stopped as they would not have to pay for the alcoholic beverages advertising. Answer: But it would disadvantage those who would be interested in marketing products in the economy. We are interested in making the marketing situation as free and open, within the terms of the law, as possible, and if somebody does wish to try to promote a particular product they should be able to do so. Question: But these are commercial enterprises and as such they would not be motivated so much by ideology as by commercial advantage. If it was not in their interests to have the advertising of alcoholic beverages it would not seem to me that that principle of free access was particularly important to them. Answer: For those who do not have the entire market share it would obviously be in their interests to be able to promote their product. The logic of the situation is either that advertising of alcoholic beverages increases their consumption or it does not. If it does not, it is not in the interests of the industry generally to undertake it. Personally, I am not likely to be persuaded by any argument to the effect that private enterprise does anything that is not in its own interests. That leaves us with the other part of the disjunction. Advertising does increase consumption of alcoholic beverages otherwise the industry as a whole would not waste money on it. If so, where does the increased consumption come from? Not from people who are already drinkers, but from people who start drinking. Most of these are young people. So this leaves us with the question: If young people are to be introduced to alcoholic beverages, should their introduction be prompted by television advertisements or by the agency of a responsible adult? To ask such a question is practically to answer it. Advertising glamourises the product whether it be alcohol, clothing, food or soap powder. In the nature of their exercise, advertisers are prone to feature their product in its most favourable light. However, a responsible adult when introducing a young person to alcohol will, by word and example, make the young person aware of the dangers of the product; in particular the responsible adult will, by word and example, make it clear to the young person that drinking and driving are an unacceptable combination. In these circumstances, it seems that the industry's code of self-restraint is inefficient and insufficient and requires the intervention proposed by the Committee. I would like to quote again from the transcript from which I read a little while ago. Again there are series of questions. I asked: Also in the relevant clauses of the alcoholic beverages code is a clause which says that only mature people will be used in advertisements featuring alcoholic beverages. What is the rationale of that? Answer: I think the code itself says that people must be over the age of 21 to appear in advertisements and the guidelines for the alcoholic beverages code says that nobody under the age of 25 shall be used in an advertisement. Question: What is the rationale for that? Answer: It reflects the industry recognition of community sensitivity to drinking by the young and the drinking age is 18. The industry felt that by using the bench- marks of 21 and 25 that we were erring on the side of the consumers' interest, as you raised earlier, although the law of the land throughout Australia says the drinking age is I think 18. Question: Would not a 25 to 35-year-old person be a more persuasive role model for a 18- year-old than, say, another 18-year-old? Answer: I do not know. I do not think anybody else knows either. There probably is not much of it. If a young person is going to be influenced by advertisements, it will make very little difference whether the role model is 18 or 25 if indeed it is even possible for the viewers to tell. If we are serious about protecting the young from the influence of certain advertising, the only solution is to make sure that the relevant advertisements will not be screened at the times young people will be watching. In these circumstances, extending the ban on alcohol advertisements for half an hour in the morning, from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. instead of 8.30 and for two hours in the evening, from 3.30 p.m. to 9 p.m. instead of 4 p.m . to 7 p.m., is a very moderate move indeed. I commend the report to the House. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.30) —The report of the Standing Committee on Road Safety entitled 'The Impact of Advertising Standards on Road Safety' looked fairly closely at this question of advertising of alcohol on television. I feel one thing we must do at all times is keep it in perspective. I will quote from the report in order to explain what I mean. On page 3 it is stated: Several witnesses referred to dangerous and irresponsible driving portrayed on television programs, and to the fact that these negative influences are less subject to control and probably more harmful than advertising. . . . The point was made that to tighten controls on advertising without introducing similar controls over programs would have little effect on driver attitude. Just to emphasise the point a little further, one of the witnesses, Mr B. J. Elliott, from B. J. Elliott and Associates, research and communications psychologists, stated: . . . consumers are more likely to emulate their heroes in television shows than they are from things depicted in advertising . . . we ought to accept the notion that most people who view television do so in an intelligent way . . . We are innoculated against believing what happens in advertising to most of us. We take it with a grain of salt . . . So the point I am getting at is that I believe we must keep this whole thing about advertising in perspective. It is interesting to note that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is already in the process of reviewing its own self- regulation system and in particular as it affects television advertising standards. I will turn to one of the recommendations of the Committee which states: The Office of Road Safety in conjunction with the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and advertising industry representatives, develop a comprehensive advertising industry code relating to road safety for all sections of the media to be operational within six months of presentation of this report. This is the key point that we must keep in perspective. The fact that we are recommending a positive step in this direction and one that the industry has already recognised is a welcome sign. I hope it is one that will lead to an improvement in the problem that we have so readily recognised. The other point we touched on in the report is the monitoring of the code. The Committee recommended that the Office of Road Safety, in conjunction with the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, monitor the operation of the new code for a period of one year after its introduction and that this be the subject of a report to the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). I think the point here- it is a very important one-is that we should look upon this as a trial. If we cannot find a measurable effect, it is very important that we be prepared to reconsider it, bearing in mind that there are certain side effects. To give some idea of the sort of trend we hope to see, I will quote the statistics showing the effect random breath testing has had since it was introduced in Victoria. These figures are reflected in the interim report on road safety in Victoria which was put out by the Victorian Parliament. In the year 1977 the percentage of drivers killed who had a blood alcohol level exceeding 0.05 was 51.7 per cent . By 1982, it had dropped to 40 per cent. This was certainly a very measurable change. Admittedly, it is over a few more years than the year recommended here. The point is that this is the effect we would be looking for in order to see some measurable difference. Of course, we also remember that early in 1979 low alcohol beer was introduced in Victoria. At this stage we do not know what effect that has had on the community. The other point to remember is that the Committee supports self-regulation. This is something that I think the industry had to address itself to. If the industry can show that it can do this responsibly, I think we should recognise it. We all know how important it is to improve road safety and to do everything we can to try to reduce the road toll, but the most important thing is to change the drivers' attitude. We have to teach drivers to take up better habits and in particular those better habits should be in regard to drink and driving. I think the community is getting the message. That is why the recommendations of the Committee are to be supported. But I do believe that it is something that we should measure and consider as a trial and see what the effect is. Advertising is only one part of television. There are a lot of other things that happen on television, apart from advertising. Finally, I take the opportunity since I hope it is the last night of the session, to say that I hope everyone over the Christmas period will take a sensible attitude to driving on the roads and certainly keep off the drink. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(10.35) —I support the major recommendations of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety entitled 'The Impact of Advertising Standards on Road Safety'. I address my remarks particularly to recommendation 6 of that report which was: the present Australian Broadcasting Tribunal television advertising standards be revised to extend the ban on alcohol advertisements between 6.00 a.m. and 8.30 a .m. to between 6.00 a.m. and 9.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. to between 3. 30 p.m. and 9.00 p.m. Monday to Saturday inclusive. In totally supporting that recommendation it is relevant to refer to certain of the findings of the Committee. The Committee found, as stated at page 9 in its summary of major findings, that part of the reason for the extent of the drink driving problem is the degree to which regular drinking has become entrenched in our society. The Committee went on to say: If the extent of drink-driving is to be greatly reduced there must be a campaign to change the social attitudes to alcohol consumption. Advertising is one of the factors which acts as an encouragement to consumption . No attempt to change community attitudes about alcohol consumption could ignore the need for further restrictions on advertising. Despite the stated target group or stated aim of alcohol advertisements, it is unrealistic to suggest that those advertisements do not appeal to young people who have not started drinking and do not act as an encouragement for the consumption of alcohol in general. The Committee considers it justifiable to further limit the advertising of alcohol on television. That is recommendation 6 in the Committee's report, which the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) and the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) have already addressed. In addressing remarks to the tightening of restrictions on the total television advertising of alcohol it is pertinent to refer to a previous report of the Standing Committee on Road Safety. That was the 1980 report entitled 'Alcohol, drugs and road safety'. As stated on page 37 of that report, the Committee found: These community attitudes which tend to support, even encourage, drinking and driving frequently bear most heavily on the young . . . The effects of excess drinking are, of course, aggravated in the adolescent driver because of his inexperience and because his driving ability is likely to be impaired at lower BACs than in older, more experienced drivers. Drinking often begins and is initiated in many homes at about 14 to 15 years of age. The location then changes to settings outside the home . . . More adolescents are taking up the use of alcohol at an early age than any other drug . The Committee concludes that the young driver faces many pressures to drink and drive and that the need to reduce these pressures must be a high priority. That matter was very carefully considered by our Committee in its public hearings. As my colleagues on the Committee have said, it was a matter which we carefully examined with a number of contrasting points of view. Many of the submissions to the Committee recommended total bans on the advertising of alcohol. Others suggested that there was no statistical evidence to suggest that the advertising of alcohol had any effect on total consumption and therefore it was not justifiable to limit advertising further, particularly on television. I refer to page 29 of the report: The Committee accepts that advertisements for alcohol do not directly encourage drink-driving. Current alcohol advertisements do not directly associate drinking with driving, nor do they specifically encourage drinking to excess. The Committee is also aware that the alcohol industry has made a significant effort to make these advertisements more socially responsible in recent years. However, the Committee is concerned with the more fundamental problem of the relationship between alcohol consumption and drink-driving. The Committee believes alcohol advertisements lead to increased consumption of alcohol, which is likely to aggravate an already serious drink-driving problem. The Committee does not believe that a tightening-up of the Alcohol Beverages Code will provide an adequate solution to this problem. It is necessary to limit the exposure of young people to alcoholic advertising particularly on television if social attitudes to alcohol consumption are to be changed. They are the key paragraphs in the Committee's report. I was one of the very few members, if not the only member, of the Road Safety Committee who viewed all the advertisements placed on television for the advertising of alcohol. In my view, the advertisements are quite professional in terms of the Code in that they do not directly associate drinking and driving. I looked at them all. More than an hour of television advertisements on video tape was put before me. I must state my perception of those advertisements. It is important to realise that the major brunt of the disastrous and tragic consequences of road injury is borne by our young people. It is tragic that the 17 per cent of the population aged under 25 accounts for more than 40 per cent of total deaths or injuries on our roads. In other words, our young people bear a grossly disproportionate burden of our road trauma, injury and death. Of course, alcohol also accounts directly or indirectly for more than 50 per cent of road fatalities. The objective of the Committee in looking at advertising standards was to try to diminish the amount of television advertising which exposed alcohol and its consumption to our young people aged between 5 and 18 because they are susceptible at a very young age. That is the only socially responsible decision. For that reason the Committee adopted recommendation 6 in which it recommended a fairly substantial reduction in the hours in which television advertisements for alcohol can be shown. The reason we did that, to which the report alludes in detail, is that between those hours we have recommended the percentage of young people watching television, and therefore seeing television advertisements, is considerably lower than at other hours of the viewing day. I cannot stress enough, as the honourable member for Wannon-also a member of the Committee-has already emphasised, that always at the Christmas period fatalities are considerably higher than at other times of the year. I can only endorse his remarks-for all of us here and for all the public-that over the coming months we take special care in the way in which we behave on the roads. If we drink, it ought to be imperative that we do not drive. I can only repeat the tragic statistics on our roads at the moment. I have already emphasised that 50 per cent of all fatalities are directly or indirectly related to the consumption of alcohol. More importantly, the 18 to 25-year-olds who drive, who account for 17 per cent of our population, account for more than 40 per cent of all road accidents. I appeal to them in particular over this Christmas period. I assure them that the cost of a taxi or of a few hours sleep is far cheaper in the long run, indeed in the short run, than the trauma and the tragedy associated with death or serious injury on the road. I make that appeal. I endorse the remarks of my colleagues on this Committee. Nothing would give us greater joy than to see a substantial reduction in road trauma and death over this holiday period. I hope that in the long term the recommendations we have made in this report concerning the advertising of alcohol will also lead to further diminishments in the road toll. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.45) —Before I became a member of this House I was involved with motor vehicles. I was involved in the motor industry for 15 years and I probably know more about motor vehicles than most people in this House. I know more about them and I know more about the complexities and the problems associated with them. I am a very shy and very proud type and I do not usually try to enunciate all that I know about motor vehicles. Mr Hunt —Modest. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, that is the word. The motor vehicle is a lethal weapon. A car or a motor cycle, in the hands of somebody who is not in a position to drive or ride in a correct and proper fashion, becomes a lethal weapon and can cause untold harm not only to that person but also to the families of other people. Therefore we have a dangerous situation with the motor vehicle and the motor cycle. Every day 10 people die on the roads in Australia. Mr Katter —Ten a day. Mr GOODLUCK —The honourable member for Kennedy interrupts. He is a sincere and genuine, gentle type who gave a lot to road safety. He will go down in Queensland history as one of the martyrs of the motor industry in respect of the road toll and motor accidents. I only hope that the Queensland Government will start to appreciate what he has done about the 0.05 per cent breathalyser reading and random breath testing. He will go down in history as one of the people who has tried to overcome this terrible, horrific incidence of motor accidents. The same applies to the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling). I may not agree with the honourable member for Lilley. I do not agree with everyone in this world. But at least she has been enthusiastic. At least the Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety has been bipartisan. There have been no arguments about the one thing that we have been aiming for-a cut in the road toll, in the deaths on our roads, and a cut in the number of serious injuries that affect everybody in our community. As I said before, I have been involved in the motor vehicle industry for most of my life. I had a service station. The indentation of the overalls is still on my back. The smell of carbon monoxide and petrol is still in my nostrils. I know a little about the motor industry. It was really a motor industry. In my normal fashion, I developed a motor industry within a little circle. I saw many motor vehicles driven into my place that were unfit for the roads in Australia. I would tell drivers in my nice way to get their car off the road and have it repaired, put on new tyres and do the other necessary things. Unfortunately, the road safety of Australians is a very difficult problem. We have tackled it with this inquiry by the Road Safety Committee. I do not altogether agree that what is proposed is the answer but at least the Committee has had a term of reference. We have tried to say to the people of Australia: ' Advertisements can be harmful, they can accentuate the fact that young people will drink and as a consequence of that, young people will get into trouble'. But nobody has been able to prove that that is the answer. One can argue that people see advertisements on television about drinking alcohol and then go to a movie, a theatre or something or other and see such films as the Dukes of Hazzard depicting what motor vehicles will do in a given situation. But they will not do that. They will not stop on the edge of a cliff or jump over cliffs. They will not do these sorts of things. That accentuates what a motor vehicle will not do. It gives people the false impression that they can do anything within a motor vehicle and that when they are on the open highway they can pass on the left hand side and get away with it. It does not occur-Mad Max. The matter is debatable. In a free society, without regulations, why should the breweries not advertise their product in competition with others? We have to get everything in perspective. The honourable member for Lilley is a very good member. She has done her part, but she said in a television interview that the Committee would consider the need for a complete ban on the advertising of alcohol if things in these times proved ineffective. But we really did not say that, did we? She means well, and I understand her concern. She has been involved in the trauma of motor accidents and of all the other things that affect this problem. I understand that, but we have to get everything in perspective. We have to realise that sometimes advertisements may not play a part because human nature being as it is, peer groups and the other things that come into it may not be the reason for some people taking to drink and driving motor vehicles. We have a maximum legal blood alcohol level of 0.05 per cent and we have random breath testing. What else do we need to do for these stupid people who drive motor vehicles when they are under the influence? What more can we do for them? I understand that all these things are done in a genuine desire to cut the road toll, to cut down the horrific problems associated with motor vehicle accidents. Accidents do not just affect the people driving the motor vehicles; they affect those people's families and leave other people with problems. This is a horrific problem. We talk about peace and disarmament when a few people are killed in war. Each year 3,650 people are killed on the roads, yet we do not say very much about it. Let us get everything in perspective. Let us make certain that we cut the road toll, let us tackle the existing problems but do not let us get on to the emotional issues, on to the zombie problems. We should just be careful in what we do and attack the problems. Perhaps we could have an inquiry into motor vehicle standards, into the reasons why motor vehicles should be inspected. Those sorts of things would probably be more constructive than this inquiry. The honourable member for Kennedy will go down in history as a man who genuinely tried. The honourable member for Lilley has followed suit, engulfed in the traditional problem of road safety in a bipartisan effort to try to reduce the road toll in Australia. We do not get very much publicity from the Press because road safety is not one of those issues. We do not get much publicity from the media in any respect. Very little time is devoted in the Parliament to this problem, but a few people take on the trendy subjects of peace and disarmament, wars- Mr Hunt —Uranium. Mr GOODLUCK —Uranium mining. They get all the publicity but an issue like road safety does not get very much publicity. But it is very important. One day the people of Australia will understand and appreciate what we are trying to do to bring down the road toll, to stop the deaths in Australia, to stop the misery that is associated with car and motor cycle crashes. In a way we are contributing to the best part of Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative. Knox College of Advanced Education-Pig Industry: Meat Export Inspection Charges- HMAS Albatross Motion (by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Speaker proposing the question that grievances be noted. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.53) —I wish to draw attention tonight to the Commonwealth grant of $13,378,000 for the construction of the new KNOX College of Technical and Further Education. An amount of $3,912,000 has been allocated for the construction costs in 1984 and it is particularly pleasing that the construction work will provide employment for many Victorians as well as providing much needed technical and further education facilities in a rapidly growing urban population. The outer eastern region of Melbourne has a population of more than 275,000 residents but the nearest TAFE college is at Dandenong, some miles distant to the south-east. A few TAFE courses are conducted at a number of the technical schools in the area but the educational opportunities which they provide have been very limited, particularly for the young people in my electorate. Having recognised the problem, the Victorian TAFE Board proposed the new college at Knox, which is central to the expanding population of the region. One problem in relation to the site, which is close to the Knox shopping centre, is that it is five kilometres from the nearest railway station. However, Knox shopping centre is a major busy shopping precinct and is well served by bus transport. It is, of course, true that the buses cease operating after 7 o'clock at night but I have received personal assurances from the Victorian Minister of Transport, the Hon. Steve Crabb, who is also the Member of the Legislative Assembly for Knox, that the transport services will be improved in time for the first intake of students in 1985. Over the past year some concern has been expressed by local government municipalities that the TAFE services in the area would be cut back. This concern of local government should have been allayed by the following statement in the Victorian Legislative Assembly by the Victorian Minister of Education, the Hon. Robert Fordham, on 12 October 1982: My intention as Minister would be not to cut back on the provision of Technical and Further Education services for that area but rather to extend them. I accept and wish to preserve the notion that although the central core college will be based at Knox, the requirement will exist for reasonable access to Technical and Further Education facilities, especially in streams 5 and 6, throughout the outer Eastern area; so that the appropriate network of facilities and services should be-and I will endeavour to ensure that it is-made available for Technical and Further Education students in the outer Eastern area. To that end I have asked the Technical and Futher Education Board to take this matter into account in its further planning for this college and steps will be taken to develop an appropriate planning committee to work with the Technical and Futher Education Board in developing the course profile and facilities throughout the area. The statement of the Minister should have met the concerns of local government but, unfortunately, some councillors, although none from the City of Knox, have continued to agitate for the college to be moved to a new site nearer the Maroondah Highway. Councillors of the shires of Healesville, Lilydale and Upper Yarra unfortunately continue their call for the college to be moved. Only as recently as a few weeks ago the City of Croydon supported the City of Knox by expressing its satisfication with the present location. One possible way of alleviating the situation is for satellite annexes of Knox College to be located at, say, Healesville and Croydon. For example, an annexe at Healesville could house facilities for horticultural studies. I take the opportunity in this debate to express my strong support for the location of core teaching facilities of the Knox Technical and Further Education College at its present site. I was glad to be advised that the Federal Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) supports the view of the Victorian Minister of Education that there will be no delay in the letting of contracts for stage one of the construction work. In general, I welcome the commitment of the Federal Government to increase student participation in higher education and its strong support of the technical and further education sector. The provision of increased funding in real terms is a big step in the right direction after years of Liberal-National Party neglect. Tertiary education has a significant contribution to make to the recovery of the national economy by providing meaningful and productive opportunities for young people. It is worth quoting from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission report for the 1982- 84 triennium to indicate the importance of restoring the funding that has been cut over the past seven years. The report states: The severe limit on tertiary education funding in recent years means that the Government's objective of increased participation by disadvantaged groups can only be achieved successfully if opportunities for all Australians are increased . The Government has met most generously its responsibilities as outlined by the TEC despite the desperate financial position which we inherited from our conservative and unimaginative predecessors. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(10.58) —Tonight in the grievance debate I want to draw the Government's and the nation's attention to the serious financial situation of Australia's pig producers. At present pork prices are the lowest they have been for a decade. Notwithstanding the forecast of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, where I understand the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) worked when he was rejected by the electors of Macarthur in 1975, that pork prices this year would be $1.80 per kilogram, they are now only $1.30 per kilogram and are predicted to stay there for a long time. So much for the academic theoretician as opposed to what happens in practice. Prices for pigs in 1982-83 were $1.54 per kilogram. In 1981-82 they were $1.70. They were $1.44 in 1980-81 and $1.54 in 1979-80. Costs of feed have increased and at present at the least cost diet the prices are $220 per tonne. The net result is that even efficient producers are losing on the average $10 per head of pigs sold. Included in this $10 per head are, using Queensland as an example, $3 per head Commonwealth and State inspection charges. Producers are, for the most part, required to pay both charges because the majority of pigs are required to be killed at export licensed meat works where overseas purchasers insist on Commonwealth meat inspectors. As the vast majority of pork is consumed in Australia it is also necessary to have State inspectors. Incidentally, the total amount of pig products estimated to be exported in 1983 -84 will have a value of $4.9m, whilst Commonwealth meat inspection costs will be $5.9m. In effect, total inspection charges collected exceeds the total amount of exports. The Federal Minister needs to consult with practical people to realise the disastrous effect of his increase in Commonwealth pig inspection fees from 60c to $1.80 per head. This amounts to 3 per cent of the total returns of the average weight bacon pig. Additionally, notwithstanding the loss of $10 per pig, they are required to pay 60c promotion and 10c per pig for research. These charges, I submit, should be held in abeyance until the industry recovers. The Commonwealth has collected a massive $5.9m for an inspection service wich is not required, considering that only 1 per cent of pig product is exported. The Minister must insist that Commonwealth inspection charges are levied only on exports. It is ridiculous in the extreme that the cost of inspection should be greater than the expected value of pork products exported. The whole business of export meat inspection charges is a mess. We members of the Opposition are doing our part. We oppose in opposition, as we did in Government, the movement to 50 per cent of the cost of inspection to be met by industry at present. What we said in government, and what we say now is that we have a policy of 50 per cent cost recovery, but we would not and will not move to this amount until industry recovers and is in a position to pay the costs, and until an efficient and responsible export inspection service is in place. That is the truth and these are the facts. Mr Robert Brown —Talk about Christmas, Tom. Mr McVEIGH —Well, people do eat ham for Christmas. The Minister for Primary Industry has tried to distort the position. Will he please stop this practice? Will he please come clean and let us know if he will put to Cabinet that there be a moratorium on increased export inspection charges pending the High Court of Australia challenge, and will he hold in abeyance until the pig industry recovers the dual charges on pigs and have discussions with the State wherein only one charge is imposed? Will he tell us that the Australian Labor Party will not now or in the future try to increase the charges from 50 per cent of the cost of an efficient and responsible service? Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(11.3) —I would have liked tonight to extend Christmas greetings to everyone, but I find I must speak in this grievance debate on another matter. Today the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) gave notice of a motion to the effect that I, in a recent Press release, had made false claims about government expenditure on HMAS Albatross. He did not even extend me the courtesy of informing me that he was going to give this notice of motion so that I could be in the House to defend myself. I have here the list which I quoted from, with the expenditure shown on it. This list was supplied to me and I used it in good faith. I admit that it raises some questions that have to be resolved. The right honourable member for New England was talking about a radar station which he opened. What I quoted concerned additional expenditure which was to be spent on the radar station. So much for that. Is it not ironic that on the day the right honourable member for New England gave this notice of motion and asked the House to dissociate itself from my statement-that is what the motion of which he gave notice asks-this very same Parliament agreed to an expenditure of $7.3m on HMAS Albatross? This is to commence next year. I said that the Government would spend $10m. Today the Government announced that it will spend $7.3m on moving the Army parachute training school to HMAS Albatross. This work is expected to commence early next year. So much for the statement of the right honourable member for New England that in making my claims I was misleading this House and so much for his asking this House to dissociate itself from my statement. No wonder he was removed as Minister for Defence, if he could not get even that right. There are two points to be made in regard to this notice of motion. One is the matter of the former member for Macarthur, who slinks around this House in an attempt to regain the seat. He has a very faint hope of doing that while ever I am the member. He is ably assisted by the gutter press of Nowra, which he knows all about. In the lead-up to the last election, the Press did not even have the guts to use my name. It refused to use my name once. So much for the Press. The other point that has to be recognised is that it was the previous Government, not this Government, that disposed of the aircraft carrier. We did not dispose of it, the fools opposite did. They keep blaming us for it. They had no intention of purchasing an aircraft carrier. If they had, the right honourable member for New England, who at that time was the Minister for Defence , and the former Prime Minister who is somewhere on his farm now, would have announced it when they visited Nowra in the week before the election. The right honourable member for New England was in Nowra the week before the election. If he had intended to purchase an aircraft carrier, why did he not announce it? He did not announce it because he knew that the Government had no intention of purchasing an aircraft carrier. Regardless of what the right honourable member says, that is the truth. How dare this man come into this House and talk about morale at the base when he and the former Prime Minister worked so hard to destroy morale at the base and in the city of Nowra? They did their best to destroy the morale and to bring down property values. HMAS Albatross will continue. There could be no greater guarantee for the future of HMAS Albatross than the decision made today for the expenditure of $7.3m. This notice of motion should be seen for what it is-a cheap, political stunt by the right honourable member for New England. It will have no effect whatsoever. The right honourable member went to Nowra with a great story of about four pages claiming that he had been gagged in this House and that I had gagged him. I wish I had the power to gag him. I do not have any power to gag anybody in this House . He claimed in Nowra that he had been gagged. As I said then, I will debate HMAS Albatross and the aircraft carrier with him at any time he wants to debate it. He was not gagged in this House. This notice of motion should be seen for exactly what it is-a cheap political stunt to try to get his crony back into the House. That stunt will rebound. It will have no effect on me but it will rebound on the right honourable member, the mover of the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(11.04) —I move: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 28 February 1984, unless otherwise called together by Mr Speaker, or, in the event of Mr Speaker being unavailable, by the Chairman of Committees. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing appreciation for the contribution made by so many on both sides of this House to the remarkable achievements that in many ways have marked our performance as a legislature since the beginning of this session. There have been many different sorts of achievements. One of our number has done what has never been done before. The honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) has made history by delivering the goods in a quite unique way. I was going to express the hope that she will continue to do so, but if she does I hope she will pay due attention to the responsibilities she must fulfil in keeping up the numbers on this side of the House. We congratulate her and thank her. Mr Sinclair —Something has to be done for it. Mr HAWKE —Yes. Others among us have our limitations. We can only promise to try to continue to do our own little bit in our own little way. Many other things have happened which I do not wish to canvass. I think I would be speaking for everyone in this House when I say that the workings of this Parliament depend upon the services and the dedication of very many people who, unlike those of us in the chamber, do not see the light of day so often. Before I go to those people I should like to pay particular tribute to a number of those who have contributed greatly to the smooth working of this House during the past months and who have been prominent and obvious. Firstly, I should like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for the manner in which you have conducted the proceedings of this House. In company with your indefatigable Deputy and Chairman of Committees, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson), you have established high standards of impartiality and discretion in the exercise of your very demanding role. Not all of us, including myself, have always made that task as easy as we should have made it for you. I should also like to pay tribute to the work of the Chairman of Committees and his deputies. I thank all of them, namely, the honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child), the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) , the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren), the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar), the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford) and the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher). The contribution by the Clerk of the House, Doug Blake, the Deputy Clerks, Alan Browning and Lyn Barlin, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the parliamentary officers, the Table Office and attendants has been, as I think we would all agree, of an order that defies adequate description. We all have benefited very greatly from their experience and dedicated attention. We thank all of them most sincerely for that . The Principal Parliamentary Reporter, Mr Roberts, and the Hansard staff have also made their traditionally high quality contribution. I know that they must sometimes wince at what we manage to do with the English language-I include all of us in that-but somehow or other they always seem to be able to make sense of what we have said. The Parliamentary Librarian, Mr MacLean, and his staff have, as always, provided, in the true sense of the word, an invaluable service to all honourable members. The speed and professionalism with which they have so often responded to requests, sometimes quite unreasonable requests, I know constantly amazes each and every member. The Secretary of the Joint House Department, Mr Jorgensen, and his staff, including those involved in the Parliamentary refreshment rooms, maintenance and gardens, have also made a distinctive contribution. The First Parliamentary Counsel, Jeff Kolts, and his staff have been inundated with work during the year but they seem to have been able to bear up under it and to produce the goods. As we all appreciate, their behind-the-scenes work is crucial to the workings of this House. Similarly, the leaders of the House, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Bowen), and the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), the latter having acted as Leader of the House during the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister and while the Deputy Prime Minister has acted as Prime Minister, have also contributed importantly to the smooth operation of our proceedings. The experience and the co-operative approach of the manager of Opposition business, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), has been of particular assistance to them in their tasks. On behalf of the Government, on this festive note, I thank him for his co-operation. Mr Goodluck —Don't forget me. Mr HAWKE —No, I am not forgetting the good old cider apple over there. Mr Anthony —Who wrote that? Mr HAWKE —That little interpolation was my own. We cannot forget the Whips-the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys), the honourable member for Cook ( Mr Dobie), and the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Hicks), and their deputies , the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron), and the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), and their clerks, Joan McKain, Cay McVeigh and Gerrie Van Dam. They have kept the numbers together and they have done what has been expected of them. They have done so gently and effectively. Similarly, the Parliamentary Liaison Officers, Leigh Powell and Anne Marie Hodgson, and the House of Representatives Transport Officer, John May, and his staff have provided crucial back-up and support. To them and to the drivers whom they direct we express our thanks. Those amongst us obviously have different approaches, different philosophies, in terms of how we will go into this Christmas and New Year period. There are those of us-I say this very sincerely-who according to their beliefs will draw upon their spiritual resources and look to the special significance for them of this period of Christmas. We respect that and we hope that they are able particularly to draw from this time which is so important to them the inspiration which this season means for them. For others who do not have that source of inspiration to call upon I know they will take the opportunity-I trust all of us will take the opportunity-of rest and recreation. We will do that in our different ways. Most sincerely I say to every member of this House that despite the very vivid differences that we have had at times there develops a very special relationship between members of this place. I, of course, have not had the experience of it that so many honourable members have had, but I say very sincerely that in the relatively short period I have been a member of this House I have come to place a very strong measure upon the relationship that develops in this very special institution. I thank all members of this House, not only those on my own side, for that special spirit that in a very peculiar way binds us together. Speaking for myself and for the Government I wish all honourable members and all the people I have mentioned behind the scenes who have helped us so much a happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year. As I said, in whatever way we may draw our inspiration for rest and resource in this period I hope it will be of major benefit to all so that together, according to our philosophies and commitments, we may all come back and in our own way in this place in 1984 do what we can to make Australia a better place for all its citizens. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(11.17) —I am very happy to join with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on this occasion in conveying the seasons greetings to a range of people whose dedicated efforts ensure the efficient functioning of this House. In fairness to the Prime Minister, I do not think he missed any group of persons who have assisted in this Parliament, other than the police and the attendants. The police provide a degree of security which, regrettably, has been required in this Parliament in recent times. Mr Sinclair —And the radio people. Mr PEACOCK —I add the Australian Broadcasting Corporation people, who are ever with us, to the list the Prime Minister gave. I mention a number of people, albeit that they have been alluded to by the Prime Minister. Before I do so I thank the Prime Minister for returning to the House tonight. I know he had an important private dinner to attend. He has shown the respect he has for this occasion by returning from that dinner and thanking those others who work in the building apart from members and senators. Knowing the man the Prime Minister was honouring tonight at this private dinner I suggest that perhaps the Parliament could give that gentleman a dinner as a mark of respect for his service over many decades. I also thank the Prime Minister for his reference to the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair), the leader of Opposition business on this side of the House. The special mention of him should also have included the fact that this year was the twentieth anniversary of the honourable member's election to Parliament. Mr Howard —His first 20 years. Mr PEACOCK —There will be three score years and 10; unquestionably. The capacity of the honourable gentleman not only to engage in debate but also even tonight to reach accord with the Acting Leader of the House (Mr Dawkins) in arrangements for sitting hours speaks volumes for his capacity to handle business for us on this side of the House. But it is the hard work of so many people in this Parliament that is so frequently overlooked. I speak with very strong support of the Prime Minister's remarks and express our gratitude to Doug Blake, Alan Browning, Lyn Barlin and all those who assist the Clerk of the House; the attendants and the many other people employed in this building. I refer also to the dining room staff, the cleaners, the gardeners and all who work so hard to meet our needs. I do not overlook, as the Prime Minister did not overlook, the transport officers and drivers. Indeed, the transport officers are quite remarkable; they have carried on an extraordinary tradition that they inherited from Gordon Pike. One can virtually say 'I want a ticket on the Trans-Siberian Railway tomorrow' and one is likely to be told: 'I can get you there but I cannot get you a window seat'. The efficiency is quite extraordinary. The work of the Parliamentary Library staff, under the direction of the Parliamentary Librarian, Mr MacLean, is also extraordinary. While Ministers have public service departments to advise them on policy issues and some others of us have personal staff to assist in this process, most members rely almost entirely on the Library and its research service for the information required to examine and debate the issues brought before us. In my time as a member of this House I have always been deeply impressed by the efficiency and courtesy displayed by the Library staff. I do not believe the contribution they make towards enabling each of us to fulfil our duties can be overstated. The work of the Hansard people cannot be overstated either. Perhaps I am biased , having married the daughter of a former Principal Parliamentary Reporter, but the task of Mr Roberts is not as difficult as that of Mr Ken Ingram, my now father-in-law. Despite my bias, I acknowledge the extraordinary devotion to duty and the difficulties of syntax that must be faced, let alone the capacity to work adequately through the English language. Nevertheless, our words are transcribed with great dedication and accuracy, for which we are all extremely grateful. Mr Speaker, I extend to you our best wishes for the festive season. You will recall that your nomination to the position you now hold was not opposed by the Opposition, nor should it have been opposed. That decision reflected the confidence of this side of the House in you as a man of integrity and honour and that you would carry out the duties of your high office with diligence and dignity. You have done that. As we depart from this place I think it is fitting to indicate that we on this side have found the confidence that we reposed in you when you were nominated for the position to be fully justified. There have been occasions on which we have taken issue with some of your rulings when we believed that you had allowed perhaps too much latitude to those who wish to engage in one form or another of excessive debate, and not necessarily character assassination. We do not believe that all members on this side have been harshly dealt with. No doubt there will be occasions in the future when we will-no doubt we will warmly reciprocate when we can-but this does not detract in any way from the admiration for you and the dedication with which you have carried your often very onerous duties. I am personally conscious of the latitude you have shown to me on occasions. I trust I will not stretch your patience too far in the future. This is, of course, not normally a time for political speeches, and I have no intention of departing from that convention. Before we adjourn for the Christmas period I shall inject one sombre note. As a practising Christian I was moved by the Prime Minister's remarks concerning the way in which we will spend Christmas , and indeed moved by his remarks relating to those who are not of the same faith as myself. We are adjourning at a time when the country faces great economic and social problems. While we here are undoubtedly looking forward to Christmas celebrations with families or friends, three quarters of a million Australians are out of work. For them and the many thousands of school leavers who will shortly join them there is precious little to celebrate. The prospects of a significant reduction in the level of unemployment could be debated in this House. Nevertheless, there are those who will not spend the sort of Christmas that we will spend. All of us, whether in the Government or in the Opposition, certainly have a duty to reflect on this matter over the recess and re-examine where we are taking the country and what contribution we can jointly or severally make. Finally, I mention the work of new members of the House. The last 10 years have seen a very large turnover of honourable members on both sides of the Parliament . This year saw a very considerable influx of new members. Speaking for the Opposition, I would particularly like to mention the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) and the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) who so quickly have become valuable contributors to the deliberations of this House. With the experience they have gained to date, I am sure their contributions next year will be even more valuable. I cannot conclude without referring to the Press Gallery. As Thomas Jefferson said, whenever people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government. People have not always been well informed but they have been fully informed on most occasions. I have not always shared the assessments of the media observers. Indeed, I am reminded of the comment by another that a politician would not dream of being allowed to call a columnist the things a columnist is allowed to call a politician. Perhaps that is the nature of things. I think all of us would wish the Press best wishes for the season for they also have to sit through the gruelling hours that we sit. Finally, may I on this one occasion-I hope there will be more frequent occasions-express goodwill to those opposite, including the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I am well aware of the onerous duties that he has on his shoulders. I am well aware of how difficult they are to discharge. They are not always made any easier by the attacks in this Parliament, though from time to time he would claim that they are made easier as a consequence of our endeavours. The reality is that the matters that divide us nevertheless shrink in comparison with the task that jointly we carry out for the nation. Speaking on behalf of the Opposition, I trust that all in this Parliament will have a decent recess and that we can come back with decent democratic debate that will contribute to the nation's welfare. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance and Acting Leader of the House)(11. 27) —At this time I briefly join the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in their remarks as a novice Acting Leader of the House of short standing. I wish to express my appreciation to those people who have assisted in the transaction of the business of the House in the last couple of weeks. In doing so I know I represent the views of both the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the House (Mr Lionel Bowen), and his predecessor, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). I know that they would want me to convey particularly to the Parliamentary Liaison Officer, Lee Powell, and his assistant, Anne Marie Hodgson, our very deep appreciation for the assistance that they give us in this job. I would also like to thank the Clerks who, of course, are always there to give a word of advice and a word of caution from time to time about what is next to be done. I also convey my appreciation to the Hansard staff. I think we are all somewhat in awe of them and the work that they do. Our speeches always seem to be very much more erudite when they are printed than they ever seemed at the time they were actually delivered. I am sure that most of us have long given up the task of correcting the greens because the Hansard staff always seem to do a much better job than we could ever do. I come to a matter which some people might say is somewhat difficult for me and that is to thank the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) for the assistance that he has provided. Whilst some people might think it is difficult for me, I am sure that it is just as uncomfortable for him . I thank him for his co-operation. Our achievement tonight in improving the sitting hours for next year is going to be a very important step. The way in which it was transacted tonight, by agreement across the table, was a demonstration of the way in which this place can work when it is working at its best. Since the last time we had this kind of end of year expressions of gratitude to one another someone has departed from the Parliament. I think that should not go entirely unacknowledged. I thought that the Leader of the Opposition may have referred to the fact that a person from the country is not here with us. We ought to recognise that he decided, after a long period in this Parliament, to retire to a place-remembering Charles de Gaulle's self-exile-we might refer to as Colombey-Les-Deux woolshed otherwise known as Nareen. It is important to recognise the great contribution that a great number of people who have now retired from the Parliament have made. The only other point I want to make was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition at the end of his remarks. The Prime Minister asked me also to mention it. A somewhat extraordinary relationship exists between us down here and members of the Press Gallery up there. They always seem to be able to get away with much more in terms of what they can say about us than we ever dare to say about them. A tradition has been practised by them up there for some time-it was repeated only a few days ago-of producing report cards on some of us down here. A report card has come into my possession. I have no idea of its origin or authorship but it does represent a very interesting critique of the contribution that some members of the Press Gallery have made to the workings of the Parliament and the nation over the last few months. Once the motion before the House is disposed of I will table it in the House so that more honourable members can view it and make their own judgments about some of the members of the Press Gallery. I think it is important that we occasionally have an opportunity to say something about the contribution that they make, not that I am claiming any authorship for this document. I think this has been an enormously productive session. I thank members of the Opposition for their co-operation in the last couple of days. It is always a bit chaotic and unpredictable at the end of a session. I thank them for their co- operation over the last few days, if not for the weeks before. Mr ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(11.32) —I join the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the Acting Leader of the House (Mr Dawkins) in the valedictory remarks that have been made tonight. I have heard these remarks made over many years. I think the ceasefire tonight for these remarks is a very genuine ceasefire. I thank the Prime Minister for the sincerity with which he made his remarks. I also thank the Leader of the Opposition for the very competent way in which he comprehensively referred to so many people who are important to the workings of this institution. I express my seasonal greetings to all members of this Parliament and to all those people who are associated with it. May they have a happy Christmas and a good New Year. I know that the ceasefire that exists at the moment is going to be short-lived. As soon as the Christmas period is over members on this side of the House will be mobilising the resistance forces, and no doubt the Government will be looking for its supporters too. I want to say to those who are going home to wives and families: I hope you can have a very happy -- Mrs Kelly —And husbands. Mr ANTHONY —And husbands. I hope they all have a happy Christmas. The demands made on a parliamentarian and the sacrifices a family has to make are not generally appreciated by people. Therefore, it is very important that, within our acceptance of parliamentary life in this country, the electorate at least gives honourable members the chance of enjoying that period with their family. Having lived in this place and having reared a family as a parliamentarian, I know how very difficult it is to meet all the demands that are placed on one, both as a member of parliament and as a family man. It is the total reaction of everybody in this institution that makes it work. It infects all of us. The attendants who have been here for years, or the gardeners, or the people in the Press gallery, all look at us and at the way in which we behave as members of parliament. If we do not show some respect or some dignity for the place it will react against us. Those people talk. That talk spreads back to our own electorates and to our own party organisation. We suffer the consequences as a result. I am sure that even the honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman) is becoming much more modest in his remarks. I am sorry that he is not here. I am sure that he will become more modest. Give him another two years and he will be the most obedient member of this Parliament. Parliament does produce certain disciplines upon us. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the way in which you have tried to create an atmosphere in which we all have to respond, behave and react to make this place work. I must say that I am a very much better member of the Opposition now than I was in 1973. I think it is on record that in 1973 I was thrown out of the chamber twice by Mr Speaker. You have not even named me once this year. After a period Parliament improves all of us. I also thank my parliamentary colleagues for their support and help and also the members of the Liberal Party of Australia. It has been a difficult year for us. Having been the government for a number of years, it is not easy to go into opposition. I know that for those who have worked in the Opposition for many years being in government involves great excitement and a lot of exuberance. To many of the new members who have come into this place it must seem all very ridiculous and a waste of time. But they will get the feeling of the place. They must try to contribute and to show that they are worthwhile members of their electorates. That means making a contribution to this House. I am not a supporter of the committee system, particularly if committees are to sit while the Parliament is sitting. We should all be present in this House. We should all be making vigorous and healthy contributions to debate. I become very dismal and disappointed when people are speaking in this House and hardly anybody is paying any attention to them. I hope that in the course of next year the Prime Minister on his side and we on our side will try to discipline members to participate more in the actual functioning of this House rather than in some committee outside it. We are elected to be here, to be vocal, to say something and for people to hear what we say. I also thank the many people with whom I have been associated in this place for so long. I thank Doug Blake, who is now the Clerk. We used to play football together once. He became a clerk, and umpire. I just had to keep playing politics but I still know how to kick a ball if it comes near me. Reference has been made to many people. I would like to thank those mentioned by the Prime Minister and by the Leader of the Opposition. So many people function around this place and do their jobs with great devotion and dedication. I would also like to make reference to the Press. At times I hate them. At times I think they are not too bad. They are a discipline on all of us. I think that they help to make the place work properly as it should. Tonight the Prime Minister was holding a special dinner function for a very famous member of the Press Gallery, Alan Reid. I mention Alan Reid because he is a remarkable character. He is an institution in this place. He is not experiencing the best of health. My association with Alan Reid goes right back to 1954, when I was hitchhiking around the world as a young fellow. I ran into him in New York. He was very kind and looked after me. I had nothing to do with politics at the time . I knew him then as I have known so many people in Canberra. I came to Canberra in 1937 as a very young fellow. My father was a member of parliament. So, interwoven with all the life of Canberra, I suppose there is a multitude of people whom political life has given me the opportunity to meet. That has been wonderful. I have had a wonderful life as a result of being in this institution. I have never tried to build any deliberate enemies, although I will play politics with anybody, as I hope all honourable members will. But I hope that we can all maintain healthy personal relationships because if we do not, this institution will not work as it should. Happy Christmas to all and a happy New Year. I thank you. Mr SPEAKER —I think it is traditional that before putting the question the Speaker for once is allowed to address a few remarks to the House. I take the opportunity of reminding honourable members that it has been an interesting year . If one reflects on political life, although the election was held only in March we have had the resignation of three long-serving and distinguished members: The Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser, the Rt Hon. Sir Billy Mackie Snedden-my predecessor-and, of course, the Hon. Sir James Killen. I can never get used to ' Sir James Killen'. It was always 'Jim', as he was known to everyone. It is also interesting to reflect that when the replacements came along we had two former members in Don Cameron and Ken Aldred and a new one in Mr Hawker from Wannon. One of the other interesting events which occurred during the year was the use of this chamber for the National Economic Summit Conference. This was rather a departure from normal. It has inspired other groups to want to use the chamber but, as Presiding Officer, I have had to refuse. It has also been an interesting time in regard to a number of rulings which have arisen. I will not go through them but honourable members know that there have been a number of matters of privilege. A question of privilege arose when the House was not sitting. As a Presiding Officer who has to take action one wonders at times whether one will be backed up on those matters. The Department of the House of Representatives has taken over responsibility for a number of committees. A new committee has been established, the Joint Committee on Electoral Reform. Of course, the new Joint Committee on the New Parliament House has the responsibility of reporting on what is to happen to this provisional Parliament House when we shift to the new one. I do not think that honourable members could help but be interested in that matter, particularly when the architect does not want us to take the Speaker's Chair to the new chamber but wants us to have a new one. I must admit that I disagree with that. We have not yet addressed ourselves to the problem of the telecasting of proceedings of Parliament or any changes in broadcasting, although recently I have had the opportunity to see the telecasting of a number of parliaments. There is enormous pressure on accommodation in this House. We have managed to provide every honourable member with an office. I thank honourable members for their co-operation because there have been some difficult situations. The Whips and the members have co-operated very well. This year all parliamentary departments presented annual reports. For the first time this year there were two female Chairmen of Committees amongst the deputies . Mrs Child took the Speaker's Chair, the first woman to do so. Mrs Darling, the honourable member for Lilley, took the Chairmen of Committees Chair, the first woman to do so. I am quite pleased with that. We have been able to continue our international contacts through the conferences of the Inter-parliamentary Union and through the visiting delegations from other countries. Officers from a number of national parliaments have visited this House. I think it is not realised just how much good will that generates. A number of other speakers have addressed thanks to various people. I thank Les Johnson, the Chairman of Committees. Les is an old timer. I understand that Saturday is the 28th anniversary of his election to the Federal Parliament. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr SPEAKER —I place that on record. I thank the various Deputy Chairmen of Committees, the honourable members for Henty (Mrs Child), Lilley (Mrs Darling), Forrest (Mr Drummond), Ballarat (Mr Mildren), Wide Bay (Mr Millar), Banks (Mr Mountford), and Curtin (Mr Rocher). They have been a great help. I do not want to particularise in regard to the staff. Other members have done that. I do thank the Clerk and his staff at the table. They are a great support. When it was first announced that I was the nominee for the position of Speaker of the House of Representatives I went around to all sections of this building which would be under my control, the Hotel Kurrajong and East Block to meet the staff. I intend to do that next week and to see them again and thank them for the assistance that they have given me and all honourable members during the year. I must thank my personal staff. I think that the manning of the office in Canberra , even on non-sitting days, is working very well. The staff have become a very loyal and helpful team. I might add that my electorate secretary has been with me now for over 14 years, that is, the whole time that I have been a member of the Federal Parliament. I appreciate that help too. The Leader of the House (Mr Lionel Bowen), the Acting Leader of the House (Mr Dawkins), the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Sinclair) and the party Whips have all been very co- operative with me. Mention has been made of the media by other speakers. I present another aspect of the Press Gallery. If one visits the Press Gallery one realises that while the number of members of parliament has increased only marginally since 1949 the number of members of the Press Gallery has increased some sixfold. Members of the Press Gallery work under intolerable conditions and we are not able to give them any relief from that in the near future. However, when we have had occasion to make requests of the media regarding filming and other matters around the House it has honoured the undertakings it has given. When the Press has been asked for advice on how other people could be admitted to the Press Gallery and how accommodation could be provided, such as that provided for Channel 0-28, it has been most co-operative. I thank the Press for being so co-operative with the administration of the Parliament. Let me turn to the thanks that have been given to me for presiding over the House. I think that honourable members are aware that I have enjoyed the job, but I must express some disappointment. I have not achieved a lot of the things I would want to achieve. For example, regarding behaviour in the House, I believe I have been tolerant and reasonable. I believe most honourable members have taken advantage of me. I watched Billy Wentworth, the former member for Mackellar, sitting in the gallery today during Question Time. Billy was the first member of this House whom I named and had suspended back in 1975. I could see that he was absolutely green with envy at the latitude that all honourable members were being allowed during Question Time today. I have it in mind to make a New Year resolution that next session I will apply the Standing Orders much more rigidly. I invite all honourable members to read the response I made upon my election as Speaker, when I passed some reference to the nature of questions and answers in the House. I suggested that questions should be succinct and seek information and that answers should be just as succinct and supply information. I think that on any reasonable reading of Hansard my disappointment would be understandable. I thank all honourable members for their co-operation and the atmosphere that there is in this House, not just in the chamber but generally around the building. Earlier in the evening a lot of mention of the sitting hours was made by members. It was suggested that one of the important things was that members should be able to have more time with their families. This will be an opportunity to have time with your families. I have six grandchildren. I am going to enjoy them. I enjoy them all the more because I can always send them home to their parents in the evening. Someone said 'What about Wendy?' She has been a constant companion and activist in politics and parliamentary life over the years. I am most grateful that I met her in the first place. Both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in their own way mentioned that some members can draw on spiritual beliefs in this season; others do not necessarily carry those beliefs to that degree. I hope that this will be a chance for honourable members to reflect and to rest from the necessarily hectic parliamentary life. I am sure that each of us in our own way is determined to play his or her part in making a better world for fellow members of the Australian community. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) agreed to: That leave of absence be given to every member of the House or Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of the next sitting. House adjourned at 11.51 p.m., until Tuesday, 28 February 1984, at 2 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 442 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Com- munications, 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 Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No departmental funds 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. Question No. 466 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 7 September 1983: Have any foreign naval vessels been invited to visit Western Australian ports during the remainder of 1983; if so, (a) what are the vessels, (b) what ports will they visit and (c) when will these visits take place. