Thursday, 1 March 1984 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: Chiropractic Services To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows : That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Cross,Mr Hand,Mr Hawker and Mr MacKellar. 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 Brumby,Mr Cross,Mr Hollis and Mr Kent. 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 school 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 agreements on these grants with State/Territory Governments, to ensure a plan program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Brumby,Mrs Child and Mr Hand. 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 respectfully showeth that : 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 decision 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 program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hollis,Mrs Kelly and Mr Snow. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That 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 Brumby,Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Spender. 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: 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 US 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 US 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 and Ms Mayer. 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 those in the community with hearing impairments can have equal appreciation of television programs if decoding equipment were built into television sets. We support the proposed sales tax exemption on television sets with built-in decoding equipment. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the proposed sales tax exemption on television sets with decoding equipment built into them, which would give the deaf and hearing impaired community the same access to television as the hearing community, be implemented. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Hon. Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully requests that legislation be enacted to permit the biological control of the weed known as ''Patersons curse''. The petitioners wish to express their most serious concern regarding the recent spread of this weed and the resultant loss in primary production. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. 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 Patersons Curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Patersons 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 concerned people of the Electorate of Farrer 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 Fife. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that discrimination in provision of work, in appointment to jobs and in promotion, currently exists in Australia on particular grounds including, inter alia, grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, pregnancy, sex and of sexual preference; and that discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits is currently exercised against particular groups of individuals-in particular against married women. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of individuals under Federal awards, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and that appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provisions of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to sex or marital status. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gear. 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: We urge the Government to declare a moratorium on uranium mining and treatment in Australia. We urge the Government to repudiate any commitment of a non-Labour Government to the mining, processing or exporting of Australian uranium. We urge the Government not to permit the mining, processing or export of uranium pursuant to agreements entered into contrary to Australian Labor Party policy; and We urge the Government to discontinue the Roxby uranium mine development. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hand. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the Australian Federal Parliament. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australian in peace and war 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable house will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable, The Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to undermine civil liberties and religious freedom. It could also be a means of undermining the traditional family structure of our nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: should delay the Bill and ask: That the Government set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee to examine:- (a) the implications of the U.N. Covenant for public policy, the extent of Australian commitments, responsibilities and accountability in terms of the Covenant; (b) the full effects of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 for public policy in giving effect to the U.N. Convention. The Terms of Reference of the Joint Parliamentary Committee to be widely publicised and oral and written submissions sought from the interested organisations and individuals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the 1978 Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance prohibits abortions from being carried out otherwise than at a hospital conducted by the Capital Territory Health Commission; and that a proposal has been made for the conversion of the North Canberra Health Centre into a Women's Health Centre with an associated abortion clinic. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government, the Minister for Territories and Local Government, and the Minister for Health, will give a categorical assurance that no abortion clinic will be established in the A.C.T. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: (1) That the Macedonian language be used by Government Departments in multi- lingual publications. (2) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language as a Higher School Certificate (H.S.C.) subject in Secondary schools. (3) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language in tertiary institutions and that a course be introduced at Monash University in the Department of Slavic Languages. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly request that Parliament take immediate action to implement the above measures. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the 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 Unites 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 Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members in the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Medicare Health Program covers basic hospital and medical needs of the community. We humbly pray the Government to include the dental needs of the community in the Medicare service; believing that dentistry is a fundamental health requirement because it treats infection, pain and the rehabilitation of an essential part of the human anatomy. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. The Honourable 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 nor legislate 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposal of Telecom Australia to close the Manual Assistance Centre at Parkes will severely disadvantage the Parkes community by: (1) The loss of current employment and future employment opportunities and consequent loss of income to the district (2) The loss of a local 24 hour emergency service (3) The loss of local knowledge of telephonists being available to telephone users when traffic is routed to an exchange anywhere in the State (4) The loss of a local and personalised service provided especially to elderly and handicapped people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that those of the Honourable House will call on the Government to halt the closure pending a full and open inquiry into the needs and desires of affected subscribers and the full economic and social effects of the closure on this district, rural telephone subscribers and Telecom Australia employees. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Simmons. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain elected representatives and officials of Local Governments in Australia shows that: 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 Drummond and Mr Hand. 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 Parent 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 Parent Clubs in government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Steele Hall. Petitions received. Mr LUSHER(Hume) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that at Question Time on Tuesday, 28 February 1984, the Minister for Health said no country person should be disadvantaged in access to Medicare; (2) is of the opinion that the administration of Medicare is unsatisfactory; (3) notes that- (a) the electorate of Hume has only 2 Medicare offices and that these are 75 kms apart; (b) residents of other towns in the electorate are required to travel extensive distances or rely on the mail to transact their business with Medicare, and (c) prior to the introduction of Medicare the private funds provided a claim service in many of these towns, and (4) calls upon the Minister to live up to the statement he made on 28 February and provide a standard of service to country people at least equivalent to that which was provided by the private funds prior to the introduction of Medicare. Mr MORRISON(St George) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House refers standing orders Nos 75 and 153 to the Standing Orders Committee, to consider their efficacy in maintaining the dignity of the House Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Minister for Health for levying an additional one per cent tax on Queenslanders from 1 February 1984 for public hospital services they already enjoy; (2) notes that even after a special adjustment for Queensland of $35m the Medicare subsidy to Queensland is only $29 per head compared with $50 per head to other States, and (3) calls upon the Federal Government to submit the dispute to the Grants Commission on the basis that any adjustments decided upon for Queensland be backdated to 1 February 1984. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House congratulates Australia Post for its readiness to accept local government rates payable to the Shires of Wanneroo and Mundaring at a number of official and non-official post offices within those Shires in the Electorate of Moore. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the Department of Foreign Affairs has identified the significant problems of UNESCO as- (a) excessive budget growth; (b) a lack of rigour in financial management; (c) a lack of accountability and evaluation; (d) an absence of focus in UNESCO's work, reflecting a failure to establish proper priorities, and (e) excessive politicisation, and (2) calls on the Minister for Foreign Affairs to instruct the Australian Ambassador to UNESCO to direct his activities to reducing these problems. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its concern that $5,000m of offset obligations owed to Australian industry have not been fulfilled, and (2) calls on those foreign corporations which have offset obligations owed to Australia to act in good faith and fulfil those obligations. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House commends the Government for its demonstrated commitment to the family by- (1) increasing income limits for payment of the full Family Income Supplement ( FIS) to low income earners on pensions or benefits from $199 to $209 a week with a further rise in May, and (2) allowing families with one child with an income of $233 a week to still receive part FIS and for increasing upper limits by $24 a week for each extra child, so that a family with four children will qualify for some FIS with income up to $305 a week. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the continued success of the Government's First Home Owners Scheme; (2) notes that the number of building approvals for new dwellings rose by 6.9 per cent in the December quarter of 1983; (3) notes that the level of housing finance approvals from major lenders rose by 16.7 per cent in the December quarter; (4) recognises that these trends were also evident in Western Australia, and (5) calls on the Government to ensure a continued flow of funds to the First Home Owners Scheme. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recognises that non-vocational adult education is an integral part of the Australian education system, and as such should be realistically funded; (2) recognises the concept of life-long learning; (3) recommends that significant funding be given to the community sector of adult education and an adequate machinery be set up at the national level to see that it is implemented; (4) recognises and applauds the contribution of the TAFE sector to Australian education, and (5) recognises, applauds and pays tribute to the contribution community organisations have made over many years to Australian adult education. Dr EVERINGHAM(Capricornia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) is convinced that only global democratic structures can eventually solve deepening international conflicts and growing hazards to all life, and (2) asks citizens and government everywhere to support- (a) a world constituent assembly to consider the constitution of a world federal authority to (i) promote, interpret and enforce international law and universal rights, (ii) monitor disarmament of all nations to the level of forces needed for internal national peace-keeping, and (iii) co-ordinate diversion of part of resulting savings from war budgets and industries to conquer want and inequality of opportunity, and (b) educational and mass media campaigns to these ends in all countries. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Capricornia will second: That this House- (1) notes that in all States of Australia citizens are now receiving Medicare refunds for visits to the general practitioner of their choice, and (2) congratulates the Government for providing this additional freedom of choice to millions of Australians. Mr GEAR(Tangney) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House congratulates the Tangney Prices Action Group on its monthly surveillance of supermarkets within the electorate of Tangney and for the positive influence they have had on limiting price rises by publishing their findings. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House notes- (1) that economic matters such as inflation, unemployment, business profitability, housing and interest rates play a major part in the life of the people of Australia, and (2) with regret that the Opposition has failed to pursue these matters during question time in the first two days of the sittings of the House in 1984. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House deplores that, because of misleading written advice given to estate agents by the Government's First Home Owners Scheme offices that answers to applications for grants under the scheme would be available in 7 to 10 days, unsuspecting home buyers are being led into home purchase contracts that they cannot complete due to the offices actually taking up to 7 or more weeks to grant approvals. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(10.16) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill I am introducing today is to consolidate and expand Australian laws which protect Australian trading interests and policies against the extra-territorial enforcement of foreign laws. I would like to outline, for the benefit of honourable members, the historical and policy context in which the Bill has been prepared and the principal provisions proposed. A detailed description of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated to honourable members for information. Existing Commonwealth Legislation In November 1976 the Parliament enacted the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act. The purpose of that Act was, briefly stated, to enable the Attorney-General to make orders, subject to parliamentary disallowance, to prohibit the production of documents located in Australia and, in certain circumstances, the giving of evidence in foreign proceedings. The Attorney- General could make orders where he was satisfied that the foreign court was exercising jurisdiction contrary to international law or comity or that the imposition of the restrictions specified in the order was desirable for protecting the national interest. In March 1979 the Parliament enacted the Foreign Antitrust Judgments (Restriction of Enforcement) Act. That Act, which was confined to foreign anti-trust judgments, enabled the Attorney-General to prohibit the enforcement of such judgments on grounds which, whilst not identical, were broadly similar to those enabling the Attorney-General to prohibit the production of evidence under the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act. As in the case of that Act orders of the Attorney- General were subject to parliamentary disallowance. The Attorney-General could also permit the partial enforcement of foreign judgments for a reduced amount specified in the order. The 1981 'Recovery Back' Bill In June 1981 the former Government introduced the Foreign Antitrust Judgments ( Restriction of Enforcement) Amendment Bill 1981, which I shall hereafter refer to as the 'Recovery Back Bill'. The Recovery Back Bill would have enabled an Australian defendant to a foreign anti-trust judgment, where an order had been made under the Foreign Antitrust Judgments (Restriction of Enforcement) Act, to recover back from the foreign plaintiff any amount which had been recovered under the prohibited judgment in an overseas country in excess of the amount specified. The former Government did not seek passage of the Recovery Back Bill following the signing of the Antitrust Co-operation Agreement between Australia and the United States on 29 June 1982. The Antitrust Co-operation Agreement The Commonwealth legislative measures that I have referred to were introduced against the backdrop of the troubled relations between Australia and the United States of America in relation to the extra-territorial enforcement of United States anti-trust laws. That legislation was directly occasioned by proceedings in the United States relating to trade in uranium and, more particularly, the Westinghouse suit for private treble damages. Without wishing to go over the entire Westinghouse saga, I would like to point out that the private suit by Westinghouse to recover treble damages from a number of Australian companies, which were among the list of defendants in the proceedings, related to conduct that, although in breach of United States anti-trust laws, took place outside the United States and in compliance with Australian Government policies for the marketing of uranium. The deterioration in relations in this area between Australia and the United States had become so serious that the matter was raised in discussions between the President of the United States and the then Australian Prime Minister in June 1981. The outcome of these discussions was a renewed negotiating effort to reach agreement. These efforts were ultimately successful and on 29 June 1982 the Antitrust Co-operation Agreement was signed. The Agreement provides a framework for notification and consultation designed to resolve conflicts which might arise between Australian national interests and policies and the implementation of United States anti-trust laws. The Present Position When the Labor Government came into office in March last year, the general climate between Australia and the United States in relation to the extra- territorial enforcement of United States anti-trust laws had improved significantly. The Labor Government has thus been able to formulate its policy on the protection of Australian trading interests and policies against the extra- territorial enforcement of foreign laws in the light of this much improved relationship between the two countries. In reaching its decision to introduce the Bill, the Government also had regard to the Attorney-General's discussions with Government representatives during his visit in June last year to the United Kingdom and the United States. As the Attorney-General then indicated to United States officials, it is better to introduce protective legislation now, during a period of improved relations, than to leave it until some crisis arrives, and so heighten what would be at that time a public perception of conflict between our two countries. The Attorney-General has indicated that, on the basis of the responses he received in Washington, the United States Government would understand the need expressed by Australia to have protective legislation. The Government is pleased to note the report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on 'Australian-United States' Relations : The Extraterritorial Application of United States' Laws', tabled on 1 December last year. The majority recommended the introduction of legislation to deal with problems arising from the extra-territorial application of foreign laws. The present Bill is consistent with that recommendation. The essence of the Labor Government's policy in this area, which has been explained to the United Kingdom and United States governments, is as follows. First, in line with the conclusion of the Parliamentary Joint Committee that both countries should seek to implement both the letter and the spirit of the Agreement, the Government reaffirms Australia's commitment to the consultative approach of the Agreement. It is the Government's firm belief that jurisdictional conflicts between the laws and policies of sovereign governments should be resolved if at all possible by consultations and not by unilateral legal or executive action. The Government will advocate this approach vigorously in its dealings with individual foreign countries and in relevant international fora. I note that the Parliamentary Joint Committee recommended that Australia participate actively in international attempts, such as those within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, to reach broadly acceptable arrangements to avoid or resolve conflicts in the application of national trading laws. Secondly, notwithstanding the protection afforded by the Antitrust Co-operation Agreement, the Government cannot ignore the fact that the underlying jurisdictional threat to Australian sovereignty and to our export and other trading policies still remains. There has been no significant change in United States domestic anti-trust laws to take account of foreign government interests and no modification their wide jurisdictional claims. Article 4.2 of the Agreement recognises that if, after consultation, no means of avoiding conflict has been found, each party 'shall be free to protect its interests as it deems necessary'. While articles 4 and 6 of the Agreement also make some progressive steps forward in providing protection against private anti-trust proceedings, our central concern remains. That is, private plaintiffs, who account for about 95 per cent of United States anti-trust actions, are under no obligation to consider the national interests of other countries when they initiate their actions or in the conduct of the case. The United States Deputy Secretary of State, Mr Kenneth Dam, in a speech last year acknowledged that private treble damages actions are not within government control and as result are often referred to in this context as 'rogue elephants'. I note that the obligation in the Agreement on the United States authorities to intervene in private proceedings is at best a limited and indirect restraint on private plaintiffs and in any event the weight to be given to the United States Government's intervention is left to the court to decide. Thirdly, since Australia first came up against the vexed issue of the extra- territorial enforcement of foreign laws, it has become apparent that the problem goes very much wider than the anti-trust field. The serious conflict between the United States and European countries within the Atlantic Alliance over the measures taken by the United States under the United States Export Administration Act with regard to the construction of the Soviet gas pipeline has focused attention on the wider implications of the problems of extra- territoriality. The problem can extend into many areas such as companies and securities regulation, banking, commodity futures market regulation, taxation, and laws related to enforcing national security or foreign policy controls over trade. Accordingly, the Government believes that Australia should have available to it a comprehensive arsenal of defences which it could use as a last resort, should the resolution of conflict through the consultative approach fail. It is unacceptable to the Government that at the present time Australian businesses, unlike their counterparts in countries like the United Kingdom, have inadequate protection against the crippling damages and costs awards that are usually made in foreign anti-trust private treble damages suits. Nor have they means of protection against the extra-territorial effect of judicial and executive orders made under other foreign laws which may be inimical to Australia's national interests. I wish to emphasise, however, that in line with the Government's firm belief in the consultative approach in this area, the substantive provisions of the proposed legislation will only operate when activated by an order made by the Attorney-General. When in Opposition, the present Government gave broad bipartisan support to the legislative measures that were introduced by the Fraser Government. The Government in a real sense is completing the task that was begun by the former Government. Indeed, when the former Attorney-General, Senator Durack, introduced the Recovery Back Bill he said: It is also designed to underline the seriousness with which the Commonwealth Government and the Parliament continues to view this problem. For here, I believe that I express, in a complete sense, a national voice. The two previous Acts were enacted by the Parliament with bipartisan support and, whatever differences in nuance may emerge, the Opposition has been at one with the Government in its concern. I would certainly hope, for the reasons I have outlined, that the present Bill will receive the support of this House. Content of Bill I will briefly mention the major provisions contained in the Bill. Prohibition of the Giving of Evidence Division 2 of Part II of the Bill replaces the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act 1976. The purpose of the provisions, like the earlier Act, is to enable the Attorney-General to make orders to prohibit the production of documents located in Australia and, in certain circumstances, the giving of evidence in foreign proceedings. The Attorney-General may make orders where he is satisfied that the making of the order would be desirable for the protection of the national interest. The Attorney-General may also make orders where he is satisfied that the assumption of jurisdiction by the foreign court or the action taken by the foreign authority is contrary to international law or is inconsistent with international comity or international practice. Enforceability of Judgments Given in Foreign Anti-Trust Proceedings Clause 9 of the Bill replaces the Foreign Antitrust Judgments (Restriction of Enforcement) Act 1979. These provisions, like the earlier Act, which are confined to foreign anti-trust judgments, will enable the Attorney-General to make an order prohibiting the enforcement of such judgments in whole or in part. This gives the Australian Government the flexibility to respond to the foreign judgment according to the circumstances. The grounds upon which an order may be made are broadly similar to those enabling the Attorney-General to prohibit the production of evidence under Division 2 of Part II of the Bill. The recovery-back provisions are contained in clause 10 of the Bill. This right of action, given to an Australian defendant to recover back damages enforced against that defendant, is given only where the Attorney-General has made an order that a foreign anti-trust judgment should not be enforceable in Australia in whole or in part. The right of recovery-back, which is given only to Australian defendants as set out in sub-clause 10 (4) of the Bill, is for any amount obtained by the foreign plaintiff from the Australian defendant in excess of the amount specified in the Attorney-General's order. The recovery-back provisions are based on the provisions contained in the 1981 recovery back Bill although they have been refined to avoid the complexity of the earlier Bill. A series of examples illustrating the operation of the recovery-back provisions is contained in the explanatory memorandum. Clause 11 of the Bill gives a right to an Australian defendant, including an Australian statutory authority, to recover reasonable costs and expenses incurred by it in defending private anti-trust proceedings. This right of action is severely restricted: (a) it is conditional upon an order being made by the Attorney-General either on national interest grounds or on the ground that the assumption of jurisdiction or the manner of exercise of jurisdiction by the foreign court or the exercise of power or the manner of exercise of power by the foreign court, was contrary to international law or inconsistent with international comity or international practice; (b) it is confined to private proceedings for multiple damages where it is possible for the foreign court to assume jurisdiction simply upon there being an adverse effect on that country's trade or commerce; and (c) it is further restricted to foreign proceedings where a successful defendant is not entitled to recover costs. This is peculiar to private anti- trust proceedings in the United States. Clause 11 of the Bill can be justified on three grounds: An Australian defendant with no physical tie with the territorial jurisdiction of the United States can be put to considerable expense because section 12 of the United States Clayton Act-which provides for service on a corporation wherever found-enables a United States plaintiff to draw the Australian defendant into United States anti-trust litigation. Again, United States anti-trust law does not allow a successful defendant his costs. This, when coupled with the widespread use of contingency fees, encourages United States plaintiffs to bring specious actions in the hope that the huge costs burden alone will compel the defendant to settle out of court. Further, the costs burden in large United States anti-trust cases is of a magnitude unknown to our legal system and it is not uncommon for costs to amount to millions of dollars. I should also mention that for both recovery-back and recovery of costs, orders would not in general be made where conduct, in respect of which a foreign judgment was given, took place entirely within a foreign country. We cannot discount, however, the possibility that situations may arise where it would be appropriate for an order to be made where conduct did take place entirely within a foreign country. An example would be where the costs or damages awarded in a private suit against an Australian defendant were considered to be so high as to be contrary to the national interest. For example, they might threaten the solvency of an Australian company, with consequences for the enterprise in which it was engaged and for the employment of Australian workers. Clause 12 of the Bill provides for the enforcement of a 'recovery-back' judgment on a reciprocal basis after agreement with countries that have ' recovery-back' provisions that correspond with those in the Bill. The United Kingdom has shown considerable interest in developing the concept of reciprocal enforcement with Australia and has made provision for such a system in section 7 of its Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980. The Parliamentary Joint Committee recommended that consideration be given to reciprocal enforcement of recovery-back judgments only if Australian interests are further threatened or damaged by foreign laws. The Government considers it prudent, however, to deal comprehensively with the problem of extraterritoriality, rather than to introduce additional legislative proposals at a later stage if Australian interests should come under active threat from foreign laws. In this way, we avoid heightening what I said earlier would be a public perception of conflict between Australia and the foreign country. Actions and Decisions of Foreign Governments Affecting Australia The purpose of clause 13 of the Bill is to counteract the problem created by foreign laws relating to trade or commerce that would enable foreign governments or their agencies to impose obligations upon persons or corporations in Australia. Clause 13 of the Bill will enable the Attorney-General to make an order prohibiting the performance of the obligation where he is satisfied that the act or decision of the foreign government or agency would or might adversely affect the national interest. The topical example of such a foreign law is the United States Export Administration Act. A provision similar to this clause- Section 1 of the United Kingdom Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980-enabled the United Kingdom Government to counter United States executive orders which were directed at United Kingdom companies with the purpose of blocking the construction of the Siberian gas pipeline, contrary to the national interests of the United Kingdom and the other European States. Prohibition on Giving Effect to Certain Foreign Judgments The purpose of clause 14 of the Bill is to enable the Attorney-General to block judgments or injunctions of a foreign court-but not money judgments-where the object of the judgment is to require the doing of an act or thing in Australia, or to prohibit the doing of such an act or thing, or to require a person to refrain from conduct in Australia. The Attorney-General may make an order based on national interest grounds similar to those in clause 13 of the Bill. Possible instances where this clause could be called into operation could include divestiture orders and 'cease and desist' orders made under United States anti- trust laws. Miscellaneous Part V of the Bill contains general provisions relating to parliamentary disallowance of orders and intruments made under the Act, jurisdiction of the Federal Court, service of notice of orders, offences and regulations. Financial Impact Statement The Bill will not necessitate any increase in the existing staff establishment of the Attorney-General's Department and will have no impact on Government revenues. The Government commends the Foreign Proceedings (Excess of Jurisdiction) Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. [COGNATE BILL: CUSTOMS TARIFF (ANTI-DUMPING) MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 7 December 1983, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —Madam Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 1983, as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering both measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(10.35) —The Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 1983 relate to the administration of dumping within the Australian economy and the effect that it has on certain areas of trade. The Opposition will not oppose either of the Bills but in the Senate will propose an amendment to the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Miscellaneous Amendments Bill in the area relating to the issue of warrants, which I will canvass later. Dumping is a factor which occurs far more frequently in times of economic stress and comes to the fore in Australia, as a major trading nation, because of the vulnerability of the small Australian market to import penetration. There is no doubt that this has occurred in a number of industries and the procedures brought forward by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown) certainly meet many of the problems that have been experienced in the last couple of years. The proposals which were amended in 1981 and brought forward today go a long way towards meeting some of the complaints from industry. I note from the papers and from other advice that industry as a whole has welcomed these changes and has been well pleased with and well serviced by the new administrative arrangements which allow for a 45-day period to settle the matters and for 120 days to investigate the complete project. There are many forms of dumping that come under consideration. There is price dumping, tariff dumping and the switching of products from country to country. All of these take a degree of administrative skill to trace because the people who exercise these activities are not above using false invoices or making certain statements which are totally incorrect. Because of that, some of the sweeping powers that are in the Customs Act are used with discretion. In some areas I can see the problems that might arise and I understand the enormous administrative problems associated with them. However, there are two areas that require further consideration. One is the area of freight dumping. I know the Minister has addressed himself to this but, as I read it, the matter has not been resolved. There are some difficulties with it. The most recent case was that of Australian Paper Manufacturers Ltd which lodged a complaint against the freight component of imports from North America. The administration in these areas necessarily would find it hard to measure the degree of dumping involved. To do this one has to know what normal rates are, what the published rates were and try to read into that any attempt at freight dumping or taking advantage in that area, particularly when one thinks of the freights that can be offered by certain shipping lines in relation to back traffic and back loading. The second area is a very old one with which we have had some experience in the past. That involves a product brought in from one country where injury was affecting the local industry and a complaint was raised and the product was then switched to another country. Under those circumstances the same procedure would occur. The particular product I have in mind came initially from Iron Curtain countries and switched to a European Economic Community country. The maintenance of surveillance and checking up on such activities is an extraordinarily difficult task, especially when the Australian Customs Service is too short on manpower to be able to cover those areas. I understand the problems involved because when in government we attempted to apply voluntary restraints which were accepted by communist governments through their trading companies and by some Western companies. In return for guaranteed access to the market, they agreed not to extend their penetration. However, this generally means that the injury was done before it is caught up with. As a consequence, the problems of country- hopping are still with us and probably will be with us in the future. One or two other areas are worth drawing to the attention of the House. There is the matter of the processor. In Australia we have a number of processing firms which are dependent on rural supplies, generally fruit and vegetables, sometimes meat. These processing companies take local products. They would not be injured if they were supplied by other countries with a similar raw product at a lower world price. A few years ago there was a case involving tomatoes, strawberries or perhaps even sweet corn. These products were brought in from another country and used by the processor, thus severely affecting the local producers. The local producers had no comeback against that import because the processor would not join the action. I understand the difficulties of determining the national price of a commodity such as strawberries. By the time they are flown into Australia and processed the injury to the local farmer has occurred. The local producer will no doubt leave them on the plants. Thus to ascertain a real market price would be extraordinarily difficult. I draw this to the attention of the House because I know that large numbers of people in the rural sector feel that they do not get a fair go from the processing industry, particularly if the processor will not join with them in an action available to them under the dumping procedures. There are two other matters worth pointing out. The first is that there appears to be no appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. One of the stumbling blocks in the past was that when an action for dumping was taken the person in receipt of that action normally rushed the decision to the AAT and thereby stalled the action. The injury therefore continued within the industry. The procedures within this legislation limit that possibility so that the direct impact will be immediately felt. I find some difficulties with another area, that of search warrants. Two types of warrants are used by the Customs Service. Much to the surprise of the House, I guess, under schedule 5 the open search warrant can be issued only by the Comptroller-General or his designated officer. It can be used in a general sense to search and take whatever documents or property they deem necessary. The Opposition will move an amendment in the Senate to require a judicial warrant for that activity. It seems a little harsh to think that it is possible for an officer at any time to enter and seize any property without a judicial warrant. However, there is a second warrant, the section 4 warrant, which is known in the trade as the 214 warrant. It is issued by the collectors in various States. This is made out to a particular person, and can be issued only by the collector directly to that person, and only after that person has declined to co-operate with Customs in relation to an investigation. That seems to me to be the proper procedure. The Customs people have a difficult time trying to find out the real truth in regard to many dumping matters. They have an extraordinarily difficult task, and I commend them for it. Trying to keep up with the range of marketing activities from country to country is in itself a technique, but when collusion occurs here as well, the Customs officials must be able to get access, and I certainly support the continued use of the 214 search warrant. I draw the attention of honourable members to the other circumstances in regard to which we will be moving an amendment in the Senate. Overall, the proposals which have been put forward have our support, and I look forward to the continued healthy administration of the Australian Customs Service. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(10.46) —The debate in Australia in recent years regarding protection and dumping and a range of other industry measures has become very confused. I think the actions of the Government in this regard early last year on achieving office were very pertinent. A number of actions were initiated, the review of the dumping procedures being one of the key actions. Honourable members will also recall that in the steel plan a new phrase was coined-'fast anti-track dumping procedures'. That that phrase was even needed was indicative of the problems which were occurring within Australian industry as a result of the existing anti-dumping and countervailing measures. This Government believes that Australian industry protection procedures should be restructured, that we should become more competitive and that we should be able to compete more adequately in international markets. But the same time, we must recognise that restructuring must be done on a fair and equitable basis. The changes in the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill are based on a sense of fairness and fair competition. When one looks at what has been happening in Australia in recent years, the contracting market place and the world's economic recession have meant that economies like Australia's have become much more vulnerable than they were in previous decades, so much so that a number of industries, I believe, have been seriously threatened by unfair competition. The dangers that presented to our country as a whole and certainly to Government actions became of paramount importance. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) referred to the difficulties experienced by the Australian Customs Service in terms of staffing and the complications involved in checking and assessing dumping procedures and dumping actions. In the last three years or so these weaknesses have become much more pertinent as the volume of imports of a potentially dumped nature increased. That we have had those problems at the same time as we have had the problems of high interest rates, high inflation, developing country preferences, and a whole range of other industry problems has meant that as a nation we have become increasingly confused in terms of our understanding of industry protection. I have heard it said by many people that the anti-dumping measures are anti-free enterprise, anti-competition, when in fact that is quite clearly not the case. So much jargon has been coined and there has been so much emotive language regarding all areas of anti-dumping that I suspect that the public is totally confused, as are many industries, as to what should be the clear policies of and the clear guidance from the Government. It was therefore not surprising that last year when the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) issued a discussion paper he received 150 submissions, and some of those were very detailed and complex. I believe that that was still, to some degree, the tip of the iceberg. However, those submissions covered virtually all of the major problems. These amendments go some way towards addressing those problems. Honourable members may recall a speech that I made in this House last year regarding country switching and a few other aspects that I am pleased to see are now being picked up. However there is an underlying problem. It is that the European Economic Community operates as an economic community and Australia operates as an economic community but the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade relates to individual countries not economic communities. I suspect that Australia will have to look much more closely at its agreements in terms of GATT and begin to say: 'If you six, eight or 10 countries want to form an economic union you must let us treat you as one rather than expect to have the benefit of that economic union and also of being treated as separate countries'. That would have a significant effect on country switching because the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, COMECON, and the EEC are clearly single economic communities. They operate as one. Their industries are interwoven across national boundaries and it seems quite inappropriate that we in Australia should be forced to compete with them on world markets, given their economic strength as members of a union, and at the same time be forced to deal with them as separate countries when it comes to fair trade in respect of our own industries. The aspects that have been picked up in the amendment are particularly pertinent. I have been aware of a number of dumping actions that have been in progress in the last year and certainly the time delays have been fairly cataclysmic. What tended to occur was that while the case was being examined the volumes of imports tended to increase. This has a stockpiling effect. In one case that I am aware of, in which anti-dumping action eventually was successful, the actual lead time became some nine months from the making of the decision. It was nine months before the product was phased into the market at the increased price. Importing and stockpiling prior to the making of the decision had meant that the affected company in Australia suffered some one and a half to two years of unfair competition. While the 45-day and 120-day periods will be very pertinent, the volume of imports attained prior to that will be a matter that the Government may well have to address in the times ahead. The other aspect of the amendment with which we will have to grapple in the months ahead concerns the situation in which a company takes a profit. It will be quite appropriate, when the Bill becomes law, to establish a price-an aspect that we have had difficulty with in the past-but where companies are interwoven in both Australia and the exporting country it is quite reasonable to assume, as with transfer pricing, that the organisation may take its profit in the parent company and therefore export to Australia at what seems to be a fairly reasonable market price. But when the product is retailed in Australia, if the wholesaler's profit is removed and the profit available in the parent country is accepted, unfair competition may well still result. When international companies look at their global accounts it is quite reasonable for them to assess that they will use Australia for turnover and the parent country for profit. Therefore, we may well still have some flow-ons in regard to companies ignoring a normal wholesale profit margin in Australia. I believe that that has been happening, certainly in regard to some companies I have been watching in recent times. Even though some countervailing duties have been imposed, the product is still retailed in Australian stores at a price vastly below what would be the normal retail marketing price. In considering dumping procedures we are looking at the import price, the price for the product landed in Australia, not the price in Australian retail establishments, so there is a secondary stage which seems to be of importance. We must, then, take into account the profitability within the product as well. Although the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown) indicated in the second reading speech that profit margin was not a major factor in manufacturing costs, very often it is a major factor in terms of total sales value, and that will vary from product to product. The capacity to ignore a profit margin in a product is an aspect that will not go away as a result of these amendments; in fact, it will be resurrected. I believe that the fierceness of competition and the difficulties being faced by other economic communities, such as those of Europe and certainly America, will ensure that companies with capacity to export to Australia will do so under whatever terms and measures they can. I do not doubt that this legislation in its amended form will be stressed and strained quite heavily by those who seek ways of maintaining production levels in their own country. I was also pleased to see in the second reading speech that the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Government will be looking very closely at Government tenders and procedures to ensure that the Government itself will not be a party to purchasing dumped products. That has been a source of embarrassment in regard to one product in particular. I refer to fluorescent tubes and light globes. It is quite clear that State and Federal Government departments have, if anything, been major purchasers of dumped products. It was subsequently proved and accepted that the products in question were dumped. If it had not been for the governments' purchase volumes it is likely that the product would not have had such an impact on the Australian market. It is bewildering to find that government departments, which in theory apply the spirit of the legislation, in these connotations have been totally ignoring it. There was quite significant capacity on the part of those departments to say: ' Technically we cannot take action under the existing legislation but in practice we can ignore those products; we do not have to buy them if we believe that they have a dumping component'. To some degree it has been that blindness which to my mind has, in certain areas, made government itself, and government departments, seem very suspect in the view of many manufacturers. On the one hand they see the legislation, weak and imperfect as it may be, and on the other they see governments of the day at Federal and State levels exploiting all of its loopholes. That is part of the reason there has been a tendency in the industrial community to question the sincerity of governments. The other aspect that I would like to raise in this context is that in regard to Australian industrial policy-anti-dumping procedures, developing country preferences, bounties versus tariffs and so on-it is important that we first separate this legislation and these amendments from other industrial policy matters. In a way, what this is all about is establishing a platform of fairness and equity for Australian industry whereby it can see that if it behaves and acts in a responsible way it will be fair and reasonable to expect that other industries and countries will do the same. On the other hand, as I mentioned earlier, there is a tendency in the public mind to mix up dumping, developing country preferences, tariffs and bounties in one big bunch. They are handled eventually by the same departments or Minister anyhow and there has been a tendency to suggest that governments and industries, in attempting to use anti-dumping procedures, gain leverage and, if you like a competitive edge. That clearly is not the case, because in virtually every instance I have observed the Australian company has had to more than prove its case and duties, when imposed, normally have been slightly below what was seen to be, to my mind, fair. That is because of our responsibility to other nations and our involvement in GATT. We have to be seen to be acting totally fairly. If we as a country discriminate against the products of other countries in a way that breaches such agreements our international trading reputation will become very shaky. I think it must be made very clear that the anti-dumping procedures, rather than giving our companies a competitive edge, even if completely complied with and accepted, have tended to mean that those companies are still slightly behind the eight ball. Looking at the other side of the coin in terms of Australian protection systems , the anti-dumping legislation in effect imposes a responsibility on importers to account for the veracity of their imports. In the same way the attitude that has become prevalent-certainly the Government has brought it forward in things such as the steel plan-is that we should ensure that Australian industries are in fact accountable for the assistance they are given. I think that is where major changes start to occur. To my mind the steel plan, for the first time in Australia's history, has in it a mechanism to ensure that the protection offered to Australian industries becomes an accountable protection which is audited by a third party. Therefore, I think we must clearly distinguish in the public's mind between the anti-dumping procedures, and other tariff and industry assistance mechanisms. We should ensure that goods are being imported on a fair and competitive basis and that in fact the costs of manufacture in the parent company are not being subsidised or disguised, so that Australian industries are competing in a genuine, non-Rafferty's rules situation. The third part of the government reviews that are taking place obviously must deal with the subject of special country relationships and, again, anti-dumping legislation becomes relevant there. I am delighted that within the first 12 months of government the Minister has been able to bring this legislation forward. I trust it will be given a speedy passage through both Houses because industry badly needs to have these amendments adopted and endorsed. I think it is a significant contribution to the industrial manufacturing systems in Australia that the Government has recognised the need for this overhaul so early in its term. Mind you, I expect that a much more profound overhaul will be needed in the next few years as well. I think what the Government has done here has been to react to a situation that existed at the start of last year-certainly in March of last year. It has reacted in a very speedy and responsive way. I do not think we should assume that we have in fact finished with the problem. I think more cases will come forward and new loopholes will be explored. I am sure that as each one is closed off two more will open up. I do not think the pressure on Australian industry will go away because of these amendments. I commend the legislation to the House. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.03) —When one talks about dumping it is very difficult, of course, to ignore the wider subject of the tariff and what it means to the Australian economy. Although I have some very specific issues that I wish to raise on the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 1983 and the direction in which this legislation should go, I think it is reasonable that in the first instance I should make a few comments on the broader issue of the tariff in Australia. I have been wondering what the policy of this Government is in that regard since our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who is somewhat naive in business matters, got himself into the situation overseas of saying all things to all people and expounding, amongst other things, a major policy on the restructuring of Australian industry. I say that we must now wonder what it is because, of course, once he discovered what the opinions of many of his colleagues were on this subject he decided he needed to get us into other areas of great interest, such as steel in China, so that he could start to muddy the waters of that statement. In fact, he terrified his colleagues and he terrified his supporters in the trade union movement. However, we do not have to worry about that. I would have supported entirely the Prime Minister's statements in Japan. Let me be quite honest and say that I would have supported entirely the statements that my Prime Minister made overseas when we were in government. But let us get back to the truth and reality of what they both said once they got back to Australia. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Let us get back to the Bill, too. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Deputy Speaker, I was making a point about tariffs in particular and dumping is an integral part of the tariff business. The point I want to make is that, since the Prime Minister returned, he has completely muddied the waters by making to the trade unions in a major speech in New South Wales a promise which indicates to me-probably to the gratitude of most honourable members on the other side of the House-that he will probably be well and truly defeated, retired or possibly dead and buried before any major restructuring of the type he referred to in Japan occurs. All we need to know is whether there is a policy at all available to the Australian public on the tariff business. I want to bring to your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the attention of this House some of the thoughts which I believe are essential in this regard. One of these, of course, must be the consideration by any government of what I refer to as the neutral tariff. If anyone consults the last Budget Papers they will see that the estimate of tariff collections is $2.123 billion. On the other hand, the estimate of bounties that might be paid by the Government to encourage industry to compete is $0.329 billion. This leaves a profit, if one likes, to government-a positive revenue differential-of $1.794 billion. Irrespective of the interest of the Prime Minister and his Ministers in the business of restructuring Australian industry, I just wonder whether we will ever get an enlightened Minister for Commerce, or whatever he will be labelled at the time, who will go into Cabinet and say: 'Fellows, I have worked it all out. From here on in there is no need for us to apply tariffs to protect Australian industry. Industry can stand on its own two feet. I have worked it all out'. The first person to jump to his feet after that statement would be the Treasurer to inquire about where the revenue of roughly $2 billion would come from. This is not a problem just of this Government; it has been around for a long time. That revenue component will obviously withstand at all times the real efforts of sensible Ministers to overcome the distortions in this particular matter. Quite clearly, therefore, the tariffs that are collected should not be used for Consolidated Revenue. They should be used to provide bounties in other areas of protection. So, the revenue component of our protection should be neutral. That, of course, could be achieved and, quite clearly, those parts of the system that were supported by way of bounty should be inputs into manufacture. In particular, they should be the inputs necessary for the protection of primary production, which is so essential in the Australian economy. Quite clearly those goods which attract the tariff would be those that could be considered more as luxury items. Maybe, unfortunately, that would include motor cars. Ms Mayer —You forgot to look at the latest figures. Mr TUCKEY —I do not know what the honourable member means by 'the latest figures '. I am telling her that there is a massive revenue differential in favour of the collection of tariffs. If she can show me in the Budget Papers that this is not the case I will not buy her a new set of glasses. The fact is that the Government recently fell foul of this situation, admittedly with the aid of the Industries Assistance Commission, when it imposed a 15 per cent duty on a major input into the primary industry sector, the sector that is currently allowing it to strut the stage and claim what a good economic manager it is. Primary industry has had the benefit of some rain and the primary sector has got the Australian economy out of trouble again. However, instead of looking at the grand contribution that that industry makes to Australia and saying that it proposes to protect certain manufacturers within Australia-and I am not saying that I totally oppose that proposition-and consequently pay to those manufacturers a bounty from some of that massive revenue, the Government again took the revenue option and applied a 15 per cent tariff which meant a $14m bill to primary industry-a $14m bill to some people who are making no income at all because they are still in the grip of drought and are faced with other problems. In that regard I must raise the other great concern of the primary industry sector; that is, the fact that the Government now perceives that the tractor manufacturing industry would be much better served by a tariff than a bounty. I sincerely hope that that is not what is going to occur. I am now only too pleased to refer to matters relating to dumping. In his second reading speech, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown) clearly defined dumping when he said: Dumping occurs when the products of one country are exported to another country at less than their normal value. Normal value is defined as the price of like goods sold in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the country of export. Dumping is condemned internationally as unfair trading if it causes, or threatens, material injury to the industry producing like goods in the importing country and a dumping duty, equal to the difference between the export price and the normal value, may be levied on dumped imports. That is a very clear and concise definition. I do not think many people in Australia or in the international community would support dumping by anybody. It is a distortion. Even some of the more ardent free traders would say that dumping is not a proper practice in the international trading community. I am prepared to support the Minister in his efforts to achieve this, although, like my colleague the honourable member for Moore (Mr Ryan), who has just spoken, I wonder whether human rights are being sufficiently protected when members of the Australian Customs Service are to be given powers that no policeman holds in the pursuit of a criminal. Other than that I believe that the Bill generally does things which are necessary to overcome the problems that presently exist. However, in my view, additional amendments are needed to address other problems in this area. There have been examples in recent times where what I choose to term the second level of persons affected, very significant sectors of the Australian economy, have had no place in anti-dumping procedures. In his second reading speech, the Minister said: It is proposed, therefore, to require the Department of Industry and Commerce, in other than exceptional cases, to arrive at a preliminary finding on whether there is a case of injurious dumping or subsidisation within 45 days of accepting a complaint. Then comes the important part- The suppliers of the imported goods and the importers as well as the complainants will be given an opportunity to provide information relevant to the complaint within a specified period . . . All those people are directly affected. The persons not named are people such as farmers who are particularly affected by the results of any anti-dumping decision. In this regard, I would like to give two examples on both sides of the coin. During the time of the Fraser Government a case was put and a complaint lodged by manufacturers of fertiliser in Australia that the fertiliser was being dumped in Australia from the United States of America. The history of this situation was that, irrespective of whether it was being dumped, a number of manufacturers, people with the capacity to manufacture that product in Australia , were not doing so because they found they could import that product from America cheaper and on-sell it to their traditional customers. That is what they were doing. Of course, other people who were not manufacturers of that fertiliser suddenly discovered that they, too, could import that product and started to undercut the manufacturers. Immediately the manufacturers felt that the product was being dumped and lodged the complaint. The complaint was found to be true although many people, particularly farmer representatives and organisations such as the National Farmers Federation, were producing substantial amounts of evidence to the effect that the product was not being dumped. They were confronted, if I recollect correctly, with an increase in price of that fertiliser of $40 a tonne, but I will stand corrected by the Minister; it is some time since I checked that price. They had a very real interest when one thinks that thousands of tonnes of this fertiliser were being put on farming country every year. The only people, as the Minister still says, who had a direct role in consultations or in appealing against the decision of the Department of Industry and Commerce were the people to whom I have just referred, the farmers who had to put their hands in their pockets and pull out the money to pay for this situation that, in reality, was a non-entity under the legislation. The situation was that the farmer would be heard but he would not be directly involved in the original discussions and there was no provision in the Act to give him that right. Of course, he was not able to take a proper legal position when an appeal against the Department's decision was made. That is one side of the coin. Strangely enough, on the other side of the coin, and in somewhat similar circumstances, we find that cheese manufacturers-this relates a lot to the policies of the European Economic Community and its subsidisation of agriculture which I condemn-are able to purchase dumped cheeses and bring them into Australia, slap their labels on them and sell them. This is occurring. Of course , the losers again are the primary producers because the milk which they produce which would normally be used in the manufacture of that cheese is not required. While the manufacturer is profiting from that import, why should he complain about the fact that it is being dumped in Australia. Until he receives competition from an outside source, and in this field that is not so easy because of the brand-name situation and because of the grip that this market has , the loser is the Australian dairy producer. Again, he is not entitled, under the current legislation or under these amendments, to take anti-dumping action. Only the person affected is allowed to do that. The person who is likely to suffer injury under all this legislation is the manufacturer of the product. Of course everybody overlooks the fact that the actual manufacturing activity, compared with all the input of the original milk produce, is probably the smaller part. The big loser in the Australian economy is the producer of the whole milk who would have it turned into cheese by that manufacturer. That situation is quite wrong and can be quite simply addressed, even at this time, by this Government. Quite clearly a simple amendment is needed that increases the list of those people -the suppliers, the importers and the complainants- mentioned in the Minister's speech. Why cannot we include in the list of complainants and in the list of defendants in the two cases I have given at least primary producers when, as I said earlier today, it is quite clear that those people are again lifting the Australian economy and allowing the Prime Minister and his Ministers to strut the stage of Australia telling the people how this Government's economic policy is working. There is another reality that I should mention. We have just commenced the era of Hawke-Keating economics. There would not be one economist in the world or even one Government member who would claim that an economy can be turned around in a few months. Gains to date have been principally because of Fraser economics , whether we liked them or not. Anybody who denies that has very little economic sense. That is a reality of national economics. Whatever one does, one cannot turn an Australian economy around in a few months. In fact, no government ever has. I call on the Minister to consider seriously my suggestions. I am sure he would get the support of the Opposition for such an amendment. In fact, the Opposition would congratulate the Government for an additional amendment. We have already indicated that we support his legislation, with that one exception of his attack on human rights. I hope a speaker on the Government side concerned with that might add weight to the Opposition's concern in that area. We do recognise the problems that the Customs people face in this area; on the other hand, what price are we prepared to pay for an intrusion of that nature? If that intrusion will be only in the area of customs and tariffs-an area where even the benefit to Australia is of great debate-I just do not think it is worth it. In this area I would much prefer to give that role of entry without warrant to a policeman tracing a drug runner or tracing some of the people we read about who seem to operate in New South Wales in particular. I certainly would not wish to give that power to Customs because it is a peculiarity of many of the policies and laws brought down in Australia that we have some peculiar views of villains. If we look at the mandatory fines imposed on people who operate gambling businesses in competition with government-established gambling businesses, such as totalizator agency boards, we find that the minimum fines involved are much higher that those that apply for some criminal offences, including breaking and entering. I have always doubted the wisdom of that but have accepted the reality of it. In an industry such as starting price betting, for instance, if the penalties are not sufficient operators will pay the money and keep on conducting the business. Nevertheless, in this case of the Customs Bill we should not extend to the Customs investigator, in his rather commercial role, a right that is denied our police. I trust the Minister will take into consideration the points I have raised. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(11.22) —Madam Deputy Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate you on your election to the position of Deputy Speaker. I also add my support to the Customs Tariff (Anti-dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the complementary Customs Tariff (Anti-dumping) Miscellaneous Amendments Bill. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, announced on 10 April last year that he had directed the Department of Industry and Commerce urgently to review the Customs Tariff (Anti-dumping) Act and procedures for dealing with the dumping of goods on Australia's domestic marker. This direction was in accordance with the previously announced Government policy. The review has culminated in the introduction of legislation to amend the existing customs tariff anti-dumping legislation we are now discussing. The review was very wide ranging, giving the opportunity for many and varied points of view to be put. Those involved included manufacturing and importing industry groups, trade unions and other interested parties. My colleague the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris) has already mentioned that 150 submissions were received which canvassed diverse views and proposals. That followed a discussion paper issued by Senator Button's Department of Industry and Commerce. It became obvious that the legislation needed strengthening in order to provide greater protection for Australian industry against dumping, which was becoming more prevalent. In adding my support to these anti-dumping amendment Bills, I am supporting the commitment of the Government's election platform to strengthen anti-dumping procedures to ensure that goods are not landed in Australia at unrealistically low prices. Our ability to gain increasing benefits from international trade markets is closely aligned with the degree to which the products of Australia's trading partners may compete in the Australian market with the Australian products. There are, all the same, circumstances in which it is necessary to provide appropriate assistance to Australian producers outside normal tariff measures to counter unfair competition. In the sensible parts of the speech of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) he reminded us of the definition of dumping and dumping duty. I was also interested in his suggestion that the consumer should be represented at hearings; for example, the farmer with his fertiliser. I am sure the Minister would be most interested in that proposal, and I hope the honourable member makes it to the Minister. The countervailing duties imposed to offset the injurious effects of any subsidy, bounty, remission or redirection of freight or other financial assistance which applies to the production, export or carriage of goods imported into Australia are very important, because goods come into Australia which are heavily subsidised by the government of the country of origin, in various ways, so competing with goods that we manufacture which do not receive such assistance from within the country. Those countervailing duties, equal to the amount of subsidy or other assistance received, can be levied and are very important protection for our own production against subsidised goods from other countries. These measures are taken to ensure that the Government's decisions on the appropriate levels of assistance for Australian industry are not eroded by the unfair pricing practices of exporters of goods to Australia. That these practices are not new is shown by the fact that Australia's anti-dumping legislation dates back to the beginning of this century. In 1906, anti-dumping measures in Australia were originally incorporated in the Australian Industries Preservation Act. Some time later, anti-dumping and countervailing measures were included in the Customs Tariff Act 1921, the Customs Tariff (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1961 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-dumping) Act 1975. I remind honourable members of that fact because there is a tendency to imagine that dumping largely has something to do with the increase in trade from our Pacific neighbours instead of being historically something about which we have always had to be concerned. Our international rights and obligations in respect of anti -dumping and countervailing action are governed by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the relevant agreements negotiated in 1979. In recent years anti-dumping complaints have risen considerably and it has been claimed by various sectors of Australian industry that the current law does not provide effective control against dumped imports. Central to the thrust of these amendments is the welfare of Australian industry . For too long dumping has been allowed to escalate at a rapid rate, which has to be seen as a trend causing undue harm to Australian industry. Justice is being brought to bear on importers and, unlike the previous Government which muddled on for many years with the old system, this Government is attempting through this legislation to protect manufacturers from the most unfair effects of dumped goods on the local market. I know it is of great concern to a number of manufacturers in my electorate that they have in the past suffered this unfair competition from dumped goods. Whilst I am appreciative of the efforts of the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) to increase interest in small business, I suggest that protection of our industry against unfair trade practices is infinitely more useful to small business than the naming of a year of small business, which is probably typical of what went on before this Government came to power. Then one could give things a label and say something had been done. Looking back to the 1960s and 1970s, the dumping of goods on the local market was not as great a problem as it is today. World trade was expanding and the tendency to dump was not an issue for Australian industry to have to cope with, as it is today. Dumping tends to occur more readily during times of international recession and due to this fact has become a pressing issue during the 1980s. In 1981 the incidence of dumping rose considerably and the problem is clearly reflected in the number of dumping complaints put forward during that period. The Government realises that speed is of the essence to effective anti-dumping and countervailing action. Complaints have to be dealt with in a quick, efficient and accurate manner because industry may be damaged if the process is convoluted and lengthy. For example, in 1982 it took up to one year to deal with a dumping complaint. We know that small businesses can go to the wall in that time if they have to wait for some correction to be made to unfair practices which threaten them. That has produced the result whereby in some cases the fear of delay in dealing with hearings of dumping complaints actually can prevent a company from manufacturing a new item because it fears that the item will have to compete with a similar, dumped item, and it will be in diabolical trouble before it can get any reasonable action. Because of that the Government believes that by streamlining procedures the new administrative processes for dealing with complaints will be of great benefit to our local manufacturing industry. The Department of Industry and Commerce will be asked in cases, other than exceptional cases, to produce within 45 days a preliminary finding as to whether a case of injurious dumping or subsidisation stands. I think we would all agree that 45 days is a deal better than 365 days. All parties concerned-the suppliers of the imported goods, the importers as well as the complainants, the manufacturers that is-will be given a chance to provide information within a specified period of approximately 30 days. To simplify the whole process, questionnaires will be allocated to all interested groups. If, after these preliminary inquiries, a case of injurious dumping or subsidisation is determined, the Department of Industry and Commerce will be required to further investigate the complaint and to complete this inquiry within 120 days, this being the normal period of validity of provisional security action. It should be understood that the time limits mentioned above apply to normal complaints and remain flexible to deal with cases which require speedier preliminary findings or a more complicated case which may enforce a more lengthy investigation. The effect of these administrative changes will be to put more pressure on Australian manufacturers to substantiate complaints and to give importers earlier access to the full nature of the allegations. The Department of Industry and Commerce is also seeking to increase the size of the dumping division and to appoint an extra senior officer. This will enable one assistant secretary to concentrate on day to day affairs and another to work on the more long term perspective. Stress on visibility is reflected in the new administrative changes , especially in reference to the preliminary finding of the Department of Industry and Commerce. It is the Government's belief that these administrative initiatives will strengthen significantly the procedures for dealing with complaints of dumping and subsidisation while at the same time ensuring that suppliers and importers from overseas are given every opportunity to provide information and submit counter arguments against any allegations of unfair trading practices. These initiatives are based on the principle of a fair and equitable input from all parties concerned in a particular complaint. The Customs Tariff (Anti-dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) provides some clarification of the status of the various people concerned and definition of some relevant matters. Clause 3 proposes to align the definition of the business association in section 4 of the principal Act with that of related persons in section 154 of the Customs Act 1901. I think that is an important definition. Clause 4 amends section 4A of the principal Act to enable the Minister to deal with sales dumping arrangements, that is, hidden dumping, irrespective of whether the parties are associates. The invoiced export price between associates may be acceptable to the Minister if the prices are in relation to purchases in arm's length transactions. I could go on to discuss a number of these clauses in some detail, but I believe we will have an opportunity to deal with them in some detail at the Committee stage. The anti-dumping legislation provides an opportunity for the Industries Assistance Commission to review dumping and countervailing decisions. The Government is of the view that such reviews should be confined to the facts of the particular case and that, as the question in issue is one relating to unfair trading practices and is not an industry assistance matter, the policy guidelines of the AIC will not apply as they are not relevant. It is with a feeling of real concern for Australia's industry that I support the initiatives contained in this anti-dumping legislative package. Australia's industry should not have to cope with unfair trade practices. It is the intention of this Labor Government that every assistance be extended to our domestic industry, including that of the customs tariff anti-dumping legislation. I commend the Bills to the House. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(11.33) —I am pleased to have this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Miscellaneous Amendments Bill which are currently before the House and to endorse the sentiments expressed by my colleagues the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) and the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). May I say how much I agree with the desire implicit in the legislation to prevent unnecessary dumping and how much I regret that non- tariff barriers are growing throughout the world. In the time available I want to reflect on the impact on farming and fruit growing areas of dumping allegedly taking place in Australia at present. I want to focus my observations not only on what is happening in the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community but also on the impact of subsidised production from Brazil and South Africa on the products that particularly affect the seat of Wakefield. In the 1970s the Common Agricultural Policy, which was endorsed by the EEC and embraced by the United Kingdom, reduced the export of Australian products, particularly canned fruit, apples and pears, into the United Kingdom. That Common Agricultural Policy made it more difficult for primary producers in Australia to export into Third World nations, but primary producers seemed to be able to cope with these dilemmas. When we found that the CAP and other policies across the world were involving the dumping of agricultural produce in Australia , it was time to call a halt and look again at our anti-dumping procedures. While we have butter mountains and wine lakes posing a real threat to our horticultural produce, we have to acknowledge that it is not only horticultural products but also dairy products, beef and lamb that are directly affected by the present accessibility of the Australian market to subsidised overseas competition. In making these remarks to the House I am not supporting inefficient Australian producers. The producers I purport to represent in these remarks are producers of products with a high labour content, producers involved in intensive agriculture and producers more accutely affected by Australia's labour costs than many other primary producers. What is exclusive and unique about horticultural and intensive agricultural industries is that some years pass between planting and production. There are long lead times. The grower, in putting produce into the ground, has to anticipate markets that might well be a decade away. In the light of that sort of investment by individual growers, we on this side of the House welcome the purpose of this legislation which is to accelerate anti -dumping procedures and provide a more rapid track technique for growers and primary producers who believe their produce is being affected by dumped subsidised produce from overseas. As the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) has pointed out, the legislation will require the Department of Industry and Commerce to hand down a preliminary finding on a dumping allegation within 45 days and complete the investigation within 120 days. Because of the impact of subsidised EEC production, horticultural exports into the United Kingdom all but ceased during the 1970s. In fact, the export of canned peaches into the United Kingdom fell from 90,000 tonnes to 27,000 tonnes. The export of canned apricots from Australia to the United Kingdom fell from 8, 000 tonnes to 1,000 tonnes. The export of apples into the United Kingdom fell from 126,000 tonnes to 42,000 tonnes. The thrust of the legislation is not only to deal with the dilemma that the EEC has posed to Australian producers in falling exports but also to protect Australian producers from the dumping of subsidised products that principally have come out of the EEC. One classic example of the dumping of subsidised EEC production in Australia that has just been brought to mind-it is coincidental to the emergence of this legislation in the House-is the dumping of French brandy. Australian Customs Notice No. 84/37, which was handed down on 23 February, agreed that a prima facie case has been brought by the chief executive of the consolidated co-operative producers in the Riverland area of South Australia on behalf of the Australian brandy distillers group against French brandy being dumped into Australia. As a result of that case the importers are now required to lodge a security of 16.33 French francs for every litre of alcohol in brandy dumped in Australia. This figure effectively converts to 90c a bottle, or approximately $2 in Australian terms per litre of alcohol. It is very timely that these Bills should come before the House just as this decision has been made in favour of the consolidated co-operative group. This legislation will require the Department of Industry and Commerce to hand down a decision on this issue within 120 days. This may well be a very optimistic note for what has been, for at least 12 months-as honourable members would know-a very pessimistic industry. I wish to incorporate in Hansard a table which indicates the fall in brandy production in Australia as a result of the import of whiskies. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — As the paper you wish to put in Hansard comes within the guidelines set down by Mr Speaker, leave is granted. The table read as follows- MARKET SHARESCOMBINED WHISKY/BRANDY MARKET IN AUSTRALIA (Million litres of alcohol) Whisky Brandy Year Australia Imports Total Australia Imports Total Total 1974-75 0.93 5.44 6.37 2.92 0.70 3.62 9.99 Per cent 9.31 54.45 63.76 29.23 7. 01 36.24 1975-76 0.74 5.88 6.62 2.67 0.65 3.32 9.94 Per cent 7.44 59.15 66.60 26.86 6. 54 33.40 1976-77 0.67 6.99 7.66 2.75 0.69 3.44 11.10 Per cent 6.04 62.97 69.01 24.77 6. 22 30.99 1977-78 0.63 7.62 8.25 2.85 0.49 3.34 11.59 Per cent 5.43 65.75 71.18 24.59 4. 23 28.82 1978-79 0.44 6.26 6.70 2.38 0.25 2.63 9.93 Per cent 4.71 67.10 71.81 25.51 2. 68 28.19 1979-80 0.31 6.21 6.52 2.19 0.29 2.48 9.00 Per cent 3.45 69.00 72.45 24.33 3. 22 27.55 1980-81 0.34 6.75 7.09 2.45 0.44 2.89 9.98 Per cent 3.41 67.63 71.04 24.55 4. 41 28.96 1981-82 0.31 7.66 7.97 2.34 0.57 2.91 10.88 Per cent 2.85 70.40 73.25 21.51 5. 24 26.75 1982-83 0.28 7.87 8.15 2.22 0.76 2.98 11.13 Per cent 2.52 70.71 73.23 19.95 6. 82 26.77 Mr ANDREW —A glance at that table will show that in the nine years from 1974-75 to 1982-83 whisky imports increased from 54.45 per cent to 70.71 per cent, up by 16.25 per cent. Australian brandy's share of the market decreased from 29.23 per cent to 19.95 per cent, down 9.28 per cent, and that of Australian whisky decreased from 9.31 per cent to 2.52 per cent, down 6.79 per cent. Since 1978-79 brandy imports increased from 2.68 per cent to 6.82 per cent, up 4.14 per cent. It is difficult to believe that this can be done in a price market when the EEC spirits have to be carted half way around the world. When we consider that the French cost of production is very much like the Australian cost of production we can understand why the industry in Australia was very suspicious that dumping was occurring and just how timely this anti-dumping legislation is. The table also refers to whisky production in Australia and, because of the impact on whisky and brandy production, I have this day written to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) requesting that he extend the Customs inquiry into the dumping of French brandy to include concurrently an inquiry into the dumping of EEC whisky. It is not just the brandy industry or the wine industry in the electorate of Wakefield that I seek to represent in these comments before the House. The dried vine fruits industry, which is currently in production in the electorate of Wakefield-and the producers will be working for less than the basic wage-faces a real threat from EEC Greek and Spanish production. As the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is well aware, the dried tree fruit industry faces a similar threat from the importation of South African fruit into Australia. So this Bill facilitates the opportunities that both industries will have to bring the unfair trading practice to the attention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. In my concluding remarks I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister one or two other matters that I think might be amended as the Bill proceeds through the House. I ask the Minister to consider a couple of matters. Firstly, if the goods on which the anti-dumping tariff is being paid are re-exportable from Australia, will the Government rebate the duty paid to the exporter? Secondly-this point has largely been taken up by the honourable member for O' Connor (Mr Tuckey)-does the Government agree that the anti-dumping tariff, I emphasise the word 'tariff', mean that the importer will raise his selling price by the amount of the duty and will no longer be accused of dumping? Of course there will not then be any revenue to the Government and as a result the consumer will be required to pay more. Might he not then, in the sentiments expressed by the honourable member for O'Connor, give due regard to a bounty rather than a tariff, as applied in the steel industry? The third point, which has also been touched on by the honourable member for O'Connor, is the need to expand the area of appeal to include not only processors but also producers. Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your consideration in allowing me to address the House on these points. If the Minister is prepared to consider these constructive additions I would be happy to commend the Bill. Mr KENT(Hotham)(11.44) —Madam Deputy Speaker, allow me first to congratulate you on your elevation to the high office of Chairman of Committees and thank you for giving me the call to address the House on this legislation. The Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill is a timely piece of legislation which reflects the Government's commitment to the electorate to strengthen anti-dumping measures, thus defending our manufacturing industry. The legislation before us has the effect of improving anti-dumping and countervailing procedures. I for one welcome, and believe that the Australian manufacturing industry also welcomes, the provisions of this Bill, although I would have preferred much more stringent and comprehensive measures to protect our manufacturing industry and through that to save the jobs of many Australians . The anti-dumping Bill is especially welcome as it has been introduced at a time when Australia is fast becoming the dumping ground of cheaply produced goods by transitional capital. The speaker before me, the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), mentioned the importation of agricultural products into this country. I congratulate him on opposing it in the interest of his electors. However, at the same time many honourable members opposite are propagating the unlimited importation of manufactured goods, which will harm our manufacturing industry-an industry that employs hundreds of thousands of Australians. For instance, if I needed an ordinary fan-belt for my car today and I went to a garage to buy it, it would sell me one that is made in Korea. If I needed an air -conditioning belt I would be sold one made in the United States of America or Canada, as though this country is unable to produce something as simple as a fan -belt or an air-conditioning belt. The production of the new $1 coins overseas is another story and to some extent it made a farce of our Government's 'Buy Australian-made' publicity program. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will remember last year's Australia Day celebration when the country was flooded with Australian flags made in Taiwan. I am glad to report that this year Carroll and Richardson Pty Ltd of Blackburn, manufacturers of Australian flags and such produce, produced an Australian flag which is much better in quality and which was widely used. I display one proudly on my desk, not only because it is the Australian flag but also because it is one that is produced in this country. I have a circular issued by a company in Taiwan offering steel-wire and tubing products. It is signed by the manager, Rocky Chou. Among the illustrated items is a garden chair made from steel tubing and flat wires. It is offered f.o.b. Taiwan for $US5.30. A local manufacturer brought one of the chairs to me to show me. He told me that to produce the same chair here would cost him $15. But, of course, by the time a firm can prove the dumping Rocky Chou has made a handsome profit, the importer has made a handsome profit and the manufacturer in my electorate is forced to reduce his work force because his product is forced out of demand. Only recently I wrote to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button ) requesting temporary assistance for a company named Pyrox Pty Ltd, our main domestic manufacturer of space heaters, which is being squeezed out of the market by imports from Japan. I pointed out that some of the gas heaters imported from Japan sell here cheaper than in Tokyo. I have visted Pyrox and spoken to the workers there as well as the manager. I found that the workers, many of whom have been employed there for a number of years, are dedicated to the company. Pyrox, which is Australian-owned, is doing everything to produce both cheaply and efficiently. However, no matter how good and diligent the Australian workers are, no matter how good the Australian management is, they cannot compete with dumping and unfair practices. I have just one more illustration of the penetration of foreign made goods. My biro, which was sent by Sir Billy Snedden to members of the House of Representatives, was made in Italy. They are still being sent to us, I regret to say, by the current Speaker. Evidently Sir Billy must have purchased a great quantity of Italian made biros to present to the members of the House of Representatives. Mr John Brown —I thought he gave them to us out of his own pocket. Mr KENT —I do not know whether he paid for them. If it was from his pocket, he probably got some cheap dumped products. Mr Tuckey —Do we make biros? Mr KENT —If we continue to import foreign goods, we will lose our ability to manufacture anything, including brandy. Mr Tuckey —I just asked: Do we make biros in Australia? Mr KENT —We did make biros but our manufacturers were forced out of the market by the importation of foreign goods. We used to make thongs in Western Australia . The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) ought to know; he comes from that part of the country. The manufacturer who made ordinary thongs was forced out of the market because of cheap imports from Taiwan. That is what I am talking about. Opposition members have no concern for the workers who lost their jobs because of the imports freely allowed into this country. I assure the House that the biro concerned is somewhat inferior to biros made here, at least to the extent that we cannot get a refill for it. Of course, the pessimism that was just displayed by the honourable member for O 'Connor, this non-belief in the ability of the Australian worker to produce goods for our own needs, is fostered by the conservatives, not by accident but by design. They have set out to denigrate our industry and shake our belief in ourselves. They advocate reliance on imports. This advocacy is dangerous because it turns Australia into an international dumping ground for products manufactured by transnational companies which results in millions of dollars of profits to foreign manufacturers. However, at the same time this advocacy of reliance on foreign goods ensures continuous unemployment of hundreds of thousands of Australian workers. This advocacy of our own impotence is dangerous because it supplements the strategy of the new corporate world economic order according to which Australia has a role of supplier of raw materials and agricultural produce. There is no place for Australian manufacturing industry in the global economic strategy plan of the transnationals. The dismantling of the Australian manufacturing industry has already begun and it has a traumatic effect on our employment at present, as well as employment opportunities in the future. The de-industrialisation of Australia that ensures millions of extra profits to international capital is promoted by the traditional free trade lobby of importers and exporters and the big rural interests. Lately, they have been joined by the mining interests, largely foreign owned. The promoters of free trade, the strategists of the world interdependence, the fetishists of free market forces, are becoming more and more numerous. With the zeal of religious converts they are advocating the dismantling of some sections of our manufacturing industries and the restructuring of others to serve the interests of international capital. They are following in the footsteps of Henry Kissinger, former United States of America Secretary of State who has now become an adviser to transnational corporations. He visited Australia late last year and delivered a strong attack on policies which would protect national industries against the inroads of trans- national corporations. One of the latest outbursts came from Hugh Matheson Morgan, Executive Director of Western Mining Corporation Ltd, a director of Alcoa of Australia Ltd and the Australian Industries Development Association who, according to the Melbourne Age of 19 January 1983, warned a business audience at the Savoy Hotel in London that 'high Keynesians' were waiting to incite rebellion in the Hawke Government. Mr Morgan identified these Keynesians as including senior and junior Federal Ministers, the Victorian Government and the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at Melbourne University. He attacked all and sundry from the socialist Left to the cost of living adjustment and preached in general the old saga of tight monetary control and free trade. Mr Morgan's advocacy of tight monetary policies, low government spending and low wages will not resolve our problems. We have seen seven years of Fraserism and all that it resulted in was more and more Australians out of work. Mr Morgan, the Executive Director of Sir Arvi Parbo's outfit and a director of Alcoa, represents well the exporting interests of mining companies but he certainly does not represent the interests of Australian wage and salary earners , many of whom would join the reserve army of unemployed if Mr Morgan's advice were accepted. He chose London, thousands of miles from our shores, to attack those who identify with the aspirations and interests of ordinary working Australians. Such an outburst and attack against economic nationalism was to be expected as a new ideology to justify export oriented global production strategies, created to serve the increasing transnationalisation of production. Trade barriers and restrictions on the movement of capital and goods interfere with the global plans of transnationals and they want to stop them. A whole new school of free trade economists is being employed to preach the interests of multinational capital. These economists invent various glasshouse models to explain the past and to forecast the future. But while they play with their Orani models, they forget about the human element. They forget about this nation which the economy should serve. They talk about rationalisation of our industry which means that, if an industry cannot compete with cheap off-shore industrial products produced and imported by multinationals, such industries should go to the wall. From such advocacy it is obvious that the expansion of the capitalist world economy in the second half of this century has managed without the actual involvement of the domestic bourgeoisie, or at least without its capital. They, like many conservative gentlemen opposite, are only the compradors, the domestic agents for the transnational interests, and so is Mr Morgan, who is telling us from London what we should do. Considering all this, the Bill before us today-a Bill which will offer a much better measure of protection to our industries against dumping and unfair trade practices-seems to be only a small and somewhat less important measure, especially if we take into account the problems besetting our domestic manufacturing industry which is under attack by powerful foreign controlled transnational corporations. The international restructuring of production undertaken by the transnationals is particularly harmful to Australian manufacturing industry. The de- industrialisation of Australia is proceeding according to their plans. This de- industrialisation process is taking place partly through the movement of Australian based companies off-shore to cheap wage countries. Such a process is dictated by the logic of forces of competition advocated by the free traders. It is obvious that companies producing in Australia, paying Australian award wages which are 10 times higher than the subsidiaries of some companies are paying in, say, the Philippines or Malaysia, cannot compete with overseas production. Such companies, unless they are given increased protection and assistance, cannot survive and they will be forced to close their operations here in Australia and to re-open somewhere in Taiwan or the Philippines, employing cheap labour. Such are the effects of so-called free trade whereby transitionals are given the freedom to disregard our national interests and bankrupt our domestic industries by flooding our markets with foreign products. The latest of such moves to replace domestic production with imports is in the field of electronics, or what remains of it. The proposed reduction of tariffs on large screen colour televisions and the discontinuation of voluntary export restraint in the report of the Industries Assistance Commission will certainly have the effect of dismantling our television industry and component manufacturing industry. The production of small television sets stopped long ago as imports forced our manufacturers out of the market. The IAC proposals, if accepted by the Government, will force the manufacturers of large colour televisions, 20 inches and over, to sack their work force and stop the production and assembling of such sets in Australia. One of the manufacturers, Philips Industries Holdings Ltd, is in my electorate. I fear what will happen to the hundreds of workers who might lose their jobs because of the pressure put on the Government by the free traders. According to the proponents of free trade, if protection is lifted, capital will leave the inefficient, non- profitable industries and be reinvested in so-called sunrise industries which are more profitable. Alternatively, those industries can pull up their socks, invest more and become more efficient. That could be so in some airy-fairy free market world or in the woolly heads of some economists. What is in fact happening in my electorate is that once a factory is closed and capital moves out, the workers are sacked and no other factory opens up. If a manufacturer is forced out of business he does not necessarily invest in something more profitable such as high technology industries. Most manufacturers have told me that they will be forced to turn into importers, importing goods from offshore countries. For example, Philips will not go out of business. It will reduce its work force, use its warehouses and retail outlets to sell imported products from its parent factory in Singapore where it can produce the goods more cheaply. Alternatively, it can move into another country where mass production techniques can also produce goods more cheaply. The result of freely allowing foreign goods to be dumpted on us will be that our work force will remain unemployed for a long time. Even more highly trained people, for example, engineers and technicians, will be forced out of the industry. Not only will they be unable to find employment in this country, they will have to go overseas if they want to practice their professions. There is not much remaining of our electronic industries; there will be less if this television industry is forced to go to the wall and import the sets. In the future we will lose our ability not only to produce a biro, which we may have lost already, but also to put a television set together. I wonder how that will affect our ability to defend ourselves and this continent in the future should the need arise. Time will not allow me to bring up more matters regarding these Bills and the protection of and assistance to our industries in general. I represent an electorate with over 2,000 industrial undertakings, mainly small businesses. These businesses, if not in every case, are very often Australian-owned and work with Australian capital. I am concerned about what will happen to thousands of Australian workers if we do not stop the dumping of imported goods into this country. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(12.04) —Anti-dumping legislation is necessary for any country in order to ensure and protect fair trading. It is part of any country's protection policy. I will not make general reference to the customs tariff anti- dumping legislation; I want to highlight several specific problems. The weaknesses that I have highlighted before in this Parliament, I believe, still continue with this legislation. The legislation concerning dumping does not allow, require or enforce fair trading in certain situations. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) raised part of the problem when he mentioned dairy farmers and dumped cheese. I will be very pleased if the Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown) can tell me that this legislation actually corrects the position. The problem, as I understand it, is that the definition of the industry or the injured party which is allowed to lodge the formal complaint upon which the Department of Industry and Commerce makes its initial inquiries to see whether the potential for dumping exists is too narrow. As I said, I have raised the problem before in the Parliament with the previous Government. At that stage I was told that when amendments to the customs tariff anti-dumping legislation were being considered this problem would be taken into account. If my understanding that it has not been considered or included in this legislation is correct, I am disappointed. I say sincerely to the Minister that I hope he will consider including provision for the problem in the legislation before it goes to the Senate. It is a sincere complaint, one I had raised with the previous Government. I will be complimenting the Government for some legislation it will bring on later in the next week or two. In that instance it has listened to people in the pear industry who for years have been asking for a differential levy in relation to pears for distillation. I will commend the Government for listening on that occasion to something that I have been saying was not right for some time. The examples I will use relate to agriculture, as it affects my electorate and I understand it better. However, my comments could also be applied to manufactured products. The producer of the product, whether a dairy farmer, a grower of tomatoes, a vegetable or fruit producer, or a grape grower-in other words, the producer of the unprocessed product or commodity-is not classed as the industry when it comes to dumped imports. It has to be the cheese manufacturer, the tomato canner, the vegetable canner or the wine producer. The honourable member for O'Connor gave the example of the dairy farmers as represented by the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation not being able to make complaints on imported cheese from Europe. The cheese manufacturers had to make the complaint, even though the Dairy Farmers Federation did most of the work for the cheese manufacturers when they finally made the complaint. The honourable member for O'Connor also mentioned the case of some companies in Australia which were also represented in the European Economic Community. It suited them nicely to import goods rather than to manufacture them here. There was the case of a company established in, I think, Tasmania which was to produce certain types of cheese in Australia but which found it was more profitable to import the dumped product from its parent company in France. Mr Goodluck —That is right. Mr LLOYD —I welcome the comment that that was correct. There was also the case of an Australian company that used to make blue vein cheese. This point relates to material injury. The industry as a whole, rather than a small component of it , has to be shown to be materially injured in some way by the dumped imported product. This particular manufacturer, the only manufacturer of blue vein cheese at that time in Australia, finally stopped production of blue vein cheech because of dumped product. But when it tried to compain it was told: 'You can't really complain because you are no longer manufacturing a product. How can that be of material injury to the industry generally? Your total production, even if you were in full production, would be so small for the total industry that it can't be considered by itself'. However, I commend the Department for the action that has been taken against dumped imported cheese from the EEC because the present arrangement is far more satisfactory than before. There is a better understanding between the industry and the Department as to how to proceed in the future. I certainly commend the action that has been taken. Another example is that of tomatoes. Some of the canners, including co- operative companies to my disappointment, both import and produce canned tomatoes in various forms in this country. Under the EEC's common agricultural policy, tomato product from Mediterranean countries has been brought into Australia. In my view, by definition, it has been clearly dumped. They have been frustrated in that. There was the additional complication-I may have it the wrong way round-that if it was tomato pulp the growers were considered to be close enough to the pulp to be considered the industry; if it was paste it was considered that the growers were further down the line in the manufacturing process and could not be considered. It seems to me a rather absurd definition if the people who actually produce the product, those who are affected by the dumped imported product, are not able to appear as the formal complainants. We have a problem with canned vegetables as a result of the closer economic relations policy with New Zealand. Generally, as a result of various takeovers which have taken place, basically the same companies operate in both New Zealand and Australia. Because of special financial assistance provided by the New Zealand Government for exports, it generally suits companies to can products in New Zealand and act as importers in Australia. Therefore the canners will not lodge a complaint in Australia because they are doing very nicely as a result of the joint ownership arrangements in New Zealand. One case a few years ago involved an Australian canner of a vegetable product who was threatened by the supermarket chains which were importing this product from New Zealand. He was told that if he were to lodge a formal complaint they would not give him any shelf space for his product in their supermarkets. That is the sort of problem that arises. I put sincerely to the Minister and the Government that if the right to lodge a formal complaint has not been covered in the amendments the Bills should be looked at again before they go to the Senate. Another point I wish to make indicates the delicate balance that has to be maintained by governments and departments in legislating and applying regulations for fair trade and reasonable protection. I refer to the question of by-law admission for a new product whereby a person may lodge a complaint against a product being admitted without duty on the grounds that that product is being made in Australia or, more particularly, could be made in Australia and that it is the intention of a manufacturer to make it. Some protection should exist to stop a predatory operator overseas killing any hope of production in Australia. I will cite two examples of events which occurred in the area I represent and the industries I have represented. One case related to liquid nitrogen containers for the artificial animal breeding industry. The more recent case, the example I wish to concentrate on, involved agricultural lasers. Agricultural laser technique is revolutionising land layout in irrigation areas in Australia and the reclamation of badly drained and salt affected irrigation areas. I believe that agricultural land lasering, with the necessary government tax incentives to encourage farmers to utilise it, will do more than any other government program or expenditure to solve the problems of irrigation drainage and salinity along the Murray Valley and elsewhere in Australia. When it came to the point of importing agricultural lasers from overseas, one company in Australia said it intended to produce them. It was already producing building lasers, and producing them very well. Because that company kept saying it intended to produce agricultural lasers, by-law admission was not granted. It was my view and the view of those who were importing, using and anxious to use the lasers in primary industry in Australia that that company was not genuine; that it did not intend to produce them. I wish to commend the previous Minister, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), who listened to those arguments but gave by-law admission for the importation of agricultural lasers for a limited period. He recognised that the argument of intention to manufacture can be used by some to frustrate the importation of a product which should be imported rather than be used to protect someone who is trying to establish a market for that product in Australia against predatory imports. When the Minister speaks in reply, I do not expect any response about the by-law arrangement. I merely meant to comment on it. In regard to the definition of 'industry affected', I know that the honourable member for O'Connor and the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) and I would all be interested if that point could be explained to us . Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(12.15) —There is an old Chinese proverb which says: 'Fuel is not sold in the forest nor fish in the lake'. That is no longer true. European cheese is sold in the quality dairy producing Bega Valley and foreign fish has been sold in Eden, both at prices cheaper than the farmer is paid for the raw material in the country of origin. The Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown), in his second reading speech on the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill, reminded the House that the Government's election platform included a commitment to strengthen anti-dumping procedures to ensure that goods are not landed in Australia at unrealistically low prices. A wide-ranging review of the legislation was announced on 10 April 1983. I hope that the provisions in this legislation embrace cheese and fish. If it does not, I certainly support a call for an inclusion of those items. I understand that the code to which we are a signatory relates to people who pack cans of products in Australia. Apparently they can object to the importation of similar products, but the producer cannot. Therefore there is some complications if a producer wishes to object to the importation of cheese and fish. I believe that the Government needs to look at that problem. Many materials other than cheese and fish have been dumped on the Australian market. Honourable members who have spoken in this debate have mentioned strawberries, eggs, light globes, brandy, whisky, Australian flags, fan belts and biros. Sometimes there are instances of actual dumping. Other cases, I would imagine, could be regarded as approximations to dumping. The honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) has pointed out the increasing incidence of dumping since the 1960s and 1970s. As the honourable member for O' Connor (Mr Tuckey) and the Minister have said, dumping occurs when the products of one country are exported to another country at less than their normal value. 'Normal value' means the price of like goods sold in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the country of origin. To date, successive governments in Australia have had about as much effect on the European Economic Community's dumping programs as the chook which said to the horse: 'Let's agree not to step on each other's feet'. This Government does not accept the continuation of that relationship. Within 45 days-not a year, as often happened before-of accepting a complaint of dumping the Department of Industry and Commerce will now be required to arrive at a preliminary finding as to whether there is a case of injurious dumping, and an investigation will follow. The Government also proposes to discourage hidden dumping. When it comes to trade, even our friends have to be treated as strangers. When parties agree to an export price above the normal value and then share the profit on the export sale, that is agreeing to hidden dumping. The Minister will now be able to determine the export price. Under another provision the Minister may determine the amount of duty on goods which have been dumped to be a sum sufficient to prevent injury to the relevant industry. Another example is freight dumping-a reduction in freight costs to allow a lower price in Australia. Again, action can be taken against any activity which threatens an Australian industry in this way. The associated Bill , the Customs Tariff (Anti-dumping) Miscellaneous Amendments Bill, allows investigation of practices such as secret rebates and package deals which are part of hidden dumping schemes between parties to import transactions. Few people will envy governments of countries like France, which has militant farmers not prepared to lose their position in the economy and who determine that where there are inefficiencies their market will still be maintained, using the useful shield of the European Economic Community. Therefore the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is to be congratulated on his recent discussions with European countries. The agreements reached should reduce some dumping, without the need for the sort of legal confrontation which we are talking about now. The Departments of Primary Industry and Industry and Commerce have also reached a better understanding with the primary and manufacturing industries of Australia. Many people on both sides have made a useful contribution to the tariff debate. On the side against tariffs we have had contributions from such people as Bert Kelly, who formerly represented the electorate of Wakefield. There is much merit in their argument that protection is of no real value to a country or the world, but that is if the world itself is a free market world. But when it comes to dumping there is no alternative to the taking of protective measures in the form of the Government's anti-dumping amendments. If the world market were free we could indulge in the luxury of having no protection. It is not a free market while other governments sell their products overseas below cost because their farming or other industries are inefficient. I commend the Bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(12.22) —I move: That the Bill be now read a third time. I would like to comment on some of the contributions to the debate that have been made by honourable members. I suggest that this legislation is long overdue . The previous Government had been fiddling with it for a long time and had been unable to bring it to a conclusion. The Bill was introduced in the last session and has laid on the table for a long time. Industry has not responded to any great extent to its provisions, which rather satisfies the Government that it has covered most of the contingencies that need attention. Certainly, prior to the introduction of this legislation we had problems with dumping. This has been one of the best debates I have heard for a long time. Honourable members have offered reasoned, intelligent and constructive contributions. I note that as a very pleasant change because I have been discouraged that Bills of this type, of great importance to Australian industry, have been largely ignored on both sides . Often in the last Parliament, when I was Opposition spokesman on the subject, I would find myself the only Opposition speaker and the responsible Minister the only Government speaker. I am pleased that all members of the Parliament are taking a more active interest in the protection of Australian industry and, as well, our obligations under international codes. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), who is the Opposition spokeman for Industry and Commerce in this House and formerly held that portfolio, raised a couple of subjects on which I would like to comment. The first concerned freight dumping. He mentioned the very real difficulties faced in considering the problem of freight dumping, whereby goods are landed in Australia at a freight rate which appears, superficially, to be well below the proper rate. The honourable gentleman asked exactly what the Government proposed to do to counter freight dumping. The existing legislation enables countervailing duty to be imposed in cases of reductions or remissions of freight-for instance, when goods exported are shipped freight free, or the amount paid is less than what is essentially recognised as the ruling rate. The Government, during its review of this legislation, examined a request that the anti-dumping legislation be amended so as to enable the application of dumping duties in cases where the freight charged was less than, for example, for the liner trade, the published scheduled rates, discounted to the extent freely available or, in respect of the charter trade, the rate that would recover all costs including leasing charges plus a reasonable profit for the charterer. The Government does not consider that anti-dumping action should apply where those cheaper freight rates are available in an open, competitive market. The fact is that at the moment shipping rates in the market vary considerably. Where cheap freight rates are generally available across a whole spectrum of opportunities it would be not only impossible but also unwise for the Government to apply dumping duties if someone took advantage of those rates. The Government believes that the existing countervailing provisions are sufficient. In fact, it has decided to make no alteration in this area. The normal avenue of seeking assistance through a reference to the Industries Assistance Commission or the Temporary Assistance Authority would be open to an industry which faced difficulties due to low freight cost imports, where such freights were in fact not subsidised. Where it was quite evident that the government of another country was subsidising freight rates a countervailing duty should be applied, but that is not the case in every situation and it would be unwise of us to make sweeping legislative changes that would reduce the possibility of industries taking advantage of cheap freight rates that could be available. The honourable member for Ryan also made reference to the lack of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and an amendment that the Opposition intends to move in the other place relating to what it believes to be a diminution of civil liberties in the case of the powers for Customs officers, especially where searches are made for documents in offices in cases where a warrant has been issued. Dumping is a complicated matter. In order to establish a dumping case a lot of interlocking decisions have to me made. The Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) will be asking the Attorney-General to refer to the Administrative Review Council the matter of appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, so that matter is in hand. The use of judicial warrants to seek information about a dumping complaint, either directly from a person or from records, is not appropriate in pursuing the investigation of a customs offence. The Government believes that judicial warrants are neither applicable, justifiable nor appropriate in an anti-dumping case. The Customs authorisations to be issued under new section 214B of the Customs Act for the investigation of dumping relate to very necessary inquiry as to whether in fact the prices of an export have been artificially reduced. The Government believes that, having in mind the damage that can be done to Australian industry, open access should be available to a Customs officer to enter premises and obtain records without the need for judicial warrant to be issued. This is done in trade practices cases and we cannot see that it is any different to provide the same power of investigation to Customs officers concerning something that could be very injurious to Australian industry. When the Opposition's amendment is lodged in the Senate the Government will be able to answer fully any fears that the Opposition might have that civil liberties are being impinged upon. My colleague the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris) made a very valuable contribution to the debate. It is very obvious that he has a good knowledge of this whole area of tariffs, duties and dumping complaints. He pointed up the responsibility that Australia has international agreements to observe the full spirit of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade without necessarily reducing its responsibility to protect its own industries. The honourable member made a very good point when he mentioned that now that the steel plan is in operation there is a public perception that the protection afforded Australian industry is open to audit by the Government. So it should be , because I do not think that anyone on either side of the House would suggest that inefficient industries should be afforded protection in an unfettered, unaudited fashion. Rather, protection provided by government should always be open to public inspection. I thank the honourable member for his contribution. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) brought up a number of interesting points. I must point out one thing to him. I do not think he quite understands-if he did, he certainly did not espouse it-that tariffs are not imposed for the collection of revenue but for the protection of Australian industries. As long as that is done in a calculated and sensible fashion that is open to public inspection, I do not think anyone should suggest that the tariff barriers that we have in place in Australia should be completely dismantled. I am sure that is not what he meant but it was one of the impressions I gained. The honourable member mentioned that the Government was moving to remove the bounties from the production of Australian tractors and moving towards a tariff situation. I can tell him that that decision has not been made as yet. I do not know whether it is going to be made. A preliminary report from the Industries Assistance Commission that was handed to the Government some time back in fact suggested that line of activity. But the Minister for Industry and Commerce has not yet made a decision on that matter. I am in no position to anticipate what decision he will make. Maybe the honourable member for O'Connor is prescient; maybe he is not. Time will tell. I was surprised to find that the honourable member for O'Connor raised the subject of cheese because I thought we had answered this question quite competently in terms of the decision that was made about the imports of cheese. I am sure he appreciates that the Government acted very promptly in that area. I know that the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) made reference to that fact. I thank the honourable member for O'Connor for his usual challenging contribution. I am sure that some of the points he made will be taken into account by the Department of Industry and Commerce in the administration of this legislation. The honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) made some references to the attempt by the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) to have 1984 declared the year of small business. She pointed out that perhaps the dumping legislation that is now before the House will do more to assist small business in Australia than the implementation of slogans and gimmicks will ever do. I think that is exactly correct. Mr Fisher —What have you got on your tie? Mr JOHN BROWN —