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The following foreign naval vessels have visited Western Australian ports since September 1983: Ship Port Date USS Holland Fremantle 4-7 Sep USS Boston HMAS STIRLING 9-16 Sep USS Lockwood HMAS STIRLING 22-23 Sep USSMarvin Shields HMAS STIRLING 22-24 Sep HMNZS Canterbury HMAS STIRLING 22-23 Sep HMNZS Canterbury Fremantle 14-18 Oct USS Marvin Shields Geraldton 12-16 Oct USS Lockwood Port Hedland 12-17 Oct USS Marvin Shields HMAS STIRLING 17-26 Oct USS Peleliu Fremantle 1-3 Nov USS Fort Fisher Fremantle 1-3 Nov USS San Bernadino Fremantle 1-3 Nov USS Mispillion Fremantle 1-7 Nov RFA Appleleaf Albany 1-13 Nov HMS Invincible Fremantle 5-12 Nov HMS Aurora Fremantle 5-12 Nov HMS Rothesay Fremantle 5-12 Nov RFA Regent Fremantle 5-12 Nov RFA Olmeda Albany 6-13 Nov USS Peleliu Fremantle 8-11 Nov USS San Bernadino Fremantle 8-11 Nov USS Fort Fisher Fremantle 8-11 Nov USS Mispillion Fremantle 8-11 Nov JMSDF Shirase Fremantle 28 Nov- 3 Dec Approval has been given to a visit by the USS William Bates to HMAS Stirling from 5-12 December 1983. Question No. 585 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 5 October 1983: (1) What property or land is (a) owned and (b) leased by the Commonwealth in the subdivisions of (i) Balcatta, (ii) Balga, (iii) North Beach, (iv) Scarborough and (v) Wembley Downs in the electoral division of Stirling. (2) In each of the cases to what purpose is the land or property put and by what organisation. (3) Where the Commonwealth is leasing property or land, from whom is it being leased. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1), (2) and (3) Departmental records indicate that the following information is that sought. Table 'A' shows the information requested in respect of owned property. Table ' B' shows the information requested in respect of leased property. TABLE 'A' OWNED PROPERTIES Electoral Division of Stirling Sub-division Address Use Occupant Balcatta Part Lot 127 Wanneroo Road, TUART HILL Migrant Flats Immigration Lot 11 Wanneroo Road and Cape Street, TUART HILL Post Office Australia Post Lot 77 Cape Street, OSBORNE PARK Migrant Flats Immigration Lot 40 Main and Powell Streets, OSBORNE PARK Surplus Line Depot Telecom Balga Lot 25 Sudbury Place, MIRRABOOKA Vacant Post Office Site Australia Post Lot 1 Osborne Road, DIANELLA Microwave Terminal Telecom Lots 5 and 6 Myimbar Way and Wanneroo Road, NOLLAMARA Telephone Exchange Telecom North Beach Ptn Swan Loc. 'K', Blissett Way and Wanneroo Road, HAMERSLEY National Broadcasting Stn. 6WF Communications Lot 101 Halley Road and Geddes Street, BALCATTA Vacant Mail Centre Site Australia Post Lots 25 and 26 George Street, NORTH BEACH Surplus Telephone Exchange Telecom Lot 1 Balcatta Road, HAMERSLEY Telephone Engineering Centre Telecom Scarborough Lot 1239 Scarborough Beach Road/Huntriss Road, DOUBLEVIEW Telephone Exchange Telecom Lot 1217/1218 Scarborough Beach Road/Woodside Street, DOUBLEVIEW Post Office Australia Post Lot 1 Beach Road/Okley Road, CARINE Telephone Exchange Telecom Lot 7 Scarborough Beach Road, SCARBOROUGH Post Office Australia Post Wembley Downs Lots 10 and 11 Stanley Street, /SCARBOROUGH Telephone Exchange Telecom Lot 9 Stanley Street, SCARBOROUGH House (storage) Telecom Table B Leased Properties Electorial Division of Stirling Sub-division Address Use Occupant Lessor BALCATTA Northlands Shopping Plaza-Cnr. Amelia and Wanneroo Roads, Balcatta Shop 7 Post Office Australia Post Northlands Plaza Pty Ltd 60 Guthries Street, Osborne Park Work Preparation Centre Social Security Permanent Trustee Nominees (Canberra) Ltd Osborne Arcade-213 Main Street, Osborne Park Part ground floor Post Office Australia Post G.P.A. Pty Ltd BALGA 119 residences at the following addresses: Residential Defence (Army) State Housing Commission WA 20 Albourne Place, Balga 23 Albourne Place, Balga 5 Aldwick Place, Balga 33 Amberley Way, Balga 35 Amberley Way, Balga 41 Amberley Way, Balga 43 Amberley Way, Balga 8 Ashcroft Way, Balga 24 Ashcroft Way, Balga 36 Birchley Cresent, Balga 49 Birchley Cresent, Balga 34 Blackbourne Way, Balga 96 Camberwell Road, Balga 22 Changton Way, Balga 14 Chilgrove Way, Balga 39 Chilgrove Way, Balga 68 Culloton Crescent, Balga 76 Culloton Crescent, Balga 78 Culloton Crescent, Balga 44 Dallington Crescent, Balga 18 Danehill Way, Balga 40 Danehill Way, Balga 15 Deering Street, Balga 3 Earnley Way, Balga 14 Earnley Way, Balga 22 Earnley Way, Balga 26 Earnley Way, Balga 12 Fenwick Street, Balga 14 Fenwick Street, Balga 44 Fernhust Crescent, Balga 12 Finchley Crescent, Balga 26 Finchley Crescent, Balga 30 Finchley Crescent, Balga 85 Finchley Crescent, Balga 100 Finchley Crescent, Balga 108 Finchley Crescent, Balga 16 Findon Crescent, Balga 6 Fletching Street, Balga 5 Framfield Way, Balga 5 Garnett Place, Balga 25 Garrick Way, Balga 5 Hepburn Way, Balga 12 Heyshott Road, Balga 27 Hornsey Way, Balga 21 Keeble Way, Balga 26 Keeble Way, Balga 29 Keeble Way, Balga 16 Keemore Drive, Balga 26 Keemore Drive, Balga 3 Kilmurray Way, Balga 15 Kilmurray Way, Balga 1 Markham Way, Balga 23 Markham Way, Balga 33 Markham Way, Balga 48 Markham Way, Balga 5 Mentone Road, Balga 5 Mildway Way, Balga 14 Mildway Way, Balga 17 Mildway Way, Balga 24 Mildway Way, Balga 32 Mildway Way, Balga 39 Mildway Way, Balga 177 Mirrabooka Avenue, Balga 10 Newport Way, Balga 67 Newport Way, Balga 19 Offham Way, Balga 23 Offham Way, Balga 31 Offham Way, Balga 35 Offham Way, Balga 6 Patchem Way, Balga 30 Peddie Place, Balga 4 Pedler Place, Balga 16 Pedler Place, Balga 25 Playden Way, Balga 76 Redcliffe Avenue, Balga 10 Ringmer Way, Balga 13 Ringmer Way, Balga 16 Ringmer Way, Balga 22 Ringmer Way, Balga 30 Ringmer Way, Balga 3 Rotherfield Road, Balga 11 Rotherfield Road, Balga 21 Rotherfield Road, Balga 52 Salma Way, Balga 6 Selhurst Way, Balga 15 Selhurst Way, Balga 26 Selhurst Way, Balga 42 Selhurst Way, Balga 52 Shelbred Way, Balga 17 Shipley Place, Balga 21 Shipley Place, Balga 35 St. Kilda Road, Balga 39 St. Kilda Road, Balga 42 Storrington Crescent, Balga 4 Stroughton Road, Balga 32 Stroughton Road, Balga 34 Stroughton Road, Balga 36 Tangmere Way, Balga 21 Ticehurst Way Balga 35 Ticehurst Way, Balga 49 Ticehurst Way, Balga 11 Wadhurst Street, Balga 18 Wadhurst Street, Balga 7 Walderton Avenue, Balga 11 Walderton Avenue, Balga 59 Walderton Avenue, Balga 37 Wisborough Crescent, Balga 49 Wisborough Crescent, Balga 29 Worthing Street, Balga 31 Worthing Street, Balga 50 Hancock Street, Nollamara 27 Millsborough Drive, Nollamara 10 Munja Way, Nollamara 27 Olebury Street, Nollamara 12 Paltarra Road, Nollamara 129 Ravenswood Drive, Nollamara 133 Ravenswood Drive, Nollamara 41 St. Albans Road, Nollamara 11 Sylvia Place, Nollamara 94 residences at the following addresses: residential Defence (Air) State Housing Commission WA 18 Albourne Way, Balga 121 Arkana Road, Balga 174 Arkana Road, Balga 178 Arkana Road, Balga 84 Balney Street, Balga 18 Barrows Way, Balga 11 Bersted Street, Balga 2 Birchley Crescent, Balga 6 Birchley Crescent, Balga 14 Birchley Crescent, Balga 16 Birchley Crescent, Balga 26 Birchley Crescent, Balga 20 Brede Place, Balga 12 Burford Street, Balga 18 Burford Street, Balga 7 Camberwell Road, Balga 15 Camberwell Road, Balga 19 Camberwell Road, Balga 21 Camberwell Road, Balga 23 Camberwell Road, Balga 25 Camberwell Road, Balga 8 Changton Way, Balga 16 Chisholm Way, Balga 25 Chisholm Way, Balga 116 Culloton Crescent, Balga 38 Danehill Way, Balga 24 Deering Street, Balga 5 Elward Place, Balga 15 Elward Way, Balga 16 Elward Way, Balga 20 Elward Way, Balga 35 Elward Way, Balga 41 Elward Way, Balga 43 Elward Way, Balga 47 Elward Way, Balga 49 Etchingham Road, Balga 53 Etchingham Road, Balga 11 Fenwick Street, Balga 5 Halland Way, Balga 41 Halland Way, Balga 12 Hartfield Way, Balga 3 Louden Street, Balga 12 Louden Street, Balga 21 Louden Street, Balga 26 Louden Street, Balga 29 Louden Street, Balga 3 Maitland Road, Balga 11 Maitland Road, Balga 23 Maitland Road, Balga 33 Maitland Road, Balga 41 Maitland Road, Balga 5 Mayfield Street, Balga 46 Medbury Road, Balga 1 Newbury Street, Balga 20 Princess Road, Balga 9 Ringmer Way, Balga 47 Salmar Way, Balga 53 Salmar Way, Balga 3 Steyning Way, Balga 14 Steyning Way, Balga 3 Tolsun Street, Balga 26 Wallington Road, Balga 604 Wanneroo Road, Balga 640 Wanneroo Road, Balga 660 Wanneroo Road, Balga 664 Wanneroo Road, Balga 13 Wardong Road, Balga 45 Wittering Crescent, Balga 1 Milford Place, Nollamara 30 Milford Way, Nollamara 7 Newhaven Way, Nollamara 12 Newhaven Way, Nollamara 14 Newhaven Way, Nollamara 20 Newhaven Way, Nollamara 24 Newhaven Way, Nollamara 175 Nollamara Avenue, Nollamara 179 Nollamara Avenue, Nollamara 181 Nollamara Avenue, Nollamara 16 Paltarra Road, Nollamara 20 Paltarra Road, Nollamara 5 Quondong Street, Nollamara 14 Quondong Street, Nollamara 84 Ravenswood Drive, Nollamara 110 Ravenswood Drive, Nollamara 11 Robertsbridge Road, Nollamara 15 Robertsbridge Road, Nollamara 19 Robertsbridge Road, Nollamara 3 Tetworth Crescent, Nollamara 5 Tetworth Crescent, Nollamara 6 Tetworth Crescent, Nollamarra 10 Tetworth Crescent, Nollamara 16 Tetworth Crescent, Nollamara 5 Winchelsea Road, Nollamara 31 Winchelsea Road, Nollamara Mirrabooka House, Ilkeston Place, Mirrabooka Part Ground and 1st Floor Regional Office Social Security Burns Philp Trustee Co. Ltd. Part Ground Floor CES Office Employment and Industrial Relations North Beach 20 residences at the following addresses: residential Defence (Army) State Housing Commission W.A. 6 Bridgewater Crescent, Karrinyup 10 Bridgewater Crescent, Karrinyup 47 Bridgewater Crescent, Karrinyup 14 Burroughs Road, Karrinyup 26 Burroughs Road, Karrinyup 34 Burroughs Road, Karrinyup 36 Burroughs Road, Karrinyup 38 Burroughs Road, Karrinyup 40 Burroughs Road, Karrinyup 69 Pascoe Street, Karrinyup 75 Pascoe Street, Karrinyup 95 Pascoe Street, Karrinyup 5 Charles Riley Road, North Beach 35 Charles Riley Road, North Beach 19 Drayton Way, North Beach 5 Gayton Place, North Beach 11 Gayton Place, North Beach 1 Wilby Street, North Beach 3 Wilby Street, North Beach 6 Wilby Street, North Beach Wembley Downs 7 residences at the following addresses: residential Defence (Army) State Housing Commission W.A. 20 Bournemouth Crescent, Wembley Downs 96 Hale Road, Wembley Downs 50 Sulman Drive, Wembley Downs 54 Sulman Drive, Wembley Downs 56 Sulman Drive, Wembley Downs 62 Sulman Drive, Wembley Downs 159 Weaponess Road, Wembley Downs 2 residences at the following addresses: Residential Defence (Navy) State Housing Commission W.A. 124 Calais Road, Wembley Downs 126 Calais Road, Wembley Downs Northcourt Building, Karrinyup Shopping Centre, Karrinyup Road, Karrinyup Suites 2.5/6 Electoral Office Special Minister of State St. Martin's Properties (Aust.) Ltd Suites 1.5 and 1.6 Member's Office Special Minister of State Karrinyup Shopping Centre, Karrinyup Road, Karrinyup Shops 7-9 Post Office Australia Post St. Martin's (Karrinyup) Pty Ltd Shops 43-44 Telecom Business Office Telecom North Beach Shopping Centre, 1 North Beach Road, North Beach Shop 14 Post Office Australia Post W. N. Woodward and V. A. Woodward Scarborough Alvito House, 384 Scarborough Beach Road, Innaloo Part Ground and 1st Floor CES Office Employment and Industrial Relations (Alvito Pty Ltd) Part Ground and 1st Floor Regional Office Social Security 11 residences at the following address: Residential Defence (Army) State Housing Commission W.A. 4 Crabbe Place, Karrinyup 79 Grand Promenade, Karrinyup 89 Grand Promenade, Karrinyup 1 Jackson Avenue, Karrinyup 110 Newborough Street, Karrinyup 112 Newborough Street, Karrinyup 134 Newborough Street, Karrinyup 142 Newborough Street, Karrinyup 146 Newborough Street, Karrinyup 32 Westview Street, Scarborough 35 Westview Street, Scarborough Question No. 613 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 October 1983: (1) Did Australia sign the 1977 Convention on the International Organisation for Maritime Satellite Communication to make maritime communication by satellite available to all nations. (2) Has the Soviet Union, United States of America, France, Canada and Japan launched an international rescue satellite. (3) Will the Government recommend to the United States similar co-operation in the use of joint Australian-USA facilities for international (a) arms disarmament and war surveillance, (b) peace-keeping and (c) confidence building. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Convention on the International Maritime Satellite Organisation-( INMARSAT)-was drawn up in London on 3 September 1976. Australia signed the Convention on 1 February 1977. Australia's instrument of ratification was deposited on 16 March 1979 and entered into force on 16 July 1979. (2) Three satellites with search and rescue facility have been launched under the auspices of the International Joint Venture Project in Satellite Aided Search and Rescue-the COSPAS/SARSAT Project-which involves joint arrangements between the USA, Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, France, Norway, the United Kingdom and Brazil. An additional five such satellites are expected to be launched by 1990. (3) If, at some stage in the future, an international organisation were to be established which was capable of making effective use of such facilities for international (a) arms disarmament and war surveillance, (b) peace-keeping and ( c) confidence building the Government would consider how it might be able to assist the organisation. At this stage, however, the Government does not believe it would be either appropriate or practicable to seek changes to the arrangements governing the operations of joint defence facilities in Australia along the lines proposed in the question. As the Prime Minister and I have indicated on several occasions recently, the joint defence facilities already contribute to peace-keeping, through their role in the deterrence of nuclear war . Question No. 659 Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 November 1983: (1) Has the Government received reports about the construction of a trench approximately 16 kilometres inside the Thai-Kampuchea border, with a length of over 30 kilometres. (2) If so, is he able to say (a) what are the precise location, length and dimensions and (b) what is the purpose of the trench. (3) Is he able to say whether the trench is (a) mined, (b) equipped with anti- personnel devices and (c) hazardous to the movement of civilians. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) We have noted regional media reports of trenches on the Kampuchean side of the border. (2) (a) The reported length of the trench or trenches has varied from 25 to several hundred kilometres. Locations given cover most of the western section of the border. The trenches are usually reported to be about six metres wide. (b) The purpose is believed to be the control of movement of the border population. (3) (a) Some reports mention mines. (b) Sharpened stakes are reported placed in the bottom of the trenches. (c) On the basis of the information provided above it would appear that the trenches are hazardous to the movement of civilians. Question No. 725 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 9 November 1983 : What action is he taking to resolve the dispute between Telecom Australia and members of the Australian Telephone and Phonogram Officers' Association. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows, based on advice received from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: A joint study by Telecom Australia, the Australian Telephone and Phonogram Officers' Association and the Australian Council of Trade Unions into telephonist staff employment has now been under way for some months. Telecom Australia has informed me that negotiations between the parties are continuing with the object of reaching agreement before the end of January 1984. Question No. 741 Mr Scott asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 10 November 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on Threats to Australia's Security, which concluded on pages 18-19 that it would be prudent for Australian defence planners to assume that the joint facilities at North West Cape, Pine Gap or Nurrungar are on the Soviet target list and might be attacked in the course of a nuclear conflict between the two super-powers and that in other words, there is a finite risk that one or all of the facilities would be attacked during a Soviet-United States war that involved their nuclear strategic forces. (2) Does the Government recognise that there could be a risk to the joint United States-Australian facilities in the event of nuclear war. (3) Does the Government consider it the responsibility of the State and Territory governments in consultation with the Commonwealth Government, to judge what, if any, civil defence preparations for the benefit of the civil population in the vicinity of the joint facilities should be made now and the resources they wish to allocate to such preparations. (4) What consultations, if any, have taken place between relevant Commonwealth Government departments and the State and Territory governments on possible arrangements to give some form of protection, if any, to the civil population in the vicinity of these joint facilities. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The Government recognises that there could be a risk but judges that the contribution made by the joint defence facilities to deterrence of nuclear war fully justifies any risks that might be seen as arising from our having those facilities in Australia. (3) Yes. (4). Regular consultation takes place between the Commonwealth, State and Territory authorities responsible for counter disaster and civil defence arrangements. In addition, the Commonwealth has sponsored several studies of specific areas of counter disaster and civil defence such as: the protection of the public from the effects of ionising radiation; mass-casualty management; and handling of mass burns. There have been no requests from State or Territory governments for consultation of a more specific nature on the matter referred to by the honourable member. Question No. 784 Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 16 November 1983: Is he able to say (a) what the Government's view is of proposals for perpetual leasehold title for residential and commercial properties in the Australian Capital Territory and (b) whether the concept of estate management is inconsistent with long-term leasing arrangements. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) and (b) The introduction of perpetual leasehold for residential and commercial properties would substantially reduce the ability of the Commonwealth Government to effectively manage its estate in the Australian Capital Territory by removing the ability to periodically review the basis of the grant. Accordingly, the Government does not intend to review the existing legislation which limits the term of business and residential leases to a maximum of 99 years. Lessees have the right to renew the lease at the end of term if the Commonwealth has decided not to sub-divide the land and it is not required for a Commonwealth purpose. Question No. 796 Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: (1) Did the Government undertake during the election campaign to maintain the real value of general revenue grants to local government, the allocation in any year to be not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation. (2) Did the comsumer price index over the period June 1982 to June 1983 rise by 11.2 per cent. (3) Did general revenue grants to local government over the same period rise by 8.2 per cent. (4) Will the Government by allocating the additional 3 per cent or $13m in 1983 -84 in keeping with its election pledge; if not, when will the Government meet its commitment. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. (4) The allocation of revenue sharing funds for local government is set each year at a level established by the previous Liberal-Country Party Government in 1980-81 as being 2 per cent of personal income tax collections in the preceding financial year. This approach provided for a $35m increase for the 1983-84 on the $424m grant in 1982-83, ie. 8.2 per cent. It is estimated that the year on year movement of the consumer price index during the current financial year will be 7.5 per cent. This provides a small real terms increase in this funding. Question No. 814 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 November 1983: (1) Is he able to say whether (a) the United States Government has unilaterally suspended negotiations with the Soviet Union on a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and (b) the principal objection to the treaty is the need for regular stockpile reliability confirmation by the United States Department of Defence and Energy and their denial that 10 to 15 national seismic stations on Soviet territory with cryptologic systems to guarantee continuous unmodified monitoring are adequate. (2) Does the Non-Proliferation Treaty require negotiations, in good faith, by the super-powers to end the arms race and eliminate nuclear weapons. (3) Will Australia propose a treaty forbidding underground testing of moderate to large scale atomic weapons detectable by remote sensors and invite French concurrence. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1a) Trilateral discussions between the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States on a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons tests in all environments, including a proposed protocol covering nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes, took place from July 1977 until November 1980, when they were adjourned on the change in the United States Administration. In July 1982 the United States decided not to resume the trilateral negotiations, although United States Government spokesmen, including Vice President Bush in the Committee on Disarmament on 4 February 1983, have reiterated the commitment of the United States to the conclusion of a comprehensive test ban treaty (CTBT) as a long term objective. (1b) The United States Administration has not given a public explanation of any reservations it may have had about the provisions that were discussed in the trilateral negotiations. It is understood that the United States saw inadequacies in the verification procedures and techniques envisaged in the draft. (2) Article 6 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty states 'each of the parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control'. (3) Australia's approach is focused on the achievement of a comprehensive test ban which would bring about an end to all nuclear testing by all states in all environments for all time. A resolution to this end sponsored by Australia and New Zealand was adopted by the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly on 22 November by 99 votes in favour, none against and 31 abstentions, including the five nuclear weapons states and the Warsaw Pact countries other than Rumania. A Treaty proposal seeking to prohibit underground testing of moderate to large scale devices would be a lesser measure than a comprehensive test ban and the Government considers that at this stage it should concentrate on the main objective. Pending a comprehensive test ban, the Government would welcome partial steps, such as limitations to the size, number or frequency of nuclear test explosions, and to their geographical spread. The scope for Australian initiatives to secure acceptance by nuclear weapon States of such partial measures receives on-going attention in my Department. In any such action, care must be taken not to undermine in any way our main objective of a comprehensive test ban. Question No. 816 Mr Reeves asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy , upon notice, on 17 November 1983: What sums are being spent, and on what projects, in the Northern Territory under the water resources assessment program and the flood plain management program for which $1.457m was allocated in the 1983-84 Budget. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Of $1.457m allocated to the Northern Territory in 1983-84 under the national water resources program, $1.357m is for water resources assessment, on a dollar for dollar basis with the Territory towards expenditures on a wide range of water resources assessment activities, including the operation and maintenance of stream-gauging stations, the collection of baseline water quality data, groundwater drilling and investigations, and water resources data processing and analysis for planning and management purposes. $0.100m has been allocated for floodplain management, on a dollar for dollar basis with the Territory towards expenditures on storm surge modelling studies, floodplain modelling studies at Katherine, and floodplain mapping. Question No. 875 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 30 November 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to (a) paragraph 15 of the French Constitution preamble consenting to reciprocal limitation of national sovereignty for defence of the peace, (b) article 24 of the West German Constitution giving power to the Federal Government similarly to limit national sovereignty for security, peace and compulsory international dispute settlement by arbitration and making federal law subject to international law binding directly on inhabitants, (c) article 20 of the Danish Constitution allowing a vote of four out of five parliamentarians or a majority of Parliament plus a referendum to transfer national powers to international authorities for international legal order and co-operation and (d) article 9 of the Japanese Constitution renouncing the sovereign right to force in favour of a hoped-for international peace, based on justice and order, in settling international disputes and renouncing maintenance of armed forces, war potential and the right to make war. (2) If so, will he prepare with the Attorney-General proposals for a similar modern requirement for survival in the Australian Constitution. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am advised that the present French Constitution does not contain a preambular paragraph 15. I am further advised that the Constitutions of the Federal Republic of Germany, Denmark and Japan contain provisions of the subjects mentioned in the question but not precisely in the terms stated. (2) I am advised that there is no impediment in the Australian Constitution as presently drafted to Australia's meeting its present and future obligations in respect of maintenance of international peace and security. Question No. 877 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 30 November 1983: (1) Has the Government endorsed the 1980 view of the United Nations committee on 12, including an Australian, stated in UN DOC: A/35/392 on General and Complete Disarmament: Comprehensive Study on Nuclear Weapons, that deterrence through terror is perhaps the most dangerous collective fallacy, that use of even one nuclear weapon could become a total holocaust, that current control systems however sophisticated are uncertain, and that what is needed is strong public opinion which should, in time, create the political will to transfer security reliance to a universally accepted system based on universally accepted instruments of international law, if not, why not. (2) Has the Government endorsed the view of Professor John H. E. Fried, legal consultant to the Nuremberg Tribunals and later to the United Nations, that nuclear weapons are illegal, stated in his article 'Law and Nuclear War' The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, June 1982 page 67; if not, why not. (3) Is he able to say whether the 1907 Hague Convention IV regulations prohibited wanton or indiscriminate destruction and the 1949 Geneva Convention on The Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War obliged all belligerents to ensure civilian health, safety and sustenance. (4) Did the UN General Assembly, in resolution 1653 (VI), reaffirmed in 1978 and 1980, declared nuclear war to be a crime against humanity. (5) Is he able to say whether declared United States policy is in effect to use conventional defence until losing to a nuclear power, then tactical nuclear weapons until losing, then to blow-up the earth; and whether Union Soviet Socialist Republic policy is to blow-up earth if attacked by nuclear weapons, if so has Australia drawn to the attention of the US and USSR the illegality of these actions if not, why not. (6) Does Australia support the call of Parliamentarians for World Order for (a) enforceable disarmament of all nations to the level of arms needed for internal security, (b) an international organisation to monitor disarmament with satellite and on-site inspection, (c) an individually recruited world peace force to enforce disarmament and prevent international aggression, (d) an effective system of world tribunals, (e) a fixed proportion of resources saved through disarmament to provide a world fund for development in the poorest nations and, (f) General Assembly votes, by three out of four nations which include three out of four of the world's population and contribute three out of four dollars to the UN, to be empowered to over-rule the Security Council veto and make international law and arbitration of international disputes enforceable by that peace force and those tribunals; if not, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government agrees with much of the sentiment expressed in the question but has formed the view that in the present circumstances deterrence is the only viable option of effective restraint to nuclear conflict. In particular the Government agrees that public opinion can be a strong force in influencing the policies on democratic countries. For this reason it favours the development of well informed public opinion supporting balanced and verifiable arms control and disarmament agreements, but not unilateral disarmament. The Government is conscious that countries such as the Soviet Union do not permit public opinion to function in a free and democratic manner. It is not therefore possible to have the same expectations of the influence of public opinion in the Soviet Union and other authoritarian countries as in democratic countries. A universally accepted system based on universally accepted instruments of international law on which countries would rely for their security is a worthy ideal. It is however more ambitious than the Charter of the United Nations whose implementation continues to fall far short of what the Government would wish. (2) No. The Government notes that the subject of the legality of the use of nuclear weapons is a matter of continuing debate within the international community. See e.g. the article by Elliott L. Meyrowitz on page 49 of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists for October 1983. (3) and (4) Yes. (5) The defence policies of the United States and the Soviet Union are open to varying interpretations as reflected in many commentaries on this subject. It is clear that both include the threat of the use of nuclear weapons to deter aggression. The Government has not formed a view that the Soviet Union and the United States have acted illegally in formulating their defence policies. (6) The Government considers that progress on disarmament can and should be made through negotiation and through existing international institutions. There is no reason to assume that new institutions as proposed by the Parliamentarians for World Order would function more effectively than those already in existence. The possibility is however not excluded of the Government supporting the establishment of an international verification agency. The Government considers that verification is an important aspect of arms control and disarmament. It supports international efforts to develop proper verification arrangements as part of arms control and disarmament agreements. It is conceivable that an international agency might be a proper means to provide verification for one or more such agreements. This is one of the matters to be established in current and future negotations. Question No. 878 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 30 November 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a report from Melbourne in the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin on 14 September 1983, page 2, that according to a consultant to the Australian Council for Overseas Aid, Indonesian troops killed about 200 people as a reprisal in East Timor after losing 15 killed and 20 badly wounded in the Viqueque area the previous month. (2) Has his attention also been drawn to an AAP report from Jakarta in the same journal on 16 September 1983, quoting some senior officials in Timor, as believing one reason for renewed fighting was Fretilin frustration at the failure of Australia's parliamentary delegation to visit a guerilla camp, as invited, or to pay independence aims more attention. (3) If so, will he ensure that any continuing military aid to Indonesia is not such as would facilitate mass violence. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The information available to the Government does not substantiate the claim that Indonesian troops killed about 200 people in reprisal for the attack near Dilor on 8 August in which 15 Indonesian soldiers were killed. (2) Yes. It should be noted, however, that military operations by Fretilin are customary in the lead-up to the UN General Assembly's consideration of the East Timor issue. The attack near Dilor appears to have been in keeping with this pattern. (3) The Government's attitude to mass violence and other human rights abuses are well known. Australia's defence co-operation program with Indonesia, like the programs with other South East Asian countries, is designed to strengthen the capacity of recipient countries to resist external aggression. Activities under the program complement those in the political, economic and cultural fields and often focus on projects which contribute to civil and economic development. Question No. 879 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 30 November 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to Taking Australia off the Map, by Jim Falk, giving evidence that the nuclear deterrent is increasingly unstable and The Fate of the Earth, by Jonathan Schell, claiming that the nuclear deterrents are not credible except as a continuing arms race towards first-strike or retaliatory victory in nuclear war. (2) If so, does the Government plan to inform the public of its response to these allegations; if so, when. (3) Does the Government accept that, before either of the superpowers can be expected to take seriously the current United Nations disarmament campaign, at least one nation, less emotionally polarised, must demonstrate its capacity to educate its people away from a nationalistic approach to world security and towards a public demand for supra-national security systems. (4) Will as much be spent on this form of education as on education for any other subject which will become irrelevant when nuclear weapon exchanges start. (5) What will the Government do to encourage the telecasting of The Day After in Australia as soon as possible which was reviewed in The Weekend Australian, 19-20 November 1983, page 14. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The Government's position on nuclear deterrence has been stated on a number of occasions. (3) and (4) No. The Government does not accept any preconditions on the superpowers taking seriously the current United Nations Disarmament Campaign. (5) The choice of programs for television in Australia is a matter for the network themselves to decide. Given the attention which the program The Day After has received, I would not be surprised if it were to be shown in Australia in the near future. Question No. 880 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 30 November 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Weekend Australian, 19-20 November 1983, page 8, that the Defense budget approved by the United States Congress on 18 November, includes $24m to overthrow the Nicaraguan Government. (2) If so, can he say if this is additional to any sums spent by the Central Intelligence Agency or other US departments for a like purpose. (3) What has he told US authorities of Australia's attitude to foreign subversion and interference in the policies of other nations. (4) Has he evidence that Nicaragua's regime is more democratic than the US- backed regime it displaced. (5) Will he seek, at the United Nations, and international declaration of the rights of peoples and principles of democratic self-determination. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware that the U.S. Defense Appropriation Act approved by the Congress on 18 November states that 'During fiscal year 1984, not more than $24 million of the funds available to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities may be obligated or expended for the purpose or which would have the effect of supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua by any nation, group, organisation, movement or ''individual'',. (2) The specific wording in that Act does not authorise additional expenditure by those Agencies beyond the U.S. $24m for covert operations in Nicaragua in FY1984 unless the Administration returns to Congress to seek additional funds at a later stage. Identical language is contained in the Intelligence Authorisation Act. I understand it is expected that the funds will last until June 1984 at current rates of expenditure. (3) The Australian policy statement on Central America which I presented to the Australia, New Zealand and United States ministerial conference in Washington of 18-19 July includes the point that Australia looks to the United States to balance its legitimate right to be concerned about security in Central America with a real concern for economic and social reform in the area and the promotion of stable democratic governments. Australia affirmed the position adopted by the UN Security Council earlier this year, that Nicaragua and all the other countries of Central America have the right to live in peace and security, free from outside interference. (4) I stressed in my statement in Washington that Nicaragua is seeking to develop a new society after years of the oppressive dictatorship of Anastasio Somoza and has a right to choose its form of government without outside interference. The Sandinista revolution stood for important principles which had received wide international support. Australia is concerned, however, that there has been an erosion recently of pluralism and civil liberties which had been part of the Nicaraguan revolution. Australia believes that the Nicaraguan Government and all other groups should give first priority to realising the expectations of the Nicaraguan people to lead better lives. (5) Such an initiative is not currently in contemplation. However, the right to self-determination is embodied in several fundamental international human rights instruments, notable the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In addition, the Australian delegation made some preliminary soundings at the 37th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights on the question of the right to self-determination in post-colonial situations, notable with regard to the democratic aspects of this right (such as the right to participate in regular free and fair elections). Question No. 7 Dr Klugman asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: What has been the cost to revenue in each of the last five years for the tax exemption granted under section 78 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 for donations to each of the organisations referred to in sub-paragraphs (1) (a) (i) to (1) (a) (lxxi) of that section. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The income tax statistics include information on deductions allowed under sub- paragraph 78 (1) (a) (xv) of the Income Tax Assessment Act, for gifts to approved school building funds, but deductions allowed under each of the other sub-paragraphs are not recorded separately. It is not possible, therefore, to provide details of the cost to income tax revenue of allowing deductions for gifts to each of the other organisations or classes of organisation referred to. However, based on the available statistics in respect of deductions allowed in assessment of individuals for the income years 1977-78 to 1981-82, the estimated costs of allowing deductions for gifts to school building funds and in respect of other gifts allowable under paragraph 78 (1) (a) are as follows: ESTIMATED REVENUE COST Gifts to approved Gifts to school public building institutions Income year funds etc. $m $m 1977-78 12 18 1978-79 12 19 1979-80 14 24 1980-81 16 33 1981-82 19 46 Question No. 45 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs upon notice, on 3 May 1983 : (1) Have Australian diplomats been expelled from Iran for allegedly requiring women to remove head-dresses for visa photographs. (2) If so, have negotiations been undertaken with Iran to resolve any misunderstanding or conflicting national laws. (3) Will Australia in future seek negotiation, mediation or international arbitration before resorting to the medieval practice of retaliatory expulsion of uninvolved diplomats. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) No. The matter is not now in issue. (3) Each case will have to be considered on its merits. Question No. 204 Mr Reeves asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: What borrowings have been approved by the Australian Loan Council for or related to the Northern Territory and its authorities in each year 1978-79 to 1982-83, and to what projects have the borrowings been applied. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Under the provisions of the Gentlemen's Agreement, the Loan Council each financial year decides the aggregate amount of the new money borrowing program for 'larger' semi-government and local authorities, and determines the distribution of that aggregate amount as between the seven member governments ( the six States and the Commonwealth). Each member government thereafter decides the allocation of its share of the program as between individual authorities. The Northern Territory is not a member of Loan Council and its borrowings are not, therefore, directly approved by Loan Council. However, Loan Council approves a 'semi-government' borrowing program for the Commonwealth Government from which the Commonwealth allocates amounts to the Northern Territory and its 'larger' authorities. These amounts, for the years 1978-79 to 1982-83 inclusive, are shown in the schedule below, together with the amounts borrowed by 'smaller' authorities of the Northern Territory. In June 1982, the Loan Council decided to suspend controls over the amount and terms of domestic borrowings by electricity authorities for a period of three years, including borrowings by the Northern Territory Electricity Commission which had previously been part of the Commonwealth's semi-government program, although under the Northern Territory (Self -government) Act the Commission's borrowings remain subject to Commonwealth determination. To preserve comparability with figures for earlier years, the 1982-83 figures in the schedule include $23.4m borrowed by the Government of the Northern Territory for the Northern Territory Electricity Commission, even though in that year (because of the decision referred to above) its borrowings no longer formed part of the Commonwealth's semi-government program. The remaining $8.8m for the year comprises a $7m allocation from the 'larger' authorities' program approved by Loan Council for the Commonwealth's semi-government program and $1.8m borrowed by 'smaller' authorities. Prior to July 1983, the aggregate amount borrowed by 'smaller' authorities of the Northern Territory was determined by the Commonwealth. Since that time, borrowings by such authorities have been subject only to the annual limit per authority, currently $1.8m, which Loan Council sets for all 'smaller' Commonwealth, State and Territory authorities. Borrower Amount Purpose funds applied to $'000 1978-79 Government of the Northern Territory 7,115 Housing finance (Northern Territory Home Finance Trustee) and electricity capital works by Northern Territory Electricity Commission Alice Springs Municipal Council .%. 290 Council capital works projects Darwin City Council .%. 341 Council capital works projects Total .%. 7,746 1979-80 Government of the Northern Territory .%. 31,788 Northern Territory Electricity Commission capital works project; Jabiru Township development; and Housing finance (Northern Territory Finance Trustee) Darwin City Council Alice Springs City Council 1,240 Council capital works projects Total .%. 33,028 1980-81 Government of the Northern Territory 25,912 Northern Territory Electricity Commission capital works projects; Housing finance (Northern Territory Home Finance Trustee); and Jabiru Township development Katherine Municipal Council Darwin City Council Alice Springs Municipal Council 842 Council capital works project Total 26,754 1981-82 Government of the Northern Territory 26,000 Northern Territory Electricity Commission capital works projects Alice Springs Municipal Council Northern Territory Port Authority Northern Territory Development Corporation 1,318 Capital works projects of the authorities Total 27,318 1982-83 Government of the Northern Territory- Northern Territory Electricity Commission 23,400 Electricity capital works Other authorities 7,000 Capital works projects Northern Territory Development Corporation Alice Springs Municipal Council 1,800 Capital works projects Total 32,200 Question No. 211 Mr Reeves asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: What are the total amounts of all expenditures and/or capital works programs undertaken by the Minister's Department in or related to the Northern Territory for each year from 1978-79 to 1982-83 which were not covered by general or specific grants to the Northern Territory. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The following figures reflect total amounts of all expenditures and/or capital works programs undertaken by the Department of the Treasury in or related to the Northern Territory for the years 1978-79 to 1982-83 which were not covered by general or specific grants to the Northern Territory: Treasury Central-Nil. AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS Year $ 1978-79 293,060 1979-80 368,821 1980-81 516,108 1981-82 605,218 1982-83 702, 456 Royal Australian Mint-Nil. Petroleum Products Pricing Authority-Nil. AUSTRALIAN TAXATION OFFICE Administrative Year Salary expenses $ $ 1978-79 454,884 18,468 1979-80 578,944 23,888 1980-81 680,141 25,980 1981 -82 887,959 28,182 1982-83 994,637 35,115 Question No. 239 Dr Klugman asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 May 1983: How much money has been recovered so far this financial year as a result of the anti-tax avoidance legislation passed during 1982. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The total amount of money recovered in 1982-83 as a result of anti-tax avoidance legislation passed during 1982 is not determinable. However, the revenue recovered under the Recoupment Tax Legislation during 1982-83 amounted to $80m. A further $116m has been recovered under this legislation in the period from 1 July to 30 November 1983. Question No. 268 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: (1) Can he indicate whether telephone handsets which do not meet Telecom Australia standards are being imported into Australia for sale; if so, what action is being taken to rectify this matter. (2) Where these handsets are being imported and sold by private companies who is responsible for their maintenance. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice received from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) Yes. Under the Telecommunications (General) By-laws, authorisation from Telecom is required to connect privately supplied equipment to the switched telephone network. To obtain authorisation, the equipment must meet and continue to be maintained to specified standards. Telecom has the power to disconnect unauthorised equipment and equipment which does not meet these standards. Telecom is concerned with the number of non-approved telephones available, particularly from the viewpoints of the electrical hazards to the public and its staff and the detrimental effects on the performance of the telephone network. This matter is being considered further by Telecom and the relevant departments. The banning of non-approved cordless telephones has been under separate examination by my Department and Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, prohibiting the import of cordless telephones which do not meet Telecom standards, are in the process of being drafted. (2) The maintenance of privately supplied equipment is a matter between the supplier and the purchaser. Question No. 283 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 May 1983. What are the (a) amounts and (b) details of each foreign investment project approved by the Foreign Investment Review Board for investment in or related to the State of Western Australia since 1978-79. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) and (b) Aggregate data on direct foreign investment proposals approved by the Government are published in the reports of the Foreign Investment Review Board. Details of proposed direct foreign investments in Western Australia, approved by the Government since 1978-79, are as follows: APPROVALS UNDER FOREIGN INVESTMENT POLICY FOR INVESTMENT IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA Expected Total new expected Number Consideration investment investment $m $m $m 1978-79 98 (a) 132.6 673.3 805.9 1979-80 123 (b) 354.8 1 031.7 1 386. 5 1980-81 161 (c) 582.9 249.7 832.5 1981-82 179 (d) 120.4 224.4 344.8 1982-83 161 (e) 143.1 167.1 310.3 (a) A further six proposals involving aggregate consideration of $7.8m and aggregate expected new investment of $2.7m were associated with Western Australia but also involved investment in one or two other States. (b) A further five proposals involving aggregate consideration of $2.1m were associated with Western Australia but also involved investment in one or two other States. (c) A further four proposals involving aggregate consideration of $0.5m and aggregate expected new investment of $33.0m were associated with Western Australia but also involved investment in one or two other States. (d) A further nine proposals involving aggregate consideration of $9.7m and aggregate expected new investment of $21.3m were associated with Western Australia but also involved investment in one or two other States. (e) A further eleven proposals involving aggregate consideration of $14.9m and aggregate expected new investment of $3.0m were associated with Western Australia but also involved investment in one or two other States. The expected investment data associated with foreign investment proposals approved by the Government should be treated with caution as these expectations record only the intentions of foreign investors at the time their proposals are submitted to the Board. These intentions may not always be realised for a number of reasons including changes in commercial circumstances and unsuccessful exploration or feasibility studies. In view of the commercial sensitivity of much of the information provided to the Board during the examination of foreign investment proposals, details of individual proposals are treated in strict confidence and are not disclosed other than to the parties directly involved. However, in view of the public interest in foreign investment policy, it is the practice for the Government's decisions in major or otherwise significant proposals to be announced publicly after consultations with the parties. Decisions on foreign investment proposals in Western Australia made public by the Government include: approval to Western Mining Corporation, Esso and Urangesellschaft Australia to develop the 'Yeelirrie' uranium project in Western Australia. (Details are available from the then Treasurer's Press release No. 46 of 10 June 1979); conditional approval for the development of the Worsley bauxite/alumina project in Western Australia (Press release No. 126 of 28 November 1979); conditional approval to the acquisition by CRA Ltd and Cliffs International Investments Inc. of shareholdings in Cliffs Western Australian Mining Co. Pty Ltd (Press release No. 143 of 16 October 1980); the granting of naturalising status to Ashton Mining NL (Press release No. 19 of 6 February 1981); conditional approval for Delhi International Oil Corporation and Vam Ltd to acquire the 51 per cent they did not already own in the Lake Way uranium project (Press release No. 43 of 26 March 1981); approval for CRA to acquire the remaining 17.7 per cent it did not already own in Hamersley Holdings Ltd (Press release No. 72 of 6 May 1981); approval for Kirin Brewery Co. of Japan to increase its shareholding in the Western Australian malt producer KBB Malting Co. Pty Ltd (Press release No. 182 of 15 October 1981); approval for an extension of time for Cliffs International Investments Inc. to sell shareholdings in Cliffs Western Australian Mining Co. to Australians (Press release No. 183 of 8 September 1982); conditional approval to the Woodada venturers to proceed with the Woodada oil and gas project (Press release No. 201 of 6 October 1982); approval for the reorganisation of interests in the Big Bell gold project in Western Australia (Press release No. 213 of 21 October 1982); conditional approval for Australasian United Industries and Ambassador Hotels Ltd to re-develop Casablanca House, Perth (Press release No. 6 of 17 January 1983); conditional approval for the construction of a hotel and retail complex in Perth by International Village Hotels Pty Ltd (Press release No. 17 of 27 January 1983); approval for Bunnings Ltd to acquire all of the issued capital of Millars (WA) Pty Ltd (Press release No. 33 of 3 March 1983); approval for Peters (WA) Ltd to acquire the Western Australian business and assets of Australian United Foods (Press release No. 38 of 4 March 1983); approval to the sale by CRA Limited and Ashton Mining Limited of their respective shares of the diamonds produced from the Argyle project to the Central Selling Organisation (Press release No. 5 of 7 April 1983); approval for Metro Industries Ltd to increase its shareholding in Wigmores Ltd to 50.1 per cent (Press release No. 56 of 19 July 1983); the issuing of an interim order freezing for 90 days a proposal by Avocado Holdings Pty Ltd to acquire a property at 175 Hay St, Perth (Press release No. 57 of 20 July, 1983); the issuing of an order prohibiting the proposed acquisition by Nchima Tea and Tung Estates Ltd of shares in Iota Pty Ltd (Press release No. 59 of 21 July 1983 ); the issuing of an interim order freezing for 90 days a proposal by Messrs Chng & Tan to acquire 75 per cent of Norfolk Holdings Pty Ltd (Press release No. 66 of 3 August 1983); and approval of the acquisition of 'Rosewood' cattle station in the Northern Territory (and extending into Western Australia) by the Sarawak Economic Development Corporation (Press release No. 17 of 10 May and No. 79 of 16 August, 1983). Question No. 303 Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) Further to the former Treasurer's answer to my question on notice No. 5013 (Hansard, 19 October 1982 page 2143), can he say what action the Commissioner of Taxation has taken against profit-making schemes and undertakings involving the purchase of property and its resale in a manner to produce high tax free profits , in the light of the High Court judgment in the Whitford's Beach case. (2) Has the Commissioner of Taxation taken proceedings under section 26 (a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act against the Bell Group of companies, for recovery of the tax payable on the share and property transactions involved in the Elders Goldbrough Mort takeover; if not, will he say why, and will he instruct the Commissioner to so act. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There is little I can add to what the former Treasurer said in reply to your question on notice No. 5013 (Hansard, 19 October 1982, page 2143). The Commissioner of Taxation has stated that the income tax law requires taxpayers to disclose profits made from sales of property or from profit-making schemes or undertakings. Provision is made in annual return forms for the disclosure of profits from these sources. From the information so provided or from other information obtained during routine inquiries and investigations the liability to tax of profits arising from profit-making schemes or undertakings is determined. The High Court decision in the Whitford's Beach case, 82 ATC 4031, does not necessitate the Commissioner taking action against profit-making undertakings or schemes. It merely reinforces his view that profits arising from activities such as those involved in the Whitford's Beach case are liable to tax. (2) Express provisions in the income tax law prevent the Commissioner from divulging information about the affairs of any taxpayer. Question No. 304 Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) Where a taxpayer is unable to meet a tax assessment served by the Commissioner of Taxation does the Commissioner move to recover the tax under section 209 of the Income Tax Assessment Act; if not, what other procedures are used by the Commissioner to effect the recovery of the unpaid tax. (2) If the Commissioner cannot recover property transferred out of the taxpayer 's name prior to the date of the tax assessment, what steps are taken by the Commissioner in these circumstances to recover amounts of unpaid tax. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Action is taken under section 209 in appropriate cases. Where the circumstances of a particular case so warrant it might be more appropriate to serve a notice under section 218 of the Income Tax Assessment Act on a person owing money to the taxpayer, allow time to pay by instalments or draw attention to the relief provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act. (2) Cases such as those envisaged by the honourable member must of necessity be treated according to their individual facts. The Commissioner of Taxation has advised me that his officers would take whatever measures are available to them under company, bankruptcy or other applicable law. Such action would be taken in cooperation with the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor. Question No. 308 Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: Further to the former Treasurer's answer to my question No. 4457 (Hansard, 6 and 7 May 1982, pages 2456-7), will he give an assurance that amendments to Part IV (A) of the Income Tax Assessment Act have effectively struck down expenditure recoupment schemes of tax avoidance; if not, what action does he propose to take . Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government believes that the general anti-avoidance provisions of Part IVA will prove effective against such schemes of the 'expenditure recoupment' type as may be entered into after 27 May 1981, the date from which those provisions apply, where a tax benefit by way of allowable deductions is sought. It is true that tax benefits in the form of income tax rebates do not come within the scope of Part IVA. However, should a tax avoidance scheme of the expenditure recoupment type that seeks to exploit the availability of income tax rebates come to require remedial legislation, any such legislation would, in accordance with our policy on the use of retrospective legislation against tax avoidance schemes, be made to operate retrospectively. Question No. 312 Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: Will he bring up to date the information provided in answer to my question No. 4990, part (2) (Hansard, 10 November 1982, page 3052), in relation to ' naturalised' and 'naturalising' companies for the purposes of foreign investment guidelines. Mr Keating —The details sought by the honourable member on companies' status under the naturalising provisions are as follows: Date Australian naturalising/ equity Present naturalised when status Australian Company status granted was granted equity (per cent) (per cent) Naturalising CRA Ltd 15.05.79 31.8 47.1 Ashton Mining NL 6.02.81 39.7 40.4 Naturalised Tubemakers of Australia Ltd 11.05.79 56.3 74 MIM Holdings Ltd 3.12.79 51.1 61.2 AMATIL Ltd 27.07.80 59 59 Aberfoyle Limited 17.11.81 52.9 52.9 Renison Goldfields Limited 7.05.82 51 51 Comalco Limited 12.05.83 64.6 64.6 Comalco Limited and its operative Australian-based subsidiaries obtained naturalised status under the Government's foreign investment policy on 12 May 1983. Question No. 313 Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: Will he bring up to date the information provided in answer to my question No. 2022, Parts (1), (9) and (10) (Hansard, 13 October 1981, page 1929) in relation to nominee shareholdings. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Stock Exchange data provide information on shareholdings by bank and other nominee companies. These data are as follows: Proportion of shares Company held by nominees (i) As at Per cent BHP 2.8.82 (ii) 19.8 Peko-Wallsend 26.8.82 33.0 Western Mining Corporation 8.9.82 (iii) 36.4 North Broken Hill 24.9.82 (iv) 14.4 Pancontinental Mining 8.10.82 (v) 59.1 CSR 26.5.82 17.6 MIM Holdings 1.9.82 11.3 (i) These data represent the proportions of total issued capital of the companies that are held by the nominees included amongst the 20 largest shareholdings in each company. (Data on other nominee shareholdings are not available.) As such, these figures may under-estimate the actual proportions of shares held by nominees. The extent of the under-estimate may not, however, be significant as the 20 largest shareholders in these companies account for large proportions (in most cases, around half) of the companies' equities. (ii) Based on issued capital as at 2.9.82. (iii) Based on issued capital as at 14.10.82. (iv) Based on issued capital as at 4.11.82. (v) Based on issued capital as at 2.11.82. (9) Stock Exchange data indicate that the proportions of shares in each of the banks listed below that are held by each bank's nominee companies and custodians are as follows: Proportion of shares held by bank's Company nominee companies (i) As at Per cent ANZ Bank 9.11.82 7.1 Westpac Banking Corporation (ii) 2.12.82 4 .1 National Commercial Banking Corporation of Australia Ltd (iii) 25.11.82 5.7 (i) Based on the top twenty shareholders in each bank. (ii) Outcome of the merger of the Bank of NSW and The Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd which came into existence on 1 October 1982. (iii) Outcome of the merger of the National Bank of Australasia Ltd and The Commercial Banking Company of Sydney Ltd which took place in May 1981 and was effected on 31 December 1982. (10) The rank, in terms of the number of shares held, that each nominee has in its parent bank is as follows: Company Nominee company (i) As at Ranking ANZ Bank ANZ Nominees Ltd 9.11.82 1 Westpac Banking Corporation Bank of NSW Nominees, The Wales Custodian Services Pty Ltd and CBA Nominees Ltd 2.12.82 2 National Commercial Banking Corporation of Australia Ltd National Nominees Ltd and Commercial Nominees Pty Ltd 25.11.82 3 (i) In the top 20 shareholders in each bank. Question No. 315 Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) Does paragraph 26 (a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act, provide that 'legal identity' must exist between the property acquired by the taxpayer and that eventually sold by him for profit. (2) If so, when land or other property is acquired in two or more different stages, or acquired in one legal form and then sold in another, is profit on the property sold not taxable under this paragraph even though the taxpayer intended to make a profit all along. (3) Has his attention been drawn to examples of how this legal identity requirement takes profit making ventures outside this section as shown in Hamblin's Case (1974) 74 ATC 4310 and McClelland's Case (1970) 120 CLR 487. (4) Because of the apparent confusion in legal cases as to how far 'legal identity' extends to allow taxpayers to escape paragraph 26 (a), will he have the paragraph amended by including a provision similar to paragraph 26AAA (1) (a ) which explicitly states that the word 'property' includes either an estate or an interest in property and that for the purposes of the section a share in a company confers an interest in the assets of the company; if so, will this have the effect of overcoming some of the problems in this area and catch those who should be covered by this provision. (5) Has he considered extending the 12 month period in section 26AAA to some longer period of time; if not, why not. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)-(4) I refer the honourable member to my 1983-84 Budget Speech, to Budget Statement No. 4 and to my statement in Press release No. 81 of 23 August 1983 which gave details of measures decided upon by the Government to remove some clear technical deficiencies in paragraph 26 (a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act. One of the deficiencies which will be removed is the 'legal identity' requirement referred to by the honourable member. (5) The Government is committed to ensuring the effectiveness of the income tax law in taxing income in the form of speculative profits and will, of course, monitor the success of the changes to paragraph 26 (a). It does not propose at this stage, however, a wider review of the way in which the income tax law brings such income within the tax net. Question No. 335 Mrs Kelly asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the fact that concern has been expressed about the nutritional value of weight reducing programs currently being marketed in the Australian Capital Territory, namely Total Image Alpha II Ultra Diet and the Herbalife Weight Reduction Plan. (2) Could he provide information about the value of these weight reducing programs, as consumers in the Australian Capital Territory have spent and are spending considerable sums on these products. (3) Does food legislation exist in the Australian Capital Territory, as exists in the States of Australia, which would prevent aggressive promotion of a beverage which is described as 'an exciting new beverage that replaces dairy milk', if not, when will legislation be introduced. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable members's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The National Health and Medical Research Council has warned that it considers the benefits of high protein liquid or powder diets to be unproven, and has advised that, because of possible hazards particularly if they are used as a sole item in a diet, such products should be avoided by persons taking medication, pregnant and nursing mothers, infants and children. In the Australian Capital Territory, many inquiries concerning the Total Image Alpha II Ultra Diet and the Herbalife Weight Reduction Plan have been received by the Capital Territory Health Commission, both from members of the public and fitness organisations. Appropriate dietary advice has been given in each case. Information on these weight reducing regimes and on weight control in general is available to Australian Capital Territory residents from the Commission's community dietitian. (3) There is no legislation in the Australian Capital Territory which prevents the 'aggressive promotion' of any food product. It is an offence, however, under the Public Health (Sale of Food and Drugs) Regulations to label a food or drug if that label is false or misleading. New food legislation for the Australian Capital Territory, which will, among other matters, control the sale of beverages like the one referred to is presently being developed by the Capital Territory Health Commission and it is anticipated that draft legislation will be submitted to the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly for consideration during 1984. Question No. 376 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to vigorous support by Mrs Gandhi for a Bill in the Indian Parliament calling for a democratic federal world government, as reported in World Peace News of 777 United Nations Plaza, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10017, for January 1982, page 8. (2) Is he able to say whether Australia will support India in such a call. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) I have spoken before about the objective of the peaceful rule of international law. In my view, an effective form of world government, of the kind contemplated in this question, is not attainable in current circumstances. There already exist, in the Charter of the United Nations, provisions that aim for the peaceful regulation of relations between states. An attempt to launch a form of world government, or to promote an alternative to the United Nations, however well motivated this may be, would not, in the Government's view, be more likely to bring about international peace than the present provisions of the Charter. It is however necessary that the international community should bend its efforts to make the United Nations a more effective instrument for the promotion of peaceful relations between states. Question No. 396 Mr Wells asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: (1) Is sales tax payable on a wide range of aids which would benefit handicapped persons. (2) Is the criterion for determining whether an aid is to be sales tax free dependent on whether it is only used by a handicapped person. (3) Will the Government consider lifting sales tax on aids which are bought for handicapped people when it can be demonstrated that the purpose of these purchases is primarily to assist in the normalisation of their lives, such as the provision of computers for those persons with limited arm movement. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There are a number of provisions in the sales tax law which provide exemption for a range of goods which would benefit handicapped persons. Surgical appliances such as artificial limbs, crutches, invalid wheel chairs and surgical boots, braces and irons are exempt from sales tax. Also exempt are other medical and surgical appliances of a kind used exclusively or principally by persons suffering from sickness, disease or physical impairment for the purpose of alleviating or treating that sickness, disease or impairment or the effects of that sickness, disease or impairment. Hearing aids, for example, are exempt from sales tax. Goods designed and manufactured expressly for use by persons suffering from sickness, disease or disablement being goods of a kind not ordinarily used by persons who are not suffering from sickness, disease or disablement are exempt from sales tax. Braille machines, braille watches, communication aids for persons suffering from speech impediments, devices which enable blind persons to read by tactile sensing, talking-back machines of a kind specially designed for the playing of records of speech for blind persons, telephone communication devices designed to allow deaf persons to send and receive messages by the telephone and ultrasonic sensing devices designed for use by blind persons, are examples of goods which are exempt. Goods to be used in the modification of a motor vehicle solely for the purpose of adapting it for driving by a person who is suffering from a physical impairment, are exempt from sales tax as are motor vehicles for use in the transportation to and from gainful employment of persons certified by the Director-General of Social Services to have lost the use of one or both legs to such an extent that they are permanently unable to use public transport. Finally, I should add that the Government, in the recent Budget, provided a new exemption for interactive and broadcast videotex systems, broadcast teletext decoding devices and similar decoding devices for use and not for sale by profoundly deaf persons. (2) Some goods are unconditionally exempt, that is, they are exempt from sales tax irrespective of who purchases them whereas other equipment is exempt conditional on it being for use by disabled persons. Wheel chairs, hearing aids and braille machines, for example, are unconditionally exempt from sales tax whereas the exemptions for motor vehicles and videotex systems are conditional on use by specified categories of disabled persons. While there is no general rule that all goods are exempt from sales tax where they are used only by handicapped persons, goods will be unconditionally exempt where they are designed and manufactured expressly for use by disabled persons. However, if the goods are of a kind ordinarily used by persons who are not disabled they would not qualify for unconditional exemption. (3) To widen the existing exemptions from sales tax to cover aids bought for handicapped people which, although assisting them to lead more normal lives, are of a kind ordinarily used by persons who are not handicapped, for example computers, could lead to abuse and provide avenues for the evasion of sales tax. Futhermore, sales tax exemption only benefits those who can afford to buy new equipment rather than second-hand equipment. While the Government is mindful of the need to provide assistance to handicapped persons it would seem that, to the extent that exemption does not already apply under the existing sales tax law, this may be better achieved by way of grants or subsidies so that those with the greatest need achieve the greatest benefit. Question No. 425 Mr Wells asked the Treasurer, 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 Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: For parts (a) to (e)- (i) Details of Commonwealth payments to the States (including Queensland) since 1972-73 and estimated payments in 1983-84 can be found in various issues of Budget Paper No. 7, Payments to or for the States, Northern Territory and Local Government Authorities. (ii) I have no detailed information of instances in which the Queensland Government has returned or refused funds to which it was legally entitled during the period in question. However, the period covered by the question is long and it could not be established categorically, even in relation to the Acts administered by the Treasurer, that there have been no such instances without undertaking a long and costly examination of countless transactions over the period. Question No. 429 Mr Wells asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, 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 Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: For parts (a) to (e)- (i) Education grants made to Queensland under Commonwealth programs of financial assistance to the States for the period 1972-73 to 1983-84 are shown progressively in Budget Papers No. 7 of Commonwealth Budgets for 1975-76, 1979- 80 and 1983-84. (ii) No Commonwealth education grants to Queensland for the period from December 1977 to August 1983 have been refused or refunded by the Queensland Government. Question No. 465 Mr Blanchard asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 September 1983: (1) What is the extent of foreign ownership in the Yanchep Sun City development in the electoral division of Moore. (2) Which corporation holds the controlling interest in this development. (3) Are there any minority foreign shareholders in this development. (4) If so, does this investment conform to the foreign investment guidelines. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Yanchep Sun City development at present is 100 per cent foreign owned. (2) and (3) Tokyu Corporation of Japan at present wholly owns and controls the Yanchep Sun City development. (4) Yes, subject to fulfilment of an Australian equity condition. In 1978 the then Government gave conditional approval to a proposal for Tokyu Corporation to acquire the 51 per cent shareholding in Yanchep Sun City Pty Ltd (YSC) which it did not already own from the Bond Corporation (Bond). At that time Bond had submitted that it was unable to provide the necessary finance for its share of future development costs. Moreover, the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) was informed that negotiations had been held with potential Australian investors to take up the Bond equity in the venture but without success, and that if the proposal for Tokyu to buy out Bond was not allowed to proceed there was a risk that the entire project would collapse. A condition of approval was that Tokyu actively sought to attract not less than 50 per cent Australian equity participation in the Yanchep project within the shortest practicable time. In its efforts to attract increased Australian equity Tokyu was required to give close attention to suggestions made from time to time by the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB). Tokyu has held discussions with the FIRB on an annual basis concerning, inter alia, efforts made to re-introduce Australian equity into the venture and the Government has recently written to Tokyu on this matter seeking that its efforts to obtain Australian equity participation be increased. Question No. 473 Mrs Kelly asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 8 September 1983: (1) Is it a fact that Malkara Special School at Garran has the largest population of primary age, moderately to profoundly intellectually handicapped children in the Australian Capital Territory and is the required school for such children living on the south side of Canberra. (2) Have the Principal and the Board of Malkara unsuccessfully sought funds for a therapy swimming pool for the school for the past 4 years. (3) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that the children from Malkara are obliged to spend 1 1/2 hours travelling in order to have 20 minutes in the pool at Woden Valley Hospital, involving in winter time, the chill of bus travel following the use of the pool heated to 40*C; if so, is the Minister able to say whether this is detrimental to the children whose need is largely due to low muscle tone of the thorax and who are therefore very prone to chest infections. (4) Can the Minister say what consideration will be given in 1984-85 funds for the needs of these handicapped children. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: 1. Yes. 2. The Malkara School has not been successful in obtaining funds for a therapy swimming pool, which have been sought over the last three financial years. 3. The actual travelling time from Malkara School to the Woden Valley Hospital is only a few minutes by bus. I can appreciate, however, the discomfort that would be suffered by these children in the winter months even though they are bussed from the pool to their school at the conclusion of each swimming session. 4. I understand that the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority will consider the provision of a therapy pool for Malkara when priorities are being determined for the 1984-85 financial year. Question No. 478 Dr Everingham asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 September 1983: What is the (a) increase or decrease in real terms at 1983 prices and (b) percentage increase or decrease of: (i) indirect taxes, (ii) company tax, (iii) tax on social security and veterans' benefits, wage, salary and superannuation incomes, (iv) costed and estimated concessions, subsidies and assistance to industry, (v) health, education and welfare spending, (vi) private enterprise investment, and (vii) public enterprise investment in the periods 1972-76 and 1976-83 in each case. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is set out in the following tables. In all tables real prices are obtained using the non-farm gross domestic product deflator series: (i) INDIRECT TAXES Nominal Real (June 1983 Prices) Compound Compound Percentage percentage Percentage percentage change change change change $m $m 1972-73 2 569 . . 8 286 . . 1973-74 3 183 23.9 23.8 9 014 8.8 5.5 1974-75 3 789 19.0 8 810 -2.3 1975-76 4 872 28.6 9 716 10.3 1976-77 5 518 13.3 9 890 1.8 1977-78 5 828 5.6 9 652 -2.4 1978-79 7 174 23. 1 11 139 15.4 1979-80 8 578 19.6 14.8 12 146 9.0 4.2 1980-81 9 950 16.0 12 785 5.3 1981-82 11 187 12.4 12 858 0.6 1982-83 12 649 13.1 12 860 . . Source: Budget Paper No. 1, 1983-84 and 1982-83. (ii) COMPANY TAX (a) Nominal Real (June 1983 prices) Compound Compound Percentage percentage Percentage percentage change change change change $m $m 1972-73 1 561 . . 5 035 . . 1973-74 1 954 25.2 17.4 5 534 9.9 . . 1974-75 2 359 20.7 5 531 . . 1975-76 2 523 7.0 5 032 -9.0 1976-77 2 824 11.9 5 062 0.6 1977-78 3 095 9.6 5 126 1.3 1978-79 3 037 -1.9 4 715 -8.0 1979-80 3 406 12.2 9.4 4 823 2.3 -0.3 1980-81 4 695 37.8 6 033 25 .1 1981-82 5 053 7.6 5 808 -3.7 1982-83 4 829 -4.4 4 980 -14.3 (a) The figures exclude revenue from withholding taxes and revenue collected under the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Act. Source: Budge Paper No. 1, various years. (iii) Tax on Social Security and Veterans' Benefits, Wage, Salary and Superannuation Incomes. The Government does not have detailed information on all the specific sources of income referred to in this part of the honourable member's question. Moreover , even if information on different sources were available, it would not be possible to attribute tax to each source as tax liability is determined by total income. Wage, salary and superannuation incomes usually attract PAYE instalments while social security and veterans' benefits would sometimes attract PAYE instalments (if the recipients are taxpayers). These sources constitute almost all the income to which PAYE instalments apply. The data provided below, therefore, relate to net PAYE receipts over the relevant periods. NET PAYE RECEIPTS Nominal Real (June 1983 prices) Compound Compound Percentage percentage Percentage percentage change change change change $m $m 1972-73 3 161 . . 10 196 . . 1973-74 4 238 34.1 30.5 12 002 17.7 11.1 1974-75 6 071 43.3 14 116 17.6 1975-76 7 020 15.6 14 000 -0.8 1976-77 8 529 21.5 15 287 9.2 1977-78 9 639 13.0 15 964 4.4 1978-79 10 398 7.9 16 144 1.1 1979-80 12 160 16.9 14.1 17 219 6.7 4.1 1980-81 14 121 16.1 18 145 5.4 1981-82 17 417 23.3 20 018 10.3 1982-83 18 840 8.2 19 430 -2.9 Source: Budget Paper No. 1, various years. (iv) Costed and Estimated Concessions, Subsidies and Assistance to Industry. The following data include costed direct Commonwealth Budget outlays on industry (as classified under the functional heading of Industry Assistance and Development in Budget Statement No. 3 over the relevant period) and estimates of revenue forgone through taxation concessions to industry. Excluded from the data are: (a) All assistance to industry through tariffs or quota protection against import competition; and (b) Some Commonwealth Budget outlays of assistance to industry, but whose prime purpose is such that they are classified under other functional headings. Examples include the provision of airports and airways facilities for the aviation industry, roads and shipping subsidies, assistance for the development of the film and television industry, some specific purpose payments to the States, expenditure to improve the defence capacity of industry, certain expenditures by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and disaster relief assistance provided through the Natural Disaster Relief Arrangements. The estimates of taxation revenue forgone are limited to the main taxation concessions for which reliable data are currently available. These include the investment allowance, the export market development rebate, accelerated or immediate write-offs available to primary producers for certain capital expenditure and the trading stock valuation adjustment. A miscellany of lesser provisions is not included, either because of lack of data on revenue forgone or questions about the extent to which they may properly be regarded as wholly ' Industry Assistance'; such provisions, over the years, have included the provision whereby primary producers are allowed to adopt artificially low values for natural increase in their livestock accounts for taxation purposes; drought bonds; and the accelerated depreciation of expenditure on employees' amenities. Importantly, figures for 1981-82 and 1982-83 do not include any estimates in relation to the wide range of accelerated depreciation provisions. Nominal Real (June 1983 prices) Compound Compound Percentage percentage Percentage percentage change change change change $m $m 1972-73 732 . . 2,360 . . 1973-74 798 9.0 -12.1 2,260 -4.3 -25.1 1974 -75 1,004 25.8 2,335 3.3 1975-76 497 -50.5 991 57.6 1976-77 453 -8.8 811 -18.2 1977-78 1,146 153.0 2,419 198.3 1978-79 1,278 11 .5 1,984 -18.0 1979-80 1,611 26.0 25.8 2,281 15.0 14.8 1980-81 1,509 -6.3 1, 939 -15.0 1981-82 1,515 0.4 1,741 -10.21 1982-83 1,979 18.6 1,853 6.4 Source: Budget Statement No. 3 (1972-73 to 1978-79) and Budget Statement No. 4 (1979-80 to 1982-83). (v) HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE SPENDING (a) Nominal Real (June 1983 prices) Compound Compound Percentage percentage Percentage percentage change change change change $m $m 1972-73 3,326 . . 15,191 . . 1973-74 4,292 29.0 43.7 12,155 -20.0 9.0 1974-75 6,658 55.1 15,483 27.4 1975-76 9,877 48.3 19,697 27.2 1976-77 11,120 12.6 19,803 0.5 1977-78 12,525 12.6 20,746 4.8 1978-79 13,525 8.0 20,999 1.2 1979-80 14,564 7.7 11.5 20,633 -1.8 1.8 1980-81 16,498 13.3 21,199 2.2 1981-82 17,754 7.6 20,405 -3.7 1982-83 21,339 20.2 22,009 7.9 (a) Defined as expenditure on the functional categories of Health, Education, and Social Security and Welfare. Source: Budget Paper No. 1, various years. (vi) PRIVATE ENTERPRISE INVESTMENT (a) Nominal Real (June 1983 prices) Compound Compound Percentage percentage Percentage percentage change change change change $m $m 1972-73 4,557 . . 14,699 . . 1973-74 5,520 21.1 15.7 15,634 6.4 -1.5 1974-75 6,103 10.6 14,190 -9.2 1975-76 7,053 15.6 14,067 -0.9 1976-77 7,705 9.3 13,811 -1.8 1977-78 8,433 9.4 13,967 1.1 1978-79 11,026 30.7 16.6 17,119 22.6 6.4 1979-80 11,787 6.9 16,690 -2.5 1980-81 15,588 32.2 20,029 20.0 1981-82 20,689 32.7 23,779 18.7 1982-83 19,399 -6.2 20,007 -15.9 (a) 'Private enterprise investment' is here defined as private gross fixed capital expenditure, less investment in dwellings. Source: Budget Paper 'National Income and Expenditure', various years. (vii) PUBLIC ENTERPRISE INVESTMENT Nominal Real (June 1983 prices) Compound Compound Percentage percentage Percentage percentage change change change change $m $m 1972-73 3,491 . . 11,261 . . 1973-74 4,855 39.1 24.8 11,375 1.0 6.3 1974-75 5,673 16.8 13,190 16.0 1975-76 6,784 19.6 13,530 2.6 1976-77 7,078 4.3 12,686 -6.2 1977-78 7,890 11.4 13,067 3.0 1978-79 8,332 5 .6 12,937 -1.0 1979-80 8,833 10.0 10.6 12,508 -3.3 0.9 1980-81 9,936 12.4 12, 767 2.1 1981-82 10,652 7.2 12,243 -4.1 1982-83 12,987 21.9 13,394 9.4 Source: Budget Paper 'National Income and Expenditure', various years. Question No. 505 Mr Blanchard asked the Treasurer upon notice, on 13 September 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the fact that a South Australian company is operating a mail order scheme to provide cartons of cigarettes to Western Australians, thereby avoiding Western Australian State Excise duty of between $6 and $8 per carton. (2) Although section 92 of the Constitution guarantees free trade and intercourse between the States, is there any other Commonwealth legislation which could circumscribe this scheme. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The matter to which this question refers has not previously been brought to my attention and I am not aware of the facts. I assume that the honourable member's concern relates to possible avoidance of licence fees payable under the Business Franchise (Tobacco) Act 1955 of Western Australia. The Government is co-operating with the State Governments in devising measures to combat avoidance or evasion of State duties and charges. Meetings of Commonwealth and State officials have been held for this purpose. The matter to which the question relates will be examined in that context. Question No. 588 Dr Everingham asked the Treasurer, upon notice on 6 October 1983: (1) What will be the (a) cost to Australia of the 500 million Eurodollar loan finalised in 1983 and (b) value to Australia of the latest increase in Australia 's quota in the International Monetary Fund. (2) Is he able to say what would have been the net gain or loss to Australia if the IMF loan had been made direct from the Eurodollar source and who would have sustained the net loss or received the net gain. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. (a) Terms and conditions negotiated for the Commonwealth's $US500m borrowing in Europe were set out in the Acting Treasurer's Press statement of 4 October 1983 and are reproduced below, together with details on a cost-to-borrower basis (that is including commissions and expenses): Investors yield Cost-to- Coupon to maturity borrower Amount (Percentage (Percentage (Percentage ($USm) per annum) Price per annum) per annum) 7 Year Tranche 100 11.25 100 11.25 11.66 12 Year Tranche 300 11.50 100 11. 50 11.84 15 Year Tranche 100 11.625 100 11.625 11.97 Each tranche is a bullet maturity-that is with the full amount of principal becoming payable on maturity. Proceeds of the borrowing have been added to Australia's international reserves and accordingly, through investment of reserves, earn a return. 1. (b) The proposed increase in Australia's quota in the International Monetary Fund is from SDR1185m to SDR1619.2m, an increase of SDR434.2m. This represents approximately $A500m at the exchange rate on 20 October 1983. Assuming that the proposed quota increase is implemented, Australia will meet its increased subscription in two components. 75 per cent of the increase ( approximately $A375m) will be met by issuing a non-negotiable, non-interest bearing security denominated in Australian dollars. This involves no cost or return to Australia unless, in the future, the IMF's use of Australian dollars increases to the extent that it has to encash all or part of the security. In that event, Australia would receive remuneration, the rate of which is varied from week to week; for the week beginning 17 October, the rate of remuneration was 7.34 per cent. The other 25 per cent of the increased subscription ( approximately $A175m) will be paid in the form of reserve assets, and will begin to earn remuneration as described above as soon as it is paid (although there is an offsetting cost in the form of reduced earnings on Australia's foreign exchange holdings). If, at some subsequent time, Australia were to draw upon this component of its quota-as it is entitled to-remuneration would cease to be received (but the resultant higher level of foreign exchange holdings would entail increased earnings). As implied above, the quota increase itself does not entail any change in the overall level of Australia's international reserves, but only a change in the composition of those reserves. (2) The second part of the question implies a direct connection between the Eurodollar borrowing and the payment of Australia's quota increase to the IMF. As the answer to part 1 indicates, the two transactions are on an entirely different footing, and there can be no such connection. The question of net loss or gain by relating the two events does not, therefore, arise. Question No. 597 Dr Klugman asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 11 October 1983: (1) What percentage of total revenue was constituted by (a) net PAYE, (b) other individual income tax, (c) company tax, (d) customs duty, (e) crude oil and LPG excise duty, (f) other excise duty, (g) sales tax, (h) payroll tax, (i) departure tax, (j) estate and gift duties, and (k) other taxes if amounting to more than 1 per cent of total revenue in each of the years (i) 1948-49, (ii) 1954-55, (iii) 1959-60, (iv) 1964-65, (v) 1969-70, (vi) 1974-75, (vii) 1979-80, (viii) 1981-82, and (ix) 1982-83. (2) What is the estimated percentage of revenue for each category in 1983-84. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2)- PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL REVENUE Non- PAYE Crude Oil Estate Net Income Company Customs and LPG Other Sales Payroll Departure and Gift PAYE Taxa Tax Duties Excise Excises Taxes Tax Tax Duties 1948-49 . . 42.4 b 15.3 13.5 . . 13.3 8.3 4.2 . . 1.1 1954-55 . . 38.8 18.2 10 .9 . . 15.4 10.8 4.5 . . 1.2 1959-60 19.3 12.0 18.1 6.9 . . 20.3 13.2 4.4 . . 1 .3 1964-65 26.4 15.4 18.9 7.2 . . 16.7 9.7 4.3 . . 1.3 1969-70 33.0 12.2 18.6 6.6 . . 14.7 9.0 4.2 . . 1.3 1974-75 43.1 11.7 17.4 6.0 . . 12.3 8.2 . . . . 0. 6 1979-80 44.5 10.5 13.0 6.0 8.3 9.9 6.8 . . 0.06 . . 1981-82 46.1 10.1 13.4 5 .7 8.4 7.5 7.6 . . 0.09 . . 1982-83 46.1 10.1 11.8 5.1 8.5 8.1 8.5 . . 0.10 . . 1983-84e 44.7 9.4 10.3 4.8 7.8 9.9 9.0 . . 0.09 . . a Prior to 1958-59, PAYE and other personal income tax collections were not recorded separately. b This includes the separate social security contribution. e Estimated. Figures for 1983-84 exclude the Medicare levy and the Recoupment Tax, which consists of both personal and company tax. The special tax on labour and services (the prescribed payments system) is included in non-PAYE income tax . The only other tax that amounted to more than 1 per cent of total revenue was an entertainment tax (1.1 per cent) in 1948-49. Question No. 614 Mr Tuckey —Asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 13 October 1983: (1) Do his responsibilities in accordance with the Parliament Act 1974 include that no building or other work be erected on land within the Parliamentary zone unless he has caused a proposal for the erection of the building or work to be laid before each House of the Parliament and the proposal be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. (2) Does (a) a provision of the Trespass on Commonwealth Lands Ordinance 1932- 1972, particularly section 8 (A) define a tent as a structure and forbid camping on unleased Commonwealth land and (b) section 8 (B) of the ordinance only permits an officer authorised by the Minister to grant a permit of temporary occupancy for the purposes of a festival, show-fair, circus or carnival. (3) When does he intend to place his proposal before the Parliament to justify his stated approval of the erection of tents within the Parliamentary zone, as defined in the Parliament Act. (4) Will he ensure that the Government allows a conscience vote on this important issue. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) (a) Section 8A of the Ordinance states that a tent is a structure for the purposes of the provision and that camping without a permit on unleased Commonwealth land is forbidden. (b) Yes. (3) The definition of a structure for the purposes of the Trespass on Commonwealth Lands Ordinance is not relevant for the purposes of the Parliament Act 1974. The erection of tents within the Parliamentary zone, as defined in the Parliament Act, does not fall within the ambit of section 5 (1) of that Act. I do not intend, therefore, nor am I required, to place a proposal before the Parliament in relation to this matter. (4) No. Question No. 620 Mr Lloyd asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 October 1983: (1) What is the present status of the request by the Ardmona Fruit Products Co- operative Company Pty Ltd for compensation, following contradictory advice from the Australian Taxation Office to the company concerning sales tax exemption for an aerated drink containing more than 25 per cent of pure fruit juice. (2) Are there any other issues outstanding with the company concerning sales tax exemption for aerated drinks made wholly or substantially from pure fruit juice. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am unable to answer the honourable members question. There are express provisions in the sales tax law which prevent the disclosure of any information relating to a taxpayer's affairs. Question No. 639 Mr Andrews asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 20 October 1983: (1) Which water resource projects in South Australia announced by the previous Government have been (a) cancelled, (b) approved and funded, and (c) approved but not funded. (2) Which country town water supplies projects in South Australia, referred to by the Treasurer in his Economic Statement on 19 May 1983, have been (a) approved, (b) funded, and (c) commenced. Mr Barry Jones —the Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) On 25 January 1983, the previous Government announced a program of water expenditure, which was subsequently referred to as the bicentennial water resources program. Whether that program would ever have been implemented is a matter for conjecture, especially in view of the admission by the then Treasurer , and now Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, that he would not have regarded the Burdekin scheme, which was part of the 25 January program, as any more sacrosanct than other areas, and that he would have put it into hotch-potch with some of the other things (the Age 18 August 1983). Lock 2-Lock 3 saline groundwater interception scheme on the River Murray was included in the proposed bicentennial water resources program (b) Accelerated works programs for water filtration plants for Adelaide and the northern towns; there has been an increase in Commonwealth funds in 1983-84 of 165 per cent over 1982-83. (c) None. (2) Discussions are still taking place between Commonwealth and State officers on projects suitable for inclusion in the community employment program. Question No. 651 Mr Reeves asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 1 November 1983: Which professional and other non-wage groups have sought a determination of their fees on a voluntary basis from the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission . Mr Willis —The answer to the Honourable member's question is as follows: No group has yet formally requested that a member of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission consider an application for increased fees. However the possibility of using the services of members of the Commission has been discussed with member associations of the Australian Council of Professions. This issue will be discussed in some detail at the next meeting of the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes (ACPI) on 16 December. ACPI provides a forum where employers, unions, the professions and governments can discuss issues relating to the operation of the prices and incomes policy. Question No. 655 Mr Adermann asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 November 1983: (1) Were full page advertisements placed in national newspapers inviting tenders for Treasury Bonds, during the week commencing 16 October 1983. (2) If so, did those advertisements advise that (a) application forms were available only in the capital cities and (b) applications plus cheques should be physically placed in receptacles in Reserve Banks in capital cities precluding any mail application. (3) Does this procedure preclude country people who could not travel to the capital cities from any opportunity in participating in tendering for Treasury Bonds; if so, will such discrimination against country people be avoided in future issues. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) (a) The advertisements advised that information, prospectus and application forms were available on request from a branch of the Reserve Bank or a Commonwealth Loans Officer, located in capital cities; application forms and prospectuses were posted to enquiries, on request. (b) Yes. (3) The present system does not preclude country people from bidding in tenders , although those who could not travel to the capital cities would need to arrange for an agent to lodge their bids. Nevertheless, the procedures for lodging bids at Treasury Bond tenders are under review, with an aim of providing easier bidding access for investors. Question No. 699 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 2 November 1983: How many (a) complaints have been made to the Commissioner for Community Relations and (b) compulsory conferences arising out of these complaints have been called, in each State, during each year since 1979. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Office of the Human Rights Commission has advised that the following number of complaints have been made under the Racial Discrimination Act- 1.7.78 to 30.6.79-976 1.7.79 to 30.6.80-1394 1.7.80 to 30.6.81-904 1.7.81 to 30.6.82-836 1.7.82 to 30.6.83-512 The Office of the Commission has also advised that the number of compulsory conferences called on a State by State basis for each of these years is as follows- N.S.W. Qld Vic. W.A. Tas. A.C.T. N.T. 1.7.78 to 30.6.79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7.79 to 30.6.80 10 2 1 4 . . 1 . . 1.7.80 to 30.6.81 4 8 . . 3 . . . . . . 1.7.81 to 30.6.82 . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . 1.7.82 to 30.6.83 1 19 . . . . . . . . . . Question No. 721 Mr Brumby asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 November 1983: (1) How many staff were employed at each regional office of the Australian Taxation Office (a) in each of the years 1978-82 inclusive and (b) as at 30 June 1983 and how many staff were (i) investigation officers and (ii) information officers. (2) What are the expected staff levels in each office for 1984-85, indicating respectively the number of (a) investigation officers and (b) information officers. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. The numbers of staff employed at each regional office of the Australian Taxation Office for the years 1978-1982 inclusive and as at 30 June 1983 were: Office 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Bankstown 15 15 12 9 8 6 Lismore 25 25 25 23 20 17 Newcastle 21 22 22 22 21 22 Tamworth 15 17 17 15 14 12 Wagga 16 18 18 19 14 14 Wollongong 18 25 18 17 17 15 Orange 12 12 12 12 12 11 Horsham 6 6 5 5 5 5 Geelong 10 10 10 10 10 11 Ballarat 8 8 6 6 6 6 Warrnambool nil 6 6 6 5 4 Bendigo 8 8 8 8 7 7 Cairns 6 6 6 6 5 5 Mackay 5 5 5 5 5 5 Rockhampton 8 8 8 8 7 7 Toowoomba 9 9 9 9 8 7 Alice Springs nil 5 5 4 4 4 Mount Gambier 5 5 5 5 5 5 Elizabeth 4 4 4 4 4 4 Launceston 8 8 8 8 8 8 2. The numbers of investigation officers and information officers were: OFFICE 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 30.6.83 Bankstown- Investigation Officers 1 1 1 Nil Nil Nil Information Officers 4 4 4 3 3 3 Lismore- Investigation Officers 3 3 3 3 3 3 Information Officers 3 3 3 3 3 3 Newcastle- Investigation Officers 3 3 3 3 3 3 Information Officers 5 5 5 5 5 5 Tamworth- Investigation Officers 3 3 2 2 1 1 Information Officers 4 4 4 4 4 3 Wagga- Investigation Officers 1 1 1 1 1 1 Information Officers 4 4 4 4 3 2 Wollongong- Investigation Officers 3 3 3 3 2 1 Information Officers 2 2 2 2 2 2 Orange- Investigation Officers 3 3 3 3 3 1 Information Officers 3 3 3 3 3 3 Horsham- Investigation Officers 1 1 1 1 1 Nil Information Officers 2 2 1 1 1 2 Geelong- Investigation Officers 3 3 3 3 3 3 Information Officers 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ballarat- Investigation Officers 3 3 1 1 Nil Nil Information Officers 3 3 3 3 4 4 Warrnambool- Investigation Officers Nil 2 2 2 1 1 Information Officers Nil 1 1 1 1 1 Bendigo- Investigation Officers 3 3 3 3 2 2 Information Officers 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cairns- Investigation Officers 1 1 1 1 Nil Nil Information Officers 1 1 1 1 2 2 Mackay- Investigation Officers Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Information Officers 2 2 2 2 2 2 Rockhampton- Investigation Officers 2 2 2 2 Nil Nil Information Officers 1 1 1 1 2 2 Toowoomba- Investigation Officers 3 3 3 3 1 Nil Information Officers 1 1 1 1 2 2 Alice Springs- Investigation Officers Nil 1 1 Nil Nil Nil Information Officers Nil 1 1 1 1 1 Mt Gambier- Investigation Officers 1 1 1 1 Nil Nil Information Officers 1 1 1 1 1 1 Elizabeth- Investigation Officers Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Information Officers 1 1 1 1 1 1 Launceston- Investigation Officers 2 2 2 2 1 1 Information Officers 2 2 2 2 3 3 3. The expected staff levels in each office for 1984-85 are: Total Investigations Information Office staff officers officers Bankstown 6 Nil 3 Lismore 17 3 3 Newcastle 22 3 5 Tamworth 12 1 3 Wagga 14 1 2 Wollongong 15 1 2 Orange 11 1 3 Horsham 5 Nil 2 Geelong 11 3 2 Ballarat 6 Nil 4 Warrnambool 4 1 1 Bendigo 7 1 2 Cairns 5 Nil 2 Mackay 5 Nil 2 Rockhampton 7 Nil 2 Toowoomba 7 Nil 2 Alice Springs 4 Nil 1 Mt Gambier 5 Nil 1 Elizabeth 4 Nil 1 Launceston 8 1 3 Question No. 729 Mr Burr asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 November 1983: Is tax deducted from unemployment benefit payments; if so, (a) under which section of what legislation are the deductions made and (b) under what conditions. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As a general rule tax instalments are not deducted from unemployment benefits. Instalments are deducted only if the beneficiary requests that this be done or if he or she declines to complete an income tax instalment declaration when applying for benefits. Beneficiaries may be advised to have tax deducted where tax will ultimately be payable on assessment. Deductions are made in accordance with Division 2 of Part VI of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Question No. 823 Mr Spender asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice on 17 November 1983: (1) What was the membership, including invited members, of the (a) Council of Defence, (b) Defence Committee, (c) Defence Force Development Committee, (d) Defence (Administration) Committee, (e) Defence Science Board, (f) Defence Industry Committee, and its sub-committees, (g) Consultative Group, (h) Defence Force Structure Committee, (i) Defence Operational Requirements Committee, (j) Joint Planning Committee and (k) Defence Source Definition Committee as at (i) 1 May 1982; (ii) 1 July 1982, (iii) 1 January 1983, (iv) 30 June 1983 and (v) the date of this question. (2) What were the terms of reference of each committee at the same dates. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) COUNCIL OF DEFENCE On 1 May 1982, the members of the Council of Defence were: Chairman: The Minister for Defence. Members: The Minister assisting the Minister for Defence; Secretary, Department of Defence; Chief of Defence Force Staff; Chief of Naval Staff; Chief of the General Staff; Chief of the Air Staff. The terms of reference of the Council of Defence are laid down in Regulations 12 and 13 of the Defence Force Regulations: '12. The function of the Council of Defence constituted under sub-section 28 (1 ) of the Act is to consider and discuss matters relating to the control and administration of the Defence Force, and of the respective arms of the Defence Force, referred to the Council by the Minister.' '13. (1) Subject to sub-regulation (2), the Council of Defence shall meet only at such times as the Minister directs. (2) The Council of Defence shall meet at least 4 times in each year.' The terms of reference have not been altered in the period concerned. The membership of the Council of Defence was altered on 19 August 1982 by Executive Council Instrument, to: Chairman: The Minister for Defence. Members: The Minister for Defence Support and Minister assisting the Minister for Defence; Secretary, Department of Defence; Secretary, Department of Defence Support; Chief of Defence Force Staff; Chief of Naval Staff; Chief of the General Staff; Chief of the Air Staff. Membership of the Council remained unchanged until 14 April 1983, when it was again altered by Executive Council Instrument, to: Chairman: The Minister for Defence. Members: The Minister for Defence Support; The Minister assisting the Minister for Defence; Secretary, Department of Defence; Secretary, Department of Defence Support; Chief of Defence Force Staff; Chief of Naval Staff; Chief of the General Staff; Chief of the Air Staff. There have been no subsequent changes to membership of the Council. Before the change of membership on 19 August 1982 the Secretary, Department of Defence Support, attended as an invited member at meetings of the Council of Defence held on 31 May and 2 July 1983. DEFENCE COMMITTEE Both the membership of and terms of reference for the Defence Committee are set out in the Defence Committee Regulations. On 1 May 1982, the membership of the Defence Committee was: Chairman: Secretary, Department of Defence. Members: Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee; Chief of Naval Staff; Chief of the General Staff; Chief of the Air Staff; Secretary, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; Secretary, Department of the Treasury; Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs. Whenever the Defence Committee considers it necessary to do so, it may, with the approval of the Minister, co-opt any person for consideration of a matter before the Committee and that person shall for the time being be deemed to be a member of the Committee (vide Defence Committee Regulation 4 (2)). Also, the Defence Committee may call into consultation representatives of a Department or authority concerned in a matter under discussion (vide Defence Committee Regulation 4 (3)). The Permanent Heads of some Commonwealth Departments and Authorities have variously attended meetings of the Defence Committee in the period concerned, either as co-opted members in terms of Regulation 4 (2) or as invited consultants in terms of Regulation 4 (3). On 1 May 1982, the functions of the Defence Committee were to advise the Minister (for Defence) on: a. the defence policy as a whole; b. the co-ordination of military, strategic economic, financial and external affairs aspects of the defence policy; c. matters of policy or principle and important questions having a joint Service or interdepartmental defence aspect; and d. such other matters having a defence aspect as are referred to the Committee by or on behalf of the Minister; and (the Committee) may carry out such investigations as it thinks fit for the purpose of advising the Minister on those matters. There have been no changes, either to the membership or to the terms of reference in the period concerned. DEFENCE FORCE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE On 1 May 1982, membership of the Defence Force Development Committee was: Chairman: Secretary, Department of Defence Members: Chief of Defence Force Staff; Chief of Naval Staff; Chief of the General Staff; Chief of the Air Staff Its terms of reference were: To advise the Minister for Defence, in the context of strategic assessments and the most efficient use of resources, on the development of the Defence Force as a whole; and the inclusion in the Five Year Rolling Program of major weapons and equipment capabilities. To initiate and review major studies concerned with development of the Defence Force, and to exchange views, and review progress in the development of the Defence Program. To review matters of common interest to members and to review progress in the preparation of proposals and appreciations for submission to the Government. There has been no alteration to these terms of reference in the period concerned. On 14 October 1982, the Secretary, Department of Defence Support attended for the first time as a member of the Committee and has attended subsequent meetings . There have been no other changes of membership. The Chief Defence Scientist, Deputy Secretaries A, B and C, and the Chief of Supply and Support of the Department of Defence have variously attended meetings of the Defence Force Development Committee as invited members during the period concerned. DEFENCE (ADMINISTRATION) COMMITTEE On 1 May 1982, the membership and terms of reference of the Defence ( Administration) Committee were as follows: Chairman: Secretary, Department of Defence. Members: Chief of Defence Force Staff; Chief of Naval Staff; Chief of the General Staff; Chief of the Air Staff; Secretary, Department of Finance. The Committee may request senior departmental officers to attend its meetings as invited members. Its function is to review the Five Year Defence Program and the Annual Defence Estimates. The Defence (Administration) Committee has not met since before 1 May 1982. DEFENCE SCIENCE BOARD On 1 May 1982, the membership of the Defence Science Board was: Chairman Secretary, Department of Defence. Members: Chief of Defence Force Staff; Chief of Defence Scientist; Deputy Secretary, Department of Treasury. Its function is to consider in the context of Defence objectives, major issues concerning the policy for defence science including its relationship to other national interests. The Defence Science Board has not met in the period concerned. DEFENCE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE The membership of the Defence Industry Committee in the period 1 May to 6 July 1982 was as follows: Sir David Zeidler, CBE, Chairman. Mr B. T. Loton, Vice Chairman (Managing Director The Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd). Business Members: Mr J. A. Davidson, AO, Chairman, Commonwealth Industrial Gases Ltd; Mr J. A. L. Hooke, CBE, Chairman and Chief Executive, AWA Ltd; Mr J. K. Horwood, Chairman, Chamberlain John Deere Pty Ltd; Sir Brian Inglis, Chairman , Ford Asia Pacific Inc.; Mr R. Kingsford-Smith, DSO, DFC, Chairman, Hawker de Havilland Aust Pty Ltd; Mr W. D. McPherson, Chairman, McPhersons Ltd; Mr A. T. Maitland, Chief Economist, ANZ Banking Group Ltd. Departmental Members: Deputy Secretary C, Department of Defence; Chief of Naval Technical Services; Chief of Materiel-Army; Chief of Air Force Technical Services; Chief of Supply, Department of Defence; First Assistant Secretary, Defence Industry and Materiel Policy; First Assistant Secretary, Defence and Government Division, Department of Finance; Secretary, Department of Industry and Commerce (or his representative(s)). As from the meeting on 6 July 1982, the Secretary, Department of Defence Support (or his representative(s)) has attended as a member. In June 1983 the Committee comprised those listed above with the exception of Mr A. T. Maitland who had tendered his resignation to the Minister. At present the Committee comprises those listed, with Mr H. P. Hurrell, Australian Council of Trade Unions representative, appointed to replace Mr A. T. Maitland, in November 1983. The terms of reference for the Defence Industry Committee are as follows: 1. To consider matters concerning the capacity of Australian industry to contribute to the defence requirements of the country. 2. To make recommendations when appropriate for the retention of existing capacity or the development of new capacity in the light of Department of Defence assessments of requirements. 3. To provide guidelines to allow industry to prepare for meeting the requiremens of the Defence Force during periods of threat or of war at varying levels of intensity and duration. 4. To give financial and management advice to the Department of Defence and the Services on questions referred to it. 5. To advise on stockholding of strategic materials. 6. To consider questions relating to the Defence Cataloguing System, and equipment standardisation. 7. To oversight the Industrial Mobilisation Course. 8. To report annually to the Minister for Defence on its activities. ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY SUB-COMMITTEE This sub-committee of the Defence Industry Committee was established in July 1982. Its report was endorsed by the Defence Industry Committee in September 1983. Its membership comprised: Chairman: Mr J. A. L. Hooke, CBE, Chairman and Chief Executive, Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Ltd, Business Member, Defence Industry Committee. Members: Mr B. R. Goddard, Managing Director, Plessey Pacific Pty Ltd; Chief of Supply, Department of Defence; Assistant Secretary, Policy and Planning Branch, Defence Industry and Materiel Policy Division, Department of Defence; Director, Electronics Research Laboratories, Defence Research Centre Salisbury; Director, Naval Weapons Design, representing Chief of Naval Technical Services; Director, Telecommunications Engineering Branch, Air Force, representing Chief of Air Force Technical Services. The terms of reference of the Electronics Industry Sub-Committee are to identify, assess and report on: a. The current and likely future capability of the Australian electronics industry to: 1. supply electronic equipment for defence tasks; and 2. maintain, repair and modify locally produced and imported electronic equipment used in those tasks. b. The technological, economic and other trends that will have a significant influence on the ability of the electronics industry to support defence. c. Specific measures by which any serious gaps in capabilities identified in a. might be rectified. d. The role of Government assistance in establishing and maintaining existing capabilities and in assisting or otherwise the establishment of new capabilities of defence importance. MACHINE TOOLS SUB-COMMITTEE This sub-committee of the Defence Industry Committee was established in July 1982. Its report was endorsed by the Defence Industry Committee in September 1983. Its membership comprised: Chairman: Mr W. D. McPherson, Chairman, McPhersons Ltd, Business Member, Defence Industry Committee. Members: Mr K. J. Kirby, Chairman, James N. Kirby Holdings Pty Ltd; Mr A. B. Avery, Director of Repco Corporation Ltd; Chief of Supply, Department of Defence ; Assistant Secretary, Industry Policy and Planning Branch, Defence Industry and Materiel Policy Division, Department of Defence (Executive Member); Assistant Controller, Projects, Planning and Control Branch, representing Controller Munitions Supply, Department of Defence Support; Staff Officer, Aircraft Equipment Engineering, Headquarters Support Command, representing Chief of Air Force Technical Services; Director of Defence Technical Services Army, Directorate of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering. The terms of reference of the Machine Tools Sub-Committee were to identify, assess and report on: a. the technological, economic and other trends that will have a significant influence on the nature of future machine tools and their uses, and the ability of local machine tool manufacturers to design, produce, maintain and repair such machines; b. the present and likely future defence requirements for machine tools and the likely local capability to meet those requirements; c. specific measures by which any serious gaps in capabilities identified in b. might be rectified; and d. the effectiveness of the Machine Tools Bounty in fostering and maintaining a nucleus machine tools industry, the importance of the Bounty to areas of the industry of defence importance, and the importance of the Bounty to commercial industrial activities in Australia. SPECIAL MATERIALS SUB-COMMITTEE The membership of the Special Materials Sub-Committee of the Defence Industry Committee, which was established in July 1983 remains as: Chairman: Sir Brian Inglis. Chairman: Ford Asia Pacific Inc. Executive Member: Assistant Secretary, Industry Policy and Planning Branch; Department of Defence. Other Members: Representative, Department of Resources and Energy; Representative, Department of Defence Support; Chief of Supply, Department of Defence. Other members are to be co-opted as required. The terms of reference of the Special Materials Sub-Committee are to identify, assess and report on: a. raw or lightly processed material inputs to production in Australia that are of special concern to defence, in that: 1. they are essential for the production of military or other items of importance to our defence effort; and 2. they may not be readily available in circumstances of threat or conflict. b. alternative ways of ensuring that supplies of those materials are available in emergency circumstances, including access to alternative or guaranteed overseas supplies, use of substitutes activation of otherwise uneconomic local sources and stockpiling, including, where relevant, any lead-time and cost penalty involved; c. specific measures by which any serious potential gaps in availability may be rectified. d. the role of Government in ensuring supplies and any costs or other consequences for Government. CHEMICAL (INCLUDING EXPLOSIVE) INDUSTRY SUB-COMMITTEE The membership of the Chemical Industry Sub-Committee of the Defence Industry Committee, which was established in July 1983 remains as: Chairman: Mr J. A. Davidson, AO. Chairman: Commonwealth Industrial Gases Ltd. Executive Member: Assistant Secretary, Industry Policy and Planning Branch, Department of Defence. Other Members: Mr E. W. Saunders, Imperial Chemical Industries; Representative of Department of Defence Support; Chief of Supply, Department of Defence. Other members are to be co-opted as required. The terms of reference of the Chemical Industry Sub-Committee are to identify, assess and report on: a. The current and likely future capability of the Australian Chemical Industry to: 1. produce and supply chemical products needed for military or other items of importance to our defence effort in times of peace and hostilities; and 2. expand production to meet the potential requirements of more likely contingencies. b. The technological, economic and other trends that will have a significant influence on the ability of the industry to supply products of defence importance. c. Specific measures by which any serious gaps in capabilities or capacities may be rectified. d. The role and cost-effectiveness of Government assistance in establishing and maintaining capabilities of defence importance. The chemical industry is defined in terms of the basic chemicals group of the Australian Standard Industry classification as including chemical fertilisers, industrial gases, synthetic resins and rubbers, organic and inorganic chemicals as listed and ammunition explosives and fireworks, but excluding pharmaceutical and veterinary products, pesticides, cosmetics, paints, inks, soaps, and detergents. CONSULTATIVE GROUP On 1 May 1982, membership of the Consultative Group was as follows: Chairman: Deputy Secretary B (or in his absence Deputy Secretary A or C). Members: Deputy Secretary A; Deputy Secretary C; Assistant Chief of Defence Force Staff; Deputy Chief of Naval Staff; Deputy Chief of the General Staff; Deputy Chief of the Air Staff; Chief of Supply and Support; Deputy Chief Defence Scientist; First Assistant Secretary, Force Development and Analysis; First Assistant Secretary, Programs and Budgets. Its terms of reference were: To consider bids for the Five Year Defence Programme (incorporating requirements of the three year Forward Estimates) and to recommend a programme to the Defence Force Development Committee. To consider bids for the annual draft Estimates and to recommend draft Estimates to the Defence Force Development Committee. There have been no changes to these terms of reference in the period concerned. For the meeting held on 7 December 1982 and subsequently, a Deputy Secretary, Department of Defence Support has attended as a member of the Committee. (At a meeting on 2 September 1982, he had attended as an invited member.) Appropriate Divisional Heads from Financial and Resources areas of Defence and Defence Support attend Consultative Group meetings as invited members. DEFENCE FORCE STRUCTURE COMMITTEE On 1 May 1982, membership of the Force Structure Committee was as follows: Chairman: Deputy Secretary B. Members: Assistant Chief of Defence Force Staff; Chief of Naval Operational Requirements and Plans; Chief of Operations-Army; Chief of Air Force Operations (Chief of Air Force Development up until 1 September 1983); Deputy Chief Defence Scientist; First Assistant Secretary, Force Development and Analysis; First Assistant Secretary, Programs and Budgets; First Assistant Secretary, Defence Industry and Material Policy; First Assistant Secretary, Strategic and International Policy; First Assistant Secretary, Defence and Government Division , Department of Finance. The appropriate Chief of Materiel is invited to attend when matters affecting his functional responsibilities are discussed. Other officers are also invited as appropriate. The terms of reference of the Force Structure Committee are to provide advice to the Defence Force Development Committee and to participate in decision making on the development of the force structure, Five Year Defence Programme and major equipment proposals and to keep these matter under review. There has been no change to the membership and terms of reference in the period concerned, other than the changed designation of the Air Force member. DEFENCE OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS COMMITTEE On 1 May 1982, the membership of the Defence Operational Requirements Committee was as follows: Chairman: Assistant Chief of Defence Force Staff. Members: Chief of Naval Opertional Requirements and Plans; Chief of Operations- Army; Chief of Air Force Development; Controller, Projects and Analytical Studies; Assistant Secretary, Force Analysis (representing First Assistant Secretary Force Development and Analysis); Assistant Secretary, Strategic Guidance and Policy (representing First Assistant Secretary Strategic and International Policy). Assistant Secretary, Resources Policy, and Assistant Secretary, Project Planning and Evaluation have intermittently attended meetings, representing their First Assistant Secretaries. The terms of reference of the Defence Operational Requirements Committee are to consider Staff Objectives and Staff Targets likely to become the subject of major equipment submissions and their endorsement for further definition and development; and to consider, review and endorse Staff Requirements for major equipment and, when appropriate, their submission for further consideration by the Chiefs of Staff Committee. There have been no changes either to membership or terms of reference in the period concerned (other than the re-designation of the Air Force and DSTO members). JOINT PLANNING COMMITTEE On 1 May 1982, the membership of the Joint Planning Committee was as follows: Chairman: Chief of Joint Operations and Plans. Members: Director General, Naval Plans and Policy; Director General, Operations and Plans-Army; Director General, Policy and Plans- Air Force; Assistant Secretary, Strategic Guidance and Policy representing First Assistant Secretry International Policy Representative of Chief Defence Science (optional); Assistant Secretary Defence Policy Branch Department of Foreign Affairs ( optional). The terms of reference of the Joint Planning Committee are to advise the Defence Committee and/or Chief of Defence Force Staff/Chiefs of Staff Committee on: Operational aspects of Defence planning. Appreciations and plans for combined and joint operations. Co-ordination of joint training. There have been no changes either to membership or to terms of reference for the Committee in the period concerned. DEFENCE SOURCE DEFINITION COMMITTEE The membership of the Defence Source Definition Committee as at 1 May 1982 was: Chairman: First Assistant Secretary, Defence Industry and Materiel Policy Division. Members: Appropriate Chief of Materiel; Chief of Supply; Superintendent Major Projects, Projects and Analytical Studies Division; Assistant Secretary, Resources Policy Programmes and Budgets Division; Assistant Secretary, Project Development, Force Development and Analysis Division; Assistant Secretary, Major Projects, Department of Administrative Services. (Note 1). Executive Member: Assistant Secretary, Project Planning and Evaluation, Defence Industry and Materiel Policy Division. Invited Member: Senior Assistant Crown Solicitor (Contracts), Attorney General' s Department; Assistant Secretary,Industry Development, Defence Industry and Materiel Policy Division. (Note 2); Other Members as required. (Note 3). (Note 1. This position was redesignated as Assistant Secretary, Major Contracts , Defence Purchasing Division, Department of Defence Support when transferred to that Department in September 1982. Note 2. This position was transferred to the Department of Defence Support on 7 May 1982. It was formally redesignated Assistant Secretary, Industry Strategy, Department of Defence Support, on 24 November 1983. Note 3. Other invited members as required would normally include the respective Project Director/ Officer or a Chief of Technical Services.) Significant capital equipment acquisition proposals, eg. New Tactical Fighter, Aircraft Carrier and Follow-on Destroyer (now known as Australian Frigate Project) are considered by an Augmented Defence Source Definition Committee. Membership of the Augmented DSDC is as shown below: Chairman: Deputy Secretary C. Executive Member: First Assistant Secretary, Defence Industry and Materiel Policy Division. Members: Deputy Secretary, Department of Defence Support; Chief of Supply and Support; Appropriate Chief of Materiel; First Assistant Secretary, Programs and Budgets Division; First Assistant Secretary, Force Development and Analysis Division; Controller, Projects and Analytical Studies Division; Special Adviser, Defence Industry and Materiel Policy Division; First Assistant Secretary, Defence and Government Branch, Department of Finance; Senior Assistant Crown Solicitor (Contracts), Attorney-General's Office; Assistant Secretary, Major Contracts, Defence Purchasing Division, Department of Defence Support. Other members may be included in the Agumented Defence Source Definition Committee, as invited members, as appropriate. The terms of reference of the Defence Source Definition Committee are to: a. formulate recommendations to the Defence Force Development Committee (DFDC) or to the Minister, as appropriate, on the preferred source of supply of items of major and selected minor equipment to be acquired by the Department of Defence. b. provide the focus in the departmental acquisition process for the identification of the range of contractual, policy, technical and other factors which need to be taken into account in planning for the effective, proper and orderly procurement of items of capital equipment; and c. endorse, for all major and selected minor projects, formal Equipment Acquisition Strategies to provide authority, direction and co-ordination to the range of procurement-related actions necessary to complete a timely acquisition. Question No. 829 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) When will the Government be in a position to release the report of the investigation into allegations that Australians had been exposed to dangerous radiation as a result of the atomic weapons test program in Australia in the 1950s. (2) If the investigation is still continuing, can a preliminary report be prepared for presentation to the Parliament based on information already obtained. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) I have been informed by the Minister for Health that the two studies conducted by his Department concerning the health of personnel associated with the atomic tests program have been completed. Arrangements are being made to table the reports as soon as possible. Question No. 903 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 6 December 1983: Will he explore with the ambassadors for UNESCO and for Disarmament, the promotion of an international convention and bilateral agreements on desirable guidelines for the exchange of views and the promotion of the publication of summaries of news, from opposing viewpoints, among nations as a stimulus to public discussion and information, peace-building and increasing freedom of information and communications; if not, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Communications and information issues have been the subject of extensive debate in the United Nations system in recent years, particularly in UNESCO. The Government does not believe that the answers to the problems of interchange of views and information necessarily lie in developing international conventions or bilateral agreements. Experience in UNESCO and other forums suggests that attempts at such codification can be exploited to seek to curb rather than to promote international information flows. A more effective approach would be to encourage the creation in as many countries as possible of an environment and infrastructure which would encourage the free discussion of matters of public importance. It should be recalled also that the United Nations already has an extensive public information network, which highlights major international issues of importance, including disarmament. The United Nations World Disarmament Campaign also has an important role to play in this area, which is recognised by the Australian Government's voluntary contribution of $A30,000 to the Campaign. Question No. 10 Dr Klugman asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: What is the estimated cost to revenue in 1982-83 of the tax rebate for basic medical and hospital insurance. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The estimated cost to revenue in 1982-83 of the income tax rebate for basic medical and hospital insurance is $520m. Question No. 205 Mr Reeves asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: What are the (a) amounts and (b) details of each foreign investment project approved by the Foreign Investment Review Board for investment in or related to the Northern Territory since 1978-79 Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) and (b) Aggregate data on direct foreign investment proposals approved by the Government are published in the reports of the Foreign Investment Review Board. Details of proposed direct foreign investments in the Northern Territory, approved by the Government since 1978-79, are as follows: APPROVALS UNDER FOREIGN INVESTMENT POLICY FOR INVESTMENT IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY Expected Total new expected Number Consideration investment investment $m $m $m 1978-79 25(a) 1.8 79.6 81.4 1979-80 25(b) 4.5 64.1 68.7 1980-81 23(c) 116.4 149.6 266.0 1981-82 23(d) 28.6 659.7 688.3 1982-83 22(e) 5.1 122.7 127.8 (a) A further four proposals involving aggregate consideration of $4.5m and aggregate expected new investment of $0.2m were associated with the Northern Territory but also involved investment in one or two other States. (b) A further proposal involving aggregate consideration of $1m was associated with the Northern Territory but also involved investment in one or two other States. (c) A further seven proposals involving aggregate consideration of $19.5m and aggregate expected new investment of $53.0m were associated with the Northern Territory but also involved investment in one or two other States. (d) A further four proposals involving aggregate consideration of $9.1m and aggregate expected new investment of $18.8m were associated with the Northern Territory but also involved investment in one or two other States. (e) A further six proposals involving aggregate consideration of $1.4m were associated with the Northern Territory but also involved investment in one or two other States. The expected expenditure data associated with foreign investment proposals approved by the Government should be treated with caution as these expectations record only the intentions of foreign investors at the time their proposals are submitted to the Board. These intentions may not always be realised for a number of reasons including changes in commercial circumstances and unsuccessful exploration or feasibility studies. In view of the commercial sensitivity of much of the information provided to the Board during the examination of foreign investment proposals, details of individual proposals are treated in strict confidence and are not disclosed other than to the parties directly involved. However, in view of the public interest in foreign investment policy, it is the practice for the Government's decisions in major or otherwise significant proposals to be announced publicly after consultations with the parties. Decisions on foreign investment proposals in the Northern Territory made public by the Government include: * conditional approval for the acquisition of the Koongarra uranium deposits in the Northern Territory from Noranda Australia by the Canadian-owned Denison Mines Ltd. (Details are available from the then Treasurer's press releases No. 63 of 19 June and No. 122 of 14 September 1980); * the rejection by the Government of the proposal by Commercial Aviation Pty Ltd to acquire the Northern Territory based helicopter operator, Rotor Services pty Ltd (press release No. 176 of 15 December 1980); * the rejection by the Government of the proposed acquisition by International Real Estate Holdings Inc of the Koala Motel in Darwin (press release No. 94 of 2 June 1981); * conditional approval to Burgundy Royale Pty Ltd to acquire real estate in Darwin to develop the $40m Darwin centre project (press release No. 98 of 12 June 1981); * approval of the acquisition of 'Montejinni Station' in the Northern Territory by the Government of Sabah, Malaysia (press release No. 20 of 19 February 1982); * conditional approval for Magellan Petroleum (NT) Pty Ltd to develop the Palm Valley gas field in the Northern Territory (press release No. 32 of 12 March 1982); and * approval of the acquisition of 'Rosewood' cattle station in the Northern Territory (and extending into Western Australia) by the Sarawak Economic Development Corporation (press releases No. 17 of 10 May and No. 79 of 16 August 1983). Question No. 398 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: (1) Is it a fact that when permanent residents of nursing homes vacate their beds temporarily, for purposes of undergoing hospital treatment, they are required to pay bed retention fees which may be up to the full cost of daily residence; if so, will he examine alternative arrangements in the form of financial assistance from the Government to remove this financial burden from the residents and place it instead on nursing homes themselves. (2) Is he able to say whether there is a large pool of permanently bed-ridden persons who are cared for at home by their families; if so, will he consider providing financial assistance to these families to enable the cared-for person to be offered the opportunity of a short stay in a nursing home, which would also relieve any financial burden suffered by the proprietors of nursing homes who were required to maintain an otherwise empty bed at their own expense. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The arrangements under the present scheme of nursing home financing whereby permanent residents of nursing homes who temporarily vacate their beds are required to pay bed retention fees are a matter of concern to the Government. Under these arrangements, where a patient is absent from a nursing home approved under the National Health Act for a period of 24 hours or more, and has requested retention of the bed, the proprietor may charge a bed retention fee, up to the full approved fee, for that bed. Under the National Health Act the payment of the Commonwealth daily nursing home benefit can only be made in respect of a patient who is actually occupying a bed in an approved home. This retention fee was brought into being at the request of both patients and proprietors to remove a source of anxiety about permanency of occupation. However, it is possible in some cases for nursing home proprietors to relieve temporarily absent patients of the need to pay a bed retention fee by using the vacant beds to provide respite care for eligible patients. Where temporarily vacant beds are used in this way, the respite care patient is required to meet the fees charged (less Commonwealth benefit), and the absent patient is not required to pay a bed retention fee. Where a patient is absent from a deficit financed nursing home approved under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act, and specifically requests retention of their bed during their absence, a bed retention fee equivalent to the prescribed fee applicable to patients is usually charged. Currently, the prescribed fee is $11. 95 a day. However, where a patient is absent from the nursing home for the purpose of undergoing hospital treatment and is charged a fee by the hospital, a bed retention fee is not payable. The period for which a bed should be retained in a deficit financed home is a matter for the proprietor's discretion but in general would not be expected to exceed two weeks. Part of the Government's Aged Care Policy is for the current system of funding nursing homes to be replaced by a system of program grants for recurrent expenditure based on standard costs for the services delivered less income received from standard patient contributions. The time a patient may be absent from a nursing home and the payment of fees during that time are matters which I shall be considering when developing the proposed system of funding nursing homes. (2) There is no information available to indicate the number of permanently bed -ridden persons who are cared for at home by their families. Although my Department encourages nursing home proprietors to use temporarily vacant beds to provide respite care for eligible persons who are being cared for at home, there is little financial incentive for them to do so. In developing the Residential Care Program, I shall be exploring ways of providing such an incentive. In addition, it will be necessary to provide a means of putting respite care patients and proprietors with vacant beds in touch with each other. Question No. 440 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Health, 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. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: For parts (a) to (e) (i) The following table lists by purpose those amounts received by the Queensland Government from appropriations of the Department of Health for each year of the period 1972-73 to August 1983. It should be noted in relation to these funds, however, that funds received by the Queensland Government could only be advised for the whole financial year of 1972-73 rather than for December 1972 to 30 June 1973 due to difficulties in locating 12-year- old records. (ii) The Department of Health is not aware of any funds being returned by the Queensland Government. Funds for ongoing programs that are overadvanced, underspent or in excess of entitlement are not generally returned to the department but are adjusted against the following year's payments or advances. Some funds were declined by the Queensland Government in respect of women's refuges and were subsequently paid to the refuges direct by the Commonwealth. These amounts are: 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 $ $ $ $ 12,461 22,363 40,813 25,898 In 1975 Queensland delayed entering the hospital cost sharing arrangements and by so doing relinquished access to some Commonwealth funding under these arrangements. Details of the exact amount of funding foregone are not available but could have been as much as $7m. Also there is an amount of $6.7m outstanding for Queensland under the hospital cost sharing arrangements. This amount will be paid following receipt of the Queensland Minister's advice regarding formal agreement to the 1980-81 hospital cost sharing budget. FUNDS RECEIVED BY THE QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT FROM THE COMMONWEALTH DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH OVER THE PERIOD JULY 1982 TO AUGUST 1983 ($'000) July-23 Purpose of funds 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Aug. 1983 Expend. Expend. Expend. Expend. Expend. Expend. Expend. Expend. Expend. Expend. Expend. Expend. Comments Mental health institutions-grants for capital expenditure 967 247 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Final payments under program. New grants commenced 1973-74 under Hospital Development Program and Community Health Facilities and Services Program. Hospitals development program-capital grants public hospital and mental institution . . 250 5,084 15,280 17,000 7,130 . . . . . . . . . . . . Program commenced 1973-74 and ceased 1977-78. Nursing Homes-grants for capital expenditure 240 145 148 925 652 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Program ceased end of 1976-77. Grants for community health facilities and services . . 2,202 3,173 5,421 7,602 6,960 5,233 4,788 6,329 . . . . . . Commenced 1973- 74. Transferred to general purpose payments from 1981-82. Grants for tuberculosis hospitals-capital and operating costs 1,923 2,269 3,035 2,025 1,362 667 . . . . . . . . . . . . Program ceased 31 Dec . 1976. Grants for school dental scheme-capital and operating . . 470 2,981 6,297 3,922 4,867 3,632 4,416 4,802 . . . . . . Commenced 1973-74 . Transferred to general purpose payments from 81-82. Grants for health/drug education campaigns 75 155 118 132 116 138 100 178 237 236 270 69 Blood transfusion services-grants for recurrent services 212 304 416 576 686 773 811 978 1,050 1,182 1,402 263 Grants for health planning agencies-recurrent expenditure . . 65 53 70 84 100 87 100 80 80 20 . . Commenced 1973-74. Program discontinued 30.9.82. Grants for disposal of ships garbage-grants for capital expenditure . . . . 18 . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . Grants for provision of home dialysis supplies and equipment . . . . 30 48 169 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduced in 1974-75 Budget. Absorbed into hospital cost sharing arrangements 1.10.76. Payments for recurrent costs of state public hospital . . . . . . 102,820 82,883 126,960 139,314 512,912 179,541 . . . . . . Commenced in 1975-76. Included in identifiable Health grant of General Revenue Grant 1981- 82. Grants for national diseases control program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 18 . . Program commenced 1974 in respect of N.S.W., Vic. and S.A. Program of aids for disabled (NWF aids and appliances) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 357 950 . . Question No. 557 Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice , on 21 September 1983: (1) What is the total number of refugees in Australia from the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. (2) What is the expected annual rate of Vietnamese refugee resettlement in Australia. (3) What programs are in place in their resettlement. (4) What consideration has the Government given to the efforts of the policy of encouraging Vietnamese officals to visit Australia, on refugees from Vietnam. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Between April 1975 and 30 September 1983, over 64,300 Vietnamese refugees from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam have arrived in Australia for resettlement. (2) Of the 12,435 Indo-Chinese refugees resettled in Australia in 1982-83, 8, 177 were Vietnamese. It is expected that some 10,000 Indo-Chinese refugees will be resettled here in the 1983-84 program year, of whom 6,500-7,000 are likely to be Vietnamese. Planning for future intakes will depend on circumstances prevailing at the time. (3) Where at all possible, settlement assistance for refugees is provided within the context of programs for migrants and for the Australian community in general. However because of the special disadvantages suffered by some refugees, there are some forms of additional assistance which are available only to them. These are: 1. the payment of a special social security benefit in the first week after arrival in Australia; 2. assistance with clothing and personal items after arrival to the value of $ 50; 3. an interest free loan of up to $600; $100 for single person; $250 for unmarried couple without children and $600 for married couple with children under the Committee for Allocation of Loan Funds to Refugees in Centres (CALFRIC ) revolving loans scheme to assist them to leave migrant accommodation centres for use as rent bonds and other initial housing expenses; 4. assistance to unaccompanied refugee minors; 5. the Victorian Indo-Chinese Refugee Association (VICRA) is partially funded by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to provide a pre-embarkation program for refugees in Thailand. Refugees also have access to general programs and services designed to assist settlement: 1. the initial on-arrival orientation program, in which bilingual information officers using community languages provide information on life in Australia; 2. the adult migrant education program which provides both general English language tuition and specific purpose English tuition and specific purpose English classes (e.g. courses for doctors, engineers, etc, and for women in the home and isolated migrants); 3. the grant-in-aid scheme under which social welfare workers in ethnic and non -government voluntary organisations are funded to provide social welfare services to migrants and refugees; 4. the migrant project subsidy scheme by which projects aimed at introducing new approaches to migrant welfare services delivery or at restructuring existing ones are funded; 5. about 100 Departmental social-welfare workers Australia-wide provide for the welfare, counselling and referral needs of migrants and refugees; 6. the Telephone Interpreter Service provides an interpreting, information and referral service by means of the telephone and in some cases the personal attendance of the interpreter. The Department also provides a translation service. (4) Visits from Vietnamese officials occur as part of the ongoing conduct of relations between the Australian Government and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The Government considers it to be in Australia's interests to develop a mature and comprehensive relationship with Vietnam as part of our links with all the countries of our region. Many refugees appreciate that the orderly departure program has been facilitated by recent developments in our bilateral relations with Vietnam. Question No. 617 Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 13 October 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the fact that the New South Wales Minister for Health has ordered a major review of wine labelling laws in an attempt to stop false or deceptive labelling of some Australian wines. (2) Does he intend to (a) take the same action with respect to imported wines and (b) arrange for uniform wine labelling laws throughout Australis. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware that the New South Wales Minister for Health recently informed State Parliament that a report by his Department on the wine industry in New South Wales outlined a number of disturbing and illegal practices. These included false or misleading labelling and a clear indication that illegal additives are being used in some wines. I understand that as a result of this report the prosecution of a wine maker was launched, the number of food inspectors in wine growing areas was increased and a meeting was arranged with wine industry leaders. The Minister also called on all other State Governments to investigate wine making in their States to ensure a co-ordinated effort with Commonwealth authorities to improve standards. 2 (a) and (b) Within Australia, responsibility for domestic food laws, including wine labelling, lies with the indivudual States/Territories. Co- ordination is achieved through the activities of the Food Standards Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRS) which prepares model food standards for recommendation to the States/Territories for uniform incorporation into their food and drug legislation. Revised and up-dated standards for wine were adopted by the NH&MRC in June of this year. Wine labelling requirements under State/Territory legislation apply to all wine sold irrespective of whether it is domestically produced or imported. In addition, the provisions of the Trade Practices Act relating to misleading labelling have general applicability. The Government is concerned about the broad issue of wine standards and measures to ensure their adequate enforcement. This is the responsibility of State/Territory authorities. Early this year, the Australian Agricultural Council agreed that a practical programme to achieve more effective monitoring of wine standards on a national basis should be developed by the Department of Primary Industry in consultation with New South Wales and South Australia with industry and relevant regulatory authorities being consulted. This initiative is being pursued. In addition, I understand that the Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association (Inc.) is currently liaising with the Trade Practices Commission with the intention of developing a code of practice for self regulation in matters such as labelling. Question No. 706 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 8 November 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a report circulating in South Australia that the State Labor Government has a proposal under consideration to close existing research stations on the Eyre Peninsula; if so, would this action be a retrograde step. (2) Are Commonwealth funds being used for research programs at the Minnipa Research Station concerning ram fertility and eradication of broome grass; if so , will he take action to ensure that, (a) this highly regarded research station remains open and (b) funds continue to be made available to allow these important programs to be brought to a successful conclusion. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I understand that a review of Research Centres in the State has been undertaken by an Advisory Committee of the South Australian Department of Agriculture. The recommendations in the Committee's report included an option to close the Minnipa Research Station and Sims Farm and establish a new research centre at a location more representative of the major soils on Eyre Peninsula. The question of whether this action would be a positive or retrograde step is a matter for the South Australian Government. (2) The two projects referred to are being supported by Rural Industry Trust Funds, which include both industry and Commonwealth components. One project compares the reproductive performance of a number of strains of merino sheep and the other is concerned with broome grass control in wheat. The siting and organisation of research facilities is, of course, a responsibility of the State Government. I understand, however, that the report previously referred to makes provision for continuity of experiments being conducted at research centres recommended for closure. However, in any event, the anticipated termination date of the projects is June 1985, whereas the restructuring processes canvassed in the report are based on a minimum time scale of three years. Question No. 732 Mr Snow asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 November 1983: (1) What was the cost of operating (a) Green Cape and (b) Montague Island lightstations in (i) 1979-80, (ii) 1980-81 and (iii) 1981-82, detailing items (A ) costing over $2,000 and (B) of a capital nature. (2) What (a) is the basis of the cost for rents and why did this increase from 1979-80, (b) are the components which make up the support costs and (c) is the value of Navaid assets and how is this linked to interest and depreciation charges, referred to under the heading 'marine navigational aids' in his Department's annual report for 1980-81, page 123. (3) Why did depreciation of $2,154,000 for 1978-79 decrease to an estimate of $ 1,797,000 for 1979-80 as referred to under the heading 'marine navigational aide ' in his Department's annual report for 1979-80, page 207. Mr Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The following are the indicative annual costs (expressed in 1983 prices) of operating these two stations: Indicative Annual Operating Station Cost $ Green Cape 101,000 Montague Island 137,000 Details of individual expenditures in the form requested are not readily available and I consider that the resources required to ascertain this information can not be justified. (2) (a) Rental costs, are for office and workshop accommodation throughout Australia leased for navigational aid purposes. The reported cost of $461,000 for 1980-81 was, at that stage only an estimate; actual cost being $224,000. Compared with actual 1979-80 expenditure of $240,000 it represented a small decrease. (b) Support of costs are the administrative overheads or indirect costs for normal administrative functions provided in support of the staff directly involved in the marine navigational aids system. (c) Value of assets at the end of 1980-81, representing the total value of marine and general assets, (including work in progress), was $49.907m. The gross value of assets are subject to an annual depreciation on a straight line basis and an interest charge over the effective economic life of the asset concerned. The depreciation charges are based on the expected operational lives of the assets concerned. An interest cost based on the long term bond rate is applied at the time of purchase of the asset to recognise the opportunity cost of Government funds used to provide the assets. (3) The decrease in depreciation charges in 1979-80 compared with 1978-79 was due to certain assets which originally cost some $3.3m, becoming fully written- off at the end of 1978-79. As they were fully written-off by the end of that year, this charge did not recur in 1979-80 and was only offset to a small extent by depreciation charges on new assets brought to account for the first time in 1979-80. Question No. 736 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 10 November 1983: (1) What standard does his Department use to determine the degree of deafness in people applying for sickness benefit or other Government assistance. (2) Are 'hearing-impaired' people the same classification as 'profoundly deaf' people. (3) Is there a legal differentiation between the two phrases; if so, what is the differentiation. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My Department's major involvement, insofar as deafness is concerned, is with the services provided by the National Acoustic Laboratories. With regard to sickness benefits and other Government assistance, the application of specific standards of deafness is not of great significance. The degree of deafness in persons eligible for assistance through the National Acoustic Laboratories is determined on a scale (in decibels) relative to a standard of normal hearing specified in Australian Standard, Z43-II 1970- reference zero for the calibration of pure tone audiometers. (2) No. 'Hearing impaired' is a much more general term than 'profoundly deaf'. When used technically, the term 'profoundly deaf' refers to the most severe degree of hearing impairment. (3) I am unaware of any legal distinction between the two terms referred to in (2) above. Question No. 740 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 10 November 1983: (1) In view of the tabling of the report 'Water 2000' in the House on 9 November 1983 will he now provide a detailed answer to Question No. 194 (Hansard , 1 November 1983, pages 2149-50). (2) Did the Government first receive the report nearly 6 months ago; if so, why was it not tabled at that time. (3) Did the Government promise a national water resources program in the 1983 Federal election compaign; if so, when will details of the program be announced. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: 1. In relation to Question No. 194 (Hansard, 1 November 1983, pages 2149-50): (1) It is a fact that moisture stress in Australia often reduces crop yields and pasture growth. However, this does not necessarily imply that it is economic to supplement natural rainfall. The distinction between technical performance and economic efficiency is most important, but unfortunately it is not always understood. (2) and (3) As mentioned by the Treasurer in his statement of 19 May on the economy, the Government decided not to proceed with the supplementary program of the previous Government's proposed bicentennial water resources program. The supplementary program was prepared in haste and, in many cases, projects included in the program had not reached the final design stage; in one instance, the proposed list of projects was not in accordance with State priorities for future water resource development. However, the Government is completing the previous Government's national water resources program this year and is also providing funds for the Burdekin Dam project, which were the other components of the bicentennial water resources program. This contrasts markedly with a statement attributed to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and former Treasurer in the Age of 19 August 1983 that an incoming Liberal-National Party Government would not have regarded its commitment to fund Burdekin Dam 'as any more sacrosanct than other areas. I'd have put it into hotch-potch with some of the other things'. The Government will be developing its own policies and programs as from 1984-85 , based mainly on the 'Water 2000' report. (4) No. A 1982 preliminary study carried out for the Queensland Government by Cameron McNamara, Consulting Engineers, indicated that, on currently available information, water delivered to inland rivers in North Queensland from Stage 1 of a modified version of the original Bradfield scheme would cost over 20 times as much per hectare irrigated as supplies from the Burdekin Dam project in annual operating and maintenance costs, without taking account of capital servicing costs. Further, the costs of environmental protection measures, which would undoubtedly be required in a trans-Divide riverflow diversion scheme of this magnitude, were not included in the Cameron McNamara report. The Government 's decision not to proceed with further investigations of the Bradfield scheme, as proposed by the previous Government in its supplementary program of water resources development, was sound and avoided unjustifiable expenditure. 2. On coming to office the Government received a draft of the 'Water 2000' report. It was only finalised after consultations with the States in the Australian Water Resources Council in July. The report was tabled within a week of copies being received from the printers. 3. The Government's 1983 election policy included a commitment to establish new national water resource priorities based on the 'Water 2000' report. Work is now in progress to this end. Question No. 756 Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: Did the Minister's Department and any agencies reporting to the Minister put in place alternative mailing arrangements during the recent Canberra mail strike; if so, what was the extra cost in each case. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Department of Industry and Commerce did not make special arrangements but urgent interstate mail for the Industries Assistance Commission was taken to Yass Post Office by the existing courier service during the recent Canberra mail strike. The mail related to the Commission's public hearing and reporting obligations. The extra cost of return trips from Belconnen to Yass was minimal. Question No. 758 Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: Did the Minister's Department, and any agencies reporting to the Minister, put in place alternative mailing arrangements during the recent Canberra mail strike ; if so, what was the extra cost in each case. Mr Willis —the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Department operates overnight locked bag services between its various offices for the purpose of distribution of departmental mail. During the strike increased use was made of these services in and out of Canberra. As these services are normally in operation no extra costs were incurred. Question No. 768 Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: Did the Minister's Department, and any agencies reporting to the Minister, put in place alternative mailing arrangements during the recent Canberra mail strike ; if so, what was the extra cost in each case. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Following alternative arrangements were made during mail strike 15 September to 12 October 1983: (1) Additional use of overnight bag services from Canberra to Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane regional offices. (2) Urgent items were transported by air express bags from Canberra to all States when necessary. (3) A number of cartons containing letters associated with World Food Day, 16 October, were sent to Sydney regional office for mailing. Telex usage was marginally increased. Estimated additional costs for the special arrangements made were in the order of $1,000. Question No. 779 Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: Did the Minister's Department, and any agencies reporting to the Minister, put in place alternative mailing arrangements during the recent Canberra mail strike ; if so, what was the extra cost in each case. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: The only extra mailing costs incurred as a result of alternative mailing arrangements during the recent Canberra mail strike was some $208 made up of $ 150 incurred by the Repatriation Review Tribunal and $58 made by the State branches of my Department. Question No. 811 Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice on 16 November 1983: (1) What (a) financial, (b) technical and (c) other forms of assistance, are available from the Minister's Department to private business. (2) What (a) is the contact point and (b) requirements have to be met to qualify, for each form of assistance. Mr Holding —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) No financial support is provided by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to private business although the Aboriginal Development Commission does offer support to Aboriginal enterprises. Under the Department's research vote specific research grants for projects likely to benefit Aboriginals are available. These however go mainly to Aboriginals and centres of academic research such as universities. Question No. 193 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 19 May 1983 : (1) Is it a fact that slaughter costs in Australian meatworks are a far too substantial part of costs in preparing meat for both domestic and overseas markets. (2) Does the loading on annual leave for meatworkers add considerably to these costs; if so, will he take steps to remove the loading which is not available to the primary producer. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The abattoir sector generally is subject to a substantial degree of competition, and charges for slaughtering livestock vary quite markedly between various regions and as market conditions change. Factors such as the degree of competition, the local supply of livestock, the demand for slaughtering facilities, the cost structure of each establishment and any local or State government support all bear upon the charges for slaughtering which particular abattoirs may set. In view of the competitive nature of the abattoir sector of the meat industry, and the substantial function it performs, I would not expect slaughtering costs to form a disproportionate part of the total costs in preparing meat for either the domestic or export markets. (2) I understand that labour costs account for a high proportion of the total costs involved in an abattoir's livestock slaughter operations. I would consequently expect that terms and conditions of employment such as the loading on meatworker's annual leave would be an important factor in an abattoir's operating costs. However, the loading on meatworkers' annual leave is part of the terms and conditions of employment fixed for this industry, and it would not be within my power, nor would it be my wish, to remove it. Question No. 350 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Aviation, 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. This answer corrects the answer previously given in Hansard of 8 November 1983 pages 2443-2444. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. of No. No. out- No. dis- Sex of Type of Year claims settled standing allowed claimant work A. Department of Aviation* 1978 1 1 . . . . Male Prolonged use of screwdriver 1979 3 3 . . . . 1 x Male Prolonged use of pick and shovel 2 x Female Typing duties 1980 7 7 . . . . 3 x Female Typing duties 1 x Female Data processing operator duties 1 x Female Fast arm movements due to excessive writing 1 x Female Excessive use of calculator and writing 1 x Female Printing duties and crouching over bench from stool 1981 6 4 . . . . 1 x Female Typing/keyboard duties 1 x Female Ledger machine operations 1 x Female Filing documents in metal trays 1 x Female Collating duties . . . . 1 . . 1 x Male Repetitive writing on carbon copy paper . . . . . . 1 1 x Female Teleprinter duties 1982 4 4 . . . . 1 x Female Typing duties 1 x Female Using press for microfiche mountings 1 x Male Prolonged hammering of steel 1 x Female Drafting assistant duties 1983 13 8 5 . . 1 x Male Excessive use of arm in picking up telephone 1 x Female Writing duties 1 x Male Injured right wrist in clearing scrub 1 x Female Date-stamping letters 6 x Female Typing duties 1 x Female Clerical assistant duties 1 x Female Data processing operator 1 x Female Bending and squatting taking paper in and out of filing cabinets. B. Australian National Airlines Commission (TAA) 1978 5 5 . . . . 3 x Male Lifting 1 x Male Pushing 1 x Male Constant kneeling 1979 5 5 . . . . 1 x Male Pushing 1 x Male Lifting 1 x Male Using scissors 1 x Female Lifting 1 x Female Accounting machine operation 1980 6 6 . . . . 3 x Female Pushing 2 x Male Lifting 1 x Male Constant kneeling 1981 10 10 . . . . 6 x Male Lifting 1 x Male Pushing 1 x Male Stapling 1 x Male Keyboard operations 1982 8 8 . . . . 3 x Male Lifting 4 x Female Lifting 1 x Female Comptometer operations 1983 3 3 . . . . 1 x Male Lifting 1 x Male Using handtool (crowbar) 1 x Female Keyboard operations C. Qantas 1978 nil 1979 nil 1980 1 1 . . . . Female Punch operator 1981 nil 1982 1 1 . . . . Female CDU operator 1983 8 8 . . . . 6 x Female Clerical duties 1 x Male Clerical duties 1 x Male Engineering duties * Figures for the years 1978-82 are for the then Department of Transport. Question No. 432 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Finance, 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. [This answer corrects the answer previously given in Hansard of 15 November 1983 , pages 2745-6.] Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In respect of my portfolio payments to the Queensland Government for the period 1 July 1972 to 31 August 1983 were made under natural disaster relief arrangements and under the Wage Pause Program initiated by the previous Government. PAYMENTS TO QUEENSLAND FOR NATURAL DISASTER RELIEF Nature of payments Financial year Recurrent Capital grants Capital loans Total $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 1972-73(a) 32 -74 . . -42 1973-74 3,990 20,213 3,656 27,859 1974-75 113 25,509 1,212 26,834 1975-76 52 6,319 81 6,452 1976-77 45 10,645 449 11,139 1977-78 231 11,080 3,762 15,073 1978-79 1,755 5,773 1,434 8, 962 1979-80 1,303 6,313 216 7,832 1980-81 8,583 6,705 6,755 22,043 1981-82 2, 328 4,082 3,703 10,113 1982-83 15,808 3,379 22,597 41,784 To August 1983 1,512 309 5,487 7,308 35,752 100,253 49,352 185,357 (a) For the period 1 July 1972 to 30 June 1973 instead of from December 1972 as requested due to accounting records no longer being available. Note: Further information in respect of natural disaster relief arrangements may be obtained from 1983-84 Budget Paper No. 7. PAYMENTS TO QUEENSLAND UNDER WAGE PAUSE PROGRAM $30.5m has been provided to Queensland by way of grants between February and August 1983. PAYMENTS RETURNED OR REFUSED Although I am unaware of any payments having been returned or refused an absolute assurance in this regard would require an exhaustive examination of detailed records over an eleven year period. I have not authorised the allocation of the considerable resources necessary to conduct such an examination. Question No. 489 Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 13 September 1983: What was the total amount raised by the 1 cent a litre levy on petroleum products for the purposes of the Australian bicentennial road development program trust fund for the financial year ending 30 June 1983. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Revenue accruing to the Australian bicentennial road development trust fund from the 1 cent per litre surcharge totalled $167,821,022 excluding interest by 30 June 1983. Further collections and rebates relating to the 1 cent surcharge are to be processed during 1983-84. Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 13 September 1983: What is the total amount of funds currently committed for road construction works from the Australian bicentennial road development program trust fund on (a ) national roads, (b) arterial roads, and (c) local roads for the financial years 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 in each of the States and the Northern Territory. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: By 31 August 1983 road construction works valued at $952,316,580 had been approved for funding from the Trust Fund in accordance with Section 17 of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act 1982. The Act does not require approved projects to be funded in particular financial years. Funds committed for approved road construction works under the Australian bicentennial road development trust fund to 31 August 1983 by road category for each State and the Northern Territory are shown in the table below: (a) National Roads (b) Arterial roads (c) Local Roads Total roads $ $ $ $ NSW 140,540,000 89,805,000 51,342,840 281,687,840 Vic 84,940,000 144, 570,000 2,332,300 231,842,300 Qld 46,230,000 74,481,000 13,269,440 133,980,440 WA 115,030,000 69,050,000 16,847,200 200,927,200 SA 27,600,000 31,090,000 13, 774,800 72,464,800 Tas 10,942,000 10,436,000 1,070,000 22,448,000 NT 4,850,000 1,266,000 2,850,000 8,966,000 Total 430,132,000 420,698,000 101,486,580 952, 316,580 Question No. 491 Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 13 September 1983: Will he provide details of the employment currently being provided in each of the States and the Northern Territory for the construction projects being funded by the Australian bicentennial road development program trust fund. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In co-operation with the relevant State and Northern Territory authorities, my Department is monitoring the effects on employment of expenditure under the Australian bicentennial road development (ABRD) and road grants programs. The monitoring covers ABRD funded projects in all categories and national road projects funded under the Roads Grants Act. As at 30 June 1983, 3,872 persons were directly employed on these projects and it is estimated that a total of 9,800 jobs-direct and indirect-have been created . Direct employment by State and Northern Territory is as follows: ABRD Road Grants (all Act (national categories) roads only) Total NSW 367 749 1,116 Vic 356 324 680 Qld 559 343 902 WA 183 322 505 SA 168 128 296 Tas 73 N/A 73 NT 92 208 300 Total 1,798 2,074 3,872 Employment is expected to rise significantly as more projects advance into their full scale construction phase and further projects come on line. The increase in road funds for 1983-84, including the roads grants and JOLOR Programs, is expected to create more than 19,000 job opportunities. Question No. 492 Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 13 September 1983: Will he provide details in respect of each contract for national, arterial and local road construction projects in each of the States and the Northern Territory to be funded under the provisions of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Act which has been approved since the inception of the program. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Under existing procedures State road authorities accept tenders associated with approved projects under the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program ( ABRD) for national and arterial road projects. They are not required to immediately notify details of contracts but do so by way of periodical returns. The following details have been extracted from information supplied by the State road authorities in respect of each contract let to the period ending 30 September 1983: APPROVED CONTRACTS FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS UNDER ABRD ACT Road Project description Contractor Accepted bid $ New South Wales National Hume Highway Cherry Tree Hill to Black Bob's Creek Bridge over Black Bob's Creek Gervay Constructions P/L 560,000 Hume Highway Two Mile Creek to Dunderallego Construction of north-bound pavement Thiess Contractors P/L 823,275 Hume Highway Tumblong Tumblong deviation Stage 2 earthworks and drainage Citra Constructions Ltd 3,209,814 Hume Highway Kyamba Gap Construction of dual carriageway Contract No. 1 Section 34. 75-36.60 km south of Tarcutta Thiess Contractors P/L 942,336 Pacific Highway Wyong Construction of dual carriageway F3 Motorway connection to Doyalson DMR, NSW 867,443 Pacific Highway Lake Munmorah Construction of second carriageway Elizabeth Bay Road to Kanangra Drive Capital & Civil Contractors P/L 911,653 F3 Calga Calga to Mooney Mooney Creek earthworks and drainage Leighton Contractors P/L 2,778,700 Bridges over Mooney Mooney Creek Enpro Constructions 14,587,189 F3 Kariong Deviation of Pacific Highway pavement and finishing works G Hawkins & Sons P/L 1,892,697 F3 Wyong Concrete pavement Wyong River to Wallarah Creek John Holland Constructions 6,358,304 New England Highway Bendemeer Bridges at Bendemeer and Perrys Ponds Gervay Constructions P/L 1,247,000 New England Highway New bridge over Hunter River at Singleton, piles and pile caps Transbridge 365,000 F3 Kariong-Somersby Construction of dual carriageway including structures Abignano Ltd 12,143,517 Arterial Illawarra Highway Sutton Forest Construction of bridge over Medway Rivulet Ripma Constructions 174,882 Monaro Highway 34.6-40.4 km south of Canberra Reconstruction from ACT border MP Constructions 700,000 Pacific Highway 37.8 km north of Taree Construction of bridge super-structure over Stewarts River Leighton Contractors P/L 1,489,750 Approaches to bridge P Ward Civil Engineering 1,666,540 Bruxner Highway Construction of bridges over Beardy River 58.8 km west of Tenterfield, Dumaresq River overflow 1, 74.10 km west of Tenterfield, and Dumaresq River overflow 2 79 .95 km west of Tenterfield Haima & Edmed Constructions 410,089 Mid-Western Highway Cowra Bridge over Lachlan River Macdougall-Ireland P/L 3,427,959 Sturt Highway north of Mildura Bridge over Murray River Construction of 3 approach bridges Transfield (N.S.W.) Pearson Bridge P/L 3,595,726 1,100,086 Princes Highway Duplication of Tom Ugly's Bridge Citra Constructions Ltd 8,229,359 Princes Highway Wollongong Bridge over Freeway at North Wollongong Leighton Contractors P/L 1,394,397 Western Freeway Parramatta Viaduct between Wentworth Street, Granville and Church Street, Parramatta, construction of piles Frankipile Aust P/L 253,242 Old Windsor Road Parramatta Reconstruction and widening between Johnston's Bridge and Pye's Crossing at Seven Hills P Ward Civil Engineering 1,539,038 F5 Casula Construction of approaches to bridge over Georges River Fencing Boral Cyclone 72,613 Earthworks and Drainage western approach Walker Earthmoving 247,800 eastern approach J. Smit and Son 1,038,373 Pacific Highway Hexham Piles and pile caps for new bridge over Hunter River at Hexham duplication Leighton Contractors P/L 3,196,400 Victoria National Hume Freeway, Benalla Shire Carroll Road to Broken Road earthworks and drainage Betta Roads P/L 2,685,955 Hume Freeway Excavation and cartage of selected fill Condon Bros. 272,920 Baddaginnie to Broken River supply of rock Farley Contracting Division 3,038,122 Benalla City Construction of project office Speedispace P/L 246,960 Hume Freeway, Violet Town Shire Baddaginnie to Carroll Road earthworks and drainage D J Wade P/L 1,849,007 Hume Freeway, Benalla Shire Construction of 2 cell culvert Folly Creek FDJ Constructions P/L 46,990 Supply of 104 No. culvert crown units Associated Precast Concrete P/L 64,223 Construction of 3 cell culvert Baddaginnie Creek McCarthy Constructions 82,289 Supply and delivery of 43 No. crown units Associated Precast Concrete P/L 52,957 Hume Freeway Supply of units Road Construction Authority 110,590 Hume Freeway, Benalla Shire Construction of 3 cell culvert Warrenbayne Creek FDJ Constructions P/L 64,872 Supply and delivery of 86 No. crown units Associated Precast Concrete P/L 45,985 Construction of Kennedys Creek culvert FDJ Constructions P/L 35,230 Supply of crown units for Kennedys Creek culvert Shire of Avoca 36,147 Hume Freeway Supply of box culverts Monier Ltd 996,838 Western Freeway Widening etc. of Toolern Creek Oupan Resources P/L 178,700 Supply of 54 prestressed 18 m concrete 'I' beams E.P. Morrissey & Co. P/L 130,302 Construction of 2500 m of earthworks G.D.B. Constructions 1,546,310 Supply and delivery of approx. 175,000 m3 of crushed rock Mountain View Quarries 1,192,200 Arterial Great Ocean Rd Supply and delivery of 4,000 m3 of fine crushed rock to stockpile Holzer Quarries P/L 62,800 Cann Valley Highway Reconstruction of 2.22 km of roadway Vin Heffernan P/L 272,254 Calder Highway Construction of 2.450 km of Highway Sist Bros. 338,651 South Gippsland Highway 63 concrete 'U' slabs Humes Ltd 46,610 64 concrete piles Road Construction Authority, Glen Waverley 43,854 56 concrete 'I' beams Humes Ltd 73,230 Earthworks for bridge over Tarra River Sale Plant Hire P/L 58,670 Construction of 2 bridges and 1 culvert (Tarra River) Rosewarne Constructions P/L 235,393 Construction of 3300 m of duplicate road Standard Roads P/L 505,454 Construction of Adams Creek culvert C R Cadby P/L 23,587 Sturt Highway Supply of 'I' beams for floodway Humes Ltd 90,112 Queensland National Cunningham Highway Earthworks 11.0 m form Tony Tinga Earthmoving 284,561 Warrego Highway Realignment 10.5 m form 1.0 m edge seals MRD, Qld Toowoomba 337,756 Bruce Highway Construction of O'Connell River Bridge (concrete) Epoca Contractors P/L Mackay 677,774 Construction of 7.0 m bitumen pavement 10.0 m form 1.0 m edge seals Thiess Contractors P/L Mackay 1,139,853 Landsborough Highway Construction of 7.0 m bitumen pavement with 0.5 m edge seals Thiess Contractors P/L Mt Isa 1,769,248 Cunningham Highway Earthworks 11.0 m form Thiess Contractors P/L Brisbane 522,087 Bruce Highway Approaches to O'Connell River Bridge 7.0 m bitumen deviation Santa Lucia Earthmoving Contractors 689,432 Construction of climbing lanes Black Mountain to North Panona Ruster & Day Nominees P/L Nambour 509,834 Howard Torbanlea deviation QH & M Birt P/L Brisbane 1,723,599 Donnybrook Road to Tibrogaren Creek construction of bitumen pavement Paveways P/L Buderim 517,207 Construction of Water View Creek Bridge 88.9 km north of Townsville C. & B. King & Sons P/L Chermside 94,319 Bayan Creek Bridge widening Peter Bushnell & Co P/L Cairns 113,599 Warrego Highway Construction of Combidiban Creek Bridge Thiess Contractors P/L Brisbane 569,076 Bruce Highway Construction of railway overpass and two intersections Leighton Contractors P/L Brisbane 672,684 Bruce Highway Widening to 7.0 m bitumen between Little Goodbye Creek and Maria Creek Leighton Contractors P/L Brisbane 779,055 Warrego Highway Pavement duplication between Glenore Grove and Collegeview Thiess Contractors P/L Brisbane 905,558 Bruce Highway Liverpool Creek Road widening 7.0 m bitumen paving Thiess Contractors P/L Brisbane 875,662 Construction of 3rd and 4th lanes between 6 Mile Creek and Beerburrum Creek Paveways P/L Buderim 555,928 Karramal-Koumala 7.0 m bitumen seal on deviation 11.0 m form, 2/1.0 m edge seals MRD, Qld Mackay 983,455 Landsborough Highway Wolsely Downs to Quartpot 7.0 m bitumen pavement with 2/0.5 m edge seals Leighton Contractors P/L 1,150,852 Cunningham Highway Asphaltic pavement from Swanbank Road to Deebing Creek Thiess Contractors P/L Brisbane 1,191,986 Bruce Highway Construction of Greta Creek Bridge and approaches Leighton Contractors P/L Brisbane 221,426 Arterial Peninsula Development Rd Construction of 6.5 m bitumen pavement Thiess Contractors P/L Brisbane 679,760 Bowen Developmental Rd Construction of concrete bridge over Station Creek Stell Con P/L Toowoomba 182,376 Capricorn Highway Comet River-Duckponds, widening to 7.0 m bitumen pavement Abignano Ltd Brisbane 999,699 Gulf Developmental Rd Construction of 4.0 m bitumen pavement Townsville Earthmoving 702,366 Carnarvon Highway Construction of bridge over Donga Creek M. J. Phillip P/L Buderim 143,251 Gregory Highway Construction of concrete bridge over Capella Creek Mabin & Birch P/L Emerald 115,873 New England Highway Construction of 6.8 m bitumen seal between Esk and Hampton Thiess Contractors P/L Brisbane 370,531 Fitzroy Developmental Rd 7.0 m bitumen seal Pal Mal Mal to Parker Creek Necon P/L Bundaberg 895,233 Bowen Developmental Road Construction of concrete bridge over Rosella Creek A. H. Hodge Constructions P/L 264,082 Capricorn Highway Construction of bridge over Sandhurst Creek MRD, Qld Rockhampton 61,006 Mitchell Highway Bitumen seal between Cunnamulla and Charleville Road Surfaces Group P/L Brisbane 386,487 Western Arterial Russell Terrace-Jerrang Street-Moggill Road Bridge new construction Abignano Ltd Brisbane 1,038,352 South East Freeway Bridges over Springwood Road The Hornibrook Group Brisbane 410,582 Underwood Road to Springwood earthworks and drainage Stage 1 K.G.K. Constructions P/L Brisbane 235,059 Logan Road to Underwood Road earthworks and drainage East Coast Earthmoving P/L Brisbane 470,597 Western Australia National Perth-Darwin National Highway Widening and reconstruction between Wubin and Mt. Magnet 31.51 km to primer seal stage south of Mt. Magnet MRD, WA 1,542,001 8.82 km to prime seal stage south of Payne's Find MRD, WA 498,887 Sealing of various sections approx. 162,000 sq m between Wubin and Payne's Find Spraypave P/L 124,549 Construction and sealing of 68.06 km and construction to sub-base stage of 56.31 km between Newman and Port Hedland construction to sub-base stage of 56 km between Wodgina and Woodstock F. K. Kanny & Sons 5,422,373 construction of approx 68 km to primer seal stage and associated works on Wodgina-North West Coastal Highway section Leighton Contractors P/L 5,724,384 Construction, priming and sealing of 275.6 km between Fitzroy Crossing & Halls Creek construction and bituminous surfacing of 50 km, including bridge over Pinnacle' s Creek Citra Constructions Ltd 6,118,409 sealing of section between Fitzroy Crossing & Halls Creek Spraypave P/L 236,200 Perth-Adelaide National Highway Construction to primer seal stage of 15.9 km of road and associated works including three bridges and major culverting between Northam and Meenaar Sabemo (WA) P/L 3,588,736 Arterial Beechboro-Gosnells Highway Construction of 2-span partially prestressed concrete bridge and associated earthworks to carry Broun Ave over Beechboro-Gosnells Highway Taylor Woodrow International Ltd 907,298 Supply and spreading of sand fill to northern approaches to proposed bridge over Swan River Roadstone Quarries 571,350 Construction to primerseal stage of 3.3. km of Highway between Guildford Road and Morley Drive Thiess Contractors P/L 703,090 Mitchell Freeway Stage 5 supply and erection of fencing ARC Engineering P/L 19,625 Bunbury Highway Mandurah Bypass construction of preliminary earthworks on approaches to proposed bridge over Peel Inlet Carbone Brothers P/L 59,227 North West Coastal Highway Construction of bridge over Murchison River in Shire of Northampton Concrete Construction (W.A.) P/L 1,195,078 Construction of 4-span bridge over Minilya River at Minilya Roberts Construction Ltd 496,149 Kalgoorlie-Meekatharra Road Widening of 25 km of existing pavement northward from Menzies MRD, WA 889,335 Widening and primer sealing of 30 km of road R. & N. Palmer P/L 793,429 South Australia National Stuart Highway Construction of 60 km between Bon Bon and Mirikata F. T. & B. I. Thompson P/L 4,679,868 Construction of six bridges between Coober Pedy South and Pootnoura Creek MacMahon Construction P/L 2,100,000 Dukes Highway Construction of 11 km between Coonalpyn and Culburra Lorenzin Construction P/L 962,622 Arterial Tapleys Hill Road Construction of western carriageway bridge over Brown Hill Creek, between Burbridge Road and River Sturt A. W. Baulderstone P/L 358,673 Salisbury Highway Construction of 5 span bridge over Dry Creek, between Ryans Road and Port Wakefield Road H. F. Sarah & Sons P/L 621,770 Wallaroo/Moonta Construction of 14 km between Wallaroo and Moonta District Council of Kadina 557,667 Tasmania National Midland Highway Stonor Road to Oatlands pavement construction and associated works, stage 1 BMG Resources Ltd 499,320 Stonor Road to Oatlands pavement construction and associated works, stage 2 DMR, Tas. 441,580 Arterial Mole Creek Main Road Deloraine to Needles reconstruction Citra Constructions Ltd 1,968,274 Northern Territory National Barkly Highway Upgrading east of Tennant Creek Thiess Contractors P/L 2,123,710 Stuart Highway Realignment in Alice Springs MacMahon Construction P/L 1,227,014 Arterial Darwin Intersection Major improvements Nightcliff and Electrical 132,619 Major improvements M & F Earthworks 20,201 Major improvements Halkitis Brothers 308,123 Plenty Highway Sealing of 13 km Henry and Walker 471,530 Note that contracts are not required for works on local roads. Question No. 493 Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 13 September 1983: Are all the approved bicentennial road projects being properly designated with the signs required in each of the States in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The majority of the approved bicentennial road projects which have commenced have been designated with the signs as required under section 23 (d) of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act 1982 and as specified in the Notes on Administration for the Act. Some projects have not been designated with the approved signs pending their manufacture and delivery to the appropriate State and local government authorities. Nevertheless I am not satisfied at this stage that all approved projects underway in each State and the Northern Territory have been properly designated with the sign. I am aware, for example, that signs for some projects have not been erected in a prominent location in full view of the travelling public. The relevant authorities are therefore being asked to advise that the requirements for the erection of the signs have been met by the end of December 1983 in respect of all approved projects where physical construction has commenced and to ensure that these requirements are adhered to for all future projects. Question No. 494 Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 13 September 1983: What funds were standing to the credit of the Australian bicentennial road development program trust fund and the amount of accrued interest to that fund as at 31 August 1983. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As at 31 August 1983 the Australian bicentennial road development trust fund had a credit balance of $86,123,245.30. Interest which had been paid into the trust fund by 31 August 1983 totalled $4, 457,483.76. Question No. 520 Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 14 September 1983: (1) Have any scientific studies been carried out to ascertain whether Ok Tedi Mining wastes, which are washed down the Fly River, will have any impact on the northern section of the Great Barrier Reef; if so, what were the results of the investigations. (2) If no studies have been carried out, are any planned; if not, why not. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As part of the Ok Tedi environmental study commissioned by Ok Tedi Mining Limited the likely impact of various discharges resulting from the mining operation on the Ok Tedi-Fly River system and the Fly River delta were considered. I understand that while it is anticipated there will be no significant effect on the marine environment from the mining operation, the study recommended that further testing and monitoring be undertaken. (2) See above. Question No. 530 Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 14 September 1983: (1) Is the northern section of the Great Barrier Reef at risk from gas well blowouts in the Gulf of Papua. (2) What monitoring of a recent blowout was carried out to ensure that no pollution reached the Reef region. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) While the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and others are presently investigating current flows in the Great Barrier Reef region, existing information does not allow accurate predictions to be made about pollutant movements, particularly in the northern-most section of the region. However water pollution from gas well blowouts generally tends to result in only relatively localised effects. (2) I understand that because there was no perceived threat to the Great Barrier Reef region from the recent blowout no specific monitoring was undertaken to ensure that no pollution reached the Reef region. Question No. 595 Mr Humphreys asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 11 October 1983: (1) How many and which Commonwealth Government buildings in Queensland contain asbestos insulation. (2) In how many and which of these buildings have airborne asbestos tests been carried out and what were the results of the tests. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There are four Commonwealth Government buildings in Queensland where asbestos insulation has been discovered. These are: (i) Taxation Building, Adelaide Street, Brisbane. (ii) Commonwealth Government Centre, Ann Street, Brisbane. (iii) Commonwealth Offices, Sturt Street, Townsville. (iv) Bond Store 2A, Sydney Street, Mackay. (2) Air-borne tests were carried out in the Taxation Building, Adelaide Street, Brisbane by the Commonwealth Institute of Health on 29 September 1983. The air levels of asbestos were found to be less than .01 fibres per millilitre, which is the lowest practical detection limit in the National Health and Medical Research Council's, NHMRC, membrane filter method used for estimating air-borne asbestos dust. Notwithstanding that finding, the Commonwealth Institute of Health has recommended that arrangements be made for the removal of the material , though this is not an immediate necessity. Tests of a non-airborne nature have been carried out in the Townsville and Mackay buildings. The Queensland Director of Industrial Medicine has indicated that the sample materials in these buildings did not constitute a health hazard provided the lining was in good condition. The insulation was confirmed by the Department of Housing and Construction as being in good condition in both buildings. Dust samples were also taken in three locations in the Commonwealth Government Centre. The Queensland Director of Industrial Medicine reported that asbestos was found in two of the samples following which one location was sheeted over with galvanised steel. The asbestos in the other location was not considered dangerous and on advice from the Department of Housing and Construction has been safely removed by vacuum cleaning. Question No. 630 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 13 October 1983 : (1) Has he considered repealing or amending section 117 of the Broadcasting and Television Act which requires broadcasters to announce the names of speakers on political subjects or current affairs. (2) Is it a fact that if this section of the Act were strictly enforced, it would rule out the possibility of talk back programs and vox pops-man in the street-interviews. (3) Has he been approached by broadcasters on this issue. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) S117 is being reviewed in consultation with industry bodies. The review will not be completed until the Government has considered the next report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, which is examining, amongst other things, various issues relating to the broadcasting of election and political matter. (2) Probably. (3) Yes. Question No. 636 Mrs Kelly asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 19 October 1983: (1) Is it a fact that the Australian War Memorial transferred its bank accounts from the Commonwealth Banking Corporation to the Westpac Banking Corporation; if so, (a) what were the reasons for the change, (b) what arrangements were made to investigate the services of the various available banks, (c) how many banks were invited to tender for the War Memorial's business and (d) what reasons led to Westpac being selected as the War Memorial's bank. (2) Over what period had the War Memorial banked with the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am advised by the Australian War Memorial that: (1) The Australian War Memorial transferred its bank accounts to Westpac Banking Corporation, following discussions with several banks concerning their services, because its facilities were considered to be the most advantageous to the War Memorial. Tenders were not invited. (2) The Memorial's appropriation account with the Commonwealth Banking Corporation was opened in July 1980. Prior to this the Department of Home Affairs and Environment was responsible for the appropriation allocated to the War Memorial. The Australian War Memorial Fund maintained an account with the Corporation for some 50 years. Both accounts with the Corporation were closed on 30 June 1983. Question No. 641 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 20 October 1983: (1) Is it a fact that (a) the southern bluefin tuna resource is endangered by over-exploitation and (b) one of the main problems is the high proportion of young fish in the Australian catch. (2) Did he announce recently that 4,000 tonnes of 3.4 kilogram fish may be taken by Western Australian fishermen over the next 12 months while New South Wales and South Australian fishermen may not take fish less than 7 kilograms. (3) Did Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation scientists , in a letter dated 24 August 1983, advise that the measures proposed are in total contravention of the advice of Australian, Japanese and New Zealand scientists and could result in lasting damage to the fishery. (4) Is he able to say whether New South Wales and South Australian fishermen complained that these measures not only threaten the existence of the resource but are unfair to them and are legally unenforceable. (5) Is he able to say whether prosecutions will be brought against New South Wales and South Australian fishermen who catch southern bluefin tuna less than 7 kilograms in size. (6) Will he seek the advice of the Attorney-General whether, in view of the specific advice of CSIRO, he is in breach of section 5B of the Fisheries Act in that the Minister is to ensure that living marine resources are not endangered by over-exploitation. (7) Is it a fact that long-term conservation of the stock should be given priority over short-term local economic dislocation. (8) Why is it necessary to delay another 12 months before providing adjustment assistance to that section of the industry which would be economically disadvantaged by an immediate prohibition on taking undersized tuna. (9) Has he consulted with the Ministers responsible for (a) CSIRO, (b) protection of endangered living marine resources and (c) Law of the Sea Convention provisions relating to conservation of highly migratory species of fish such as southern bluefin tuna; if not, will he do so as a matter of urgency in order to ensure that irretrievable damage is not done to the southern bluefin tuna resource. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) There has been a significant reduction in the parental stock of southern bluefin tuna as a result of the combined impact of the Japanese and Australian fishing effort since the late 1950s and the scientists have agreed that it should be stabilised at about one-third of its pre-fishing level because of the risk of recruitment failure. Further declines in the parental biomass increase the risk of recruitment failure which would have the effect of weakening specific year classes and reducing the availability of this species to the commercial fisheries based on its exploitation. It is for this reason that Australian, Japanese and New Zealand scientists have agreed that management effort should concentrate on stabilising the parental biomass. (b) Recent expansion in the Australian sector of the fishery, especially in view of the large numbers of fish harvested by Australian fishermen has heightened concern about the Australian take of pre-adults and its consequences for the status of the entire fishery. The concern is as much with the number as the size of fish taken by Australian fishermen. It is for this reason that recently introduced management measures for the fishery include both catch quotas and size limits. (2) The interim management package which was agreed at Australian Fisheries Council and which I announced on 23 September 1983 provided, amongst other measures, size limits and quotas to apply to southern bluefin tuna taken west of 127*E. For the 1983-84 season these were set at 54 cm and 4,000 tonnes respectively. The size limit to apply to southern bluefin tuna taken to the east of 127*E was set at 70 cm. The establishment of separate quotas and size limits for the two sectors of the fishery reflects the substantial difference in the nature and scale of the operations in these two sectors. The western sector consists of a relatively large number of small boats targetting on smaller fish. Two canners employing 160 people are largely dependent on this sector for supplies. By comparison, the eastern sector is comprised of a smaller number of larger boats including five purse seiners whose catch has generally been greater than the total Western Australian catch. Fishing activity has been increasing in both sectors. An important consideration in drawing up the plan was the need to secure an equitable sharing of the burden of restraint between the two sectors. The vast majority of fish caught off Western Australia are smaller than 7 kg. In 1982, nearly 40 per cent of the Western Australian catch was less than 5 kg, while in previous years the proportion of the catch below 5 kg was around 60 per cent. The immediate imposition of size limits of the order of that introduced in the eastern sector would have resulted in an unacceptable level of disruption and hardship to the Western Australian industry. State Ministers from both the eastern and western sectors in agreeing to these arrangements, have stressed that the 1983-84 plan is an interim one designed to start the process of reducing the pressure on southern bluefin stocks. It would not have been possible to secure agreement on a meaningful single size limit for the whole fishery in time to put the management plan into effect for the current season. This would have risked another year of virtually unrestricted fishing activity. (3) The CSIRO advice to my Department of 24 August 1983 was based on the assumption that there would be no change in any element of the interim management package for a period of 20 years. It went on to indicate, however, that should the management measures be strengthened the long-term effect on the spawning stock would be reduced. Commonwealth and State Government Ministers agreed at Australian Fisheries Council in September, that the management measures to be introduced at this time should only be the first step towards a comprehensive program designed to achieve the global objective of stabilising the spawning stock. I therefore announced interim measures for the 1983-84 season only and in so doing foreshadowed that significant additional measures would be developed and introduced including increases in minimum size limits. (4) Following my announcement on 23 September 1983 I received a number of representatives from all States involved in the fishery. I also met a deputation of eastern sector fishermen and exchanged views on a broad range of issues related to southern bluefin tuna management, including size limits. I have sought, though not yet had the opportunity to meet, the relevant CSIRO scientists to discuss the resource related arguments put to me by the deputation prior to undertaking further discussions with industry representatives on this issue. The interim measures will be implemented in accordance with the provisions of the Fisheries Act 1952. I understand that the necessary complementary legislation is to be put into place by the relevant State Governments in the near future. (5) Breaches of interim management measures shall be investigated in the normal manner and where necessary the outcome of such investigations will be referred to the relevant office of the Deputy Crown Solicitor for consideration. (6) The interim management measures I announced on 23 September 1983 are designed to significantly modify fishing activity in the Australian southern bluefin tuna fishery. As the measures have been introduced to promote well- documented biological objectives I am satisfied that they are consistent with section 5B of the Fisheries Act 1952. (7) In the southern bluefin tuna fishery the long-term objective of the management program is to stabilise the global spawning stock as the scientists agreed was necessary. The management program has been designed to provide an adequate framework from which the required long-term management arrangements can be developed. Consistent with this primary objective every endeavour has been, and will continue to be, made to ensure that the program does not cause undue economic and social dislocation to those involved in the fishery. (8) I am hopeful that the interim management measures will not cause an immediate or severe downturn in the economic viability of those involved in the Australian tuna industry. I am conscious, however, that economic dislocation may result as the package of interim measures is strengthened to achieve the long- term biological objectives. Accordingly I have arranged for a reference to the Industries Assistance Commission seeking an inquiry into whether adjustment assistance should be provided to the catching and processing sectors of the tuna industry. (9) In accordance with established procedures my Department has been closely liaising with the other Government departments with direct interest in the issues concerning southern bluefin tuna. Question No. 661 Mr Hawker asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 2 November 1983: (1) How many meat inspectors in the Commonwealth Meat Inspection Service (a) are currently employed by his Department and (b) were employed in the Department 12 months ago. (2) How many hours per week has each meat inspector worked on average during the last 12 months. (3) What is the average cost per annum to the Commonwealth of employing a meat inspector including all allowances. (4) What (a) criteria are applied when deciding to move a meat inspector to another location for a temporary position and (b) allowances are paid in this situation to the meat inspector and his family. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) As at 31 October 1983, there were 1,949 meat inspectors employed by the Commonwealth throughout Australia. Of these, 328 were former New South Wales domestic meat inspectors transferred to the Commonwealth on 1 July 1983. (1) (b) On 31 October 1982, before the transfer of the New South Wales staff, there were 1,654 inspectors employed throughout the Commonwealth. (2) Hours of work in the meat industry vary widely due to such factors as the tally system worked by most slaughtermen, fluctuation in the supply of livestock , and seasonal and market variations. Meat inspectors are required under the terms of their award-Public Service Arbitrator's Determination No. 30 of 1938-to work the hours normally worked at the establishment at which they are employed, that is, up to eight hours per day and 40 hours per week of normal duty. Actual hours worked by each inspector vary with the activities of the industry and are recorded on daily attendance sheets. Calculation of a twelve month average would require reference to about 450,000 individual records, a task which is beyond the present resources of the Department. The Department has a training program geared to the fluctuations which are a characteristic of the industry and a substantial amount of refresher training occurs as industry requirements permit. Also, where circumstances permit, staff are redeployed to other works when individual establishment work a short day. (3) Average costs associated with employment of meat inspectors, including all allowances are $27,151 per inspector. This figure incorporates the direct costs of salaries and payments in the nature of salary; overtime; travelling and living allowances and fares; protective clothing and laundering costs; and compensation expenses for meat inspectors. The Commonwealth recovers a proportion of this from industry. (4) (a) A decision to temporarily transfer an inspector is dependant in each case on the location of the requirement, the task to be performed, availability of suitable staff at the location and consideration of cost effectiveness. (4) (b) The allowances received by an inspector are prescribed by Public Service Board Determination No. 1983/10 and Public Service Arbitrators Determination No. 30 of 1938. They depend, in each case, on the individual inspector's circumstances at his headquarters and at his temporary station. Question No. 701 Mr Charles asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 2 November 1983. (1) Was a provisional certificate granted to the producers of the mini-series ' Return to Eden'; if so, did the provisional certificate state that the program was to be directed by an American director. (2) Is the director in a position to exercise extensive creative control; if so , why was a provisional certificate granted. (3) Has the producer now been issued with a final certificate. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The issue of provisional and final certificates to 'qualifying Australian films' by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment is provided for in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. Section 16 (2) of the Act provides that: 'Subject to this section, an officer shall not either directly or indirectly, except in the performance of any duty as an officer, and either, while he is, or after he ceases to be an officer, make a record of, or divulge or communicate to any person any such information so acquired by him.' As I have been advised that I am an officer for the purposes of this section, I am, therefore, unable to provide the information requested by the honourable member. Question No. 771 Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: Did the Minister's Department, and any agencies reporting to the Minister, put in place alternative mailing arrangements during the recent Canberra mail strike ; if so, what was the extra cost in each case. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Alternative arrangements were put in place for priority paid, certified and registered mail from the central office of the Department to destinations outside Canberra. Overnight satchels were used under the Government contract with Skyroads Pty Ltd. These arrangements were in effect from 19 September 1983 to 14 October 1983. The cost was $456. The Departmental courier and private companies were used for delivery of urgent articles within Canberra. No specific records were kept of this increased usage and consequently costs cannot be identified. Other official agencies used existing procedures to overcome the problem with negligible increases in cost. Question No. 773 Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: Did the Minister's Department, and any agencies reporting to the Minister, put in place alternative mailing arrangements during the recent Canberra mail strike ; if so, what was the extra cost in each case. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: My Department availed itself of contract overnight courier services at a total cost of $379.13. Question No. 850 Mr McLeay asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) What inter-departmental committees (a) does the Minister's Department and ( b) do instrumentalities under the Minister's control (i) participate in and (ii) chair. (2) What is the subject matter of these committees' inquiries. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Inter-departmental committees the Department of Housing and Construction participate in and chair are listed in the table below. Only formally established, on-going inter-departmental committees have been listed. (b) The statutory authorities under my control, Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation and Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, do not participate in or chair any inter-departmental committees. (2) The subject matter of committee's inquiries for the committee chaired by the Department of Housing and Construction is listed in the table alongside the title of the inter-departmental committee. Inter-departmental Committees IDC's Chaired by Department of Housing and Construction Renegotiation of the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement the subject matter of this Committee is to clarify issues in renegotiating the Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement. IDC's on Which the Department Participates Aboriginal Affairs (Standing) Consultant Services Feasibility Study Fund (Standing) Energy Conservation in Commonwealth Buildings and Buildings in the Australian Capital Territory Furniture Design and Office Layout (Standing) Rehabilitation (Standing) Community Employment Program Security Construction and Equipment Committee Restoration of Historic Buildings at Kingston-Arthur's Vale, Norfolk Island Motor Transport White Committee Report Development of Nuclear Codes of Practice Question No. 861 Mr Mackellar asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) Has he been informed of the arrest of the former Zimbabwean Prime Minister, Bishop Muzorewa, by the Mugabe Government. (2) Is he able to say (a) what charges have been brought against Bishop Muzorewa and (b) whether he is still on a hunger strike in prison. (3) In view of Australia's friendly relations with both Zimbabwe and Israel, does he give any credence to the claims by Zimbabwean officials that Israel was seeking to destabilise Zimbabwe's Government. (4) Will our diplomatic representatives protest the arrest and detention of Bishop Muzorewa. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In a statement issued on 1 November 1983, the Zimbabwe Minister of State ( Security), Mr Munangagwa, announced that Bishop Muzorewa had been detained on 31 October 1983 in an operation designed to check on what were described as subversive elements connected with South African bandits. Details of the announcement and of Bishop Muzorewa's arrest were conveyed to the Australian Government shortly afterwards by the Australian High Commission in Harare. The High Commission has been instructed to continue to keep the Government closely informed of developments. (2) (a) The order under which Bishop Muzorewa was originally detained was made under Section 53 of Zimbabwe's Emergency Powers (Maintenance of Law and Order) Regulations. The order alleged that Bishop Muzorewa had made certain derogatory statements about the Zimbabwe Government during a recent visit to Israel. On 4 November 1983 Bishop Muzorewa's lawyers applied to the High Court to have declared a detention order under which he was being held declared a nullity. The Zimbabwe Government's legal representative agreed that the order was irregular but advised the court that a second detention order had been issued under Section 17 of the Emergency Powers Regulations. That Section provides for the detention of a person 'if it appears to the Minister that it is expedient in the interests of public safety or public order' . (2) (b) I understand that Bishop Muzorewa has now ended his hunger strike, reportedly because his mother threatened to go on hunger strike herself if he continued. Edward Mazaiwana, Secretary-General of Bishop Muzorewa's United African National Council (UANC) was reported in wire service reports from Harare on 16 November to have announced that Bishop Muzorewa was in good health. (3) The Australian Government is aware of allegations by Zimbabwe officials that Israel was seeking to destabilise the Zimbabwe Government. The Australian Government has not seen any evidence brought forward to support those allegations. (4) Prior to Bishop Muzorewa's arrest, and on my instructions, the Australian High Commissioner in Harare conveyed to the Zimbabwe Government at Ministerial level the Australian Government's concern over the Zimbabwe Government's continued recourse to emergency powers regulations, carried over from the Smith regime, which provide among other things for detention without trial. I have expressed this concern in the Parliament. The Australian Government supports the application by all countries of internationally accepted human rights standards including those relating to due legal process. Accordingly, the Government will continue to monitor developments in Bishop Muzorewa's case closely. Question No. 864 Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 29 November 1983. (1) Is it a fact that there is no Federal works program in the electoral division of Dundas for 1983-84. (2) When was the last works program undertaken in Dundas. (3) What (a) was this program and (b) did it cost. (4) What future works programs are in prospect for Dundas. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) The last works program was commenced in 1980-81 and is expected to be completed by the end of this financial year. (3)- (a) A component of the Garden Island Modernisation Project Stage 1. This work was for the Department of Defence (Navy) at the Ryde Annexe-a Commonwealth property situated in Waterview Street Ryde. (b) $1.2m. (4) There is no further work currently scheduled for the Electoral Division of Dundas. Question No. 942 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 7 December 1983: Has the Minister's Department, or statutory authorities for which he is responsible, (a) made or (b) plans to make, an application for Commonwealth employment program grants for employment creation in the electoral division of Murray; if not, why not. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) No. The Department of Housing and Construction has not made specific applications for community employment program grants. An additional $20m has been appropriated for repairs and maintenance programs in 1983-84 to permit the Department to employ people under the community employment program. These people work from the Department's works depots located throughout Australia. There is no departmental works depot within the electoral division of Murray. (b) No. The funds appropriated to the Department for community employment program works have already been allocated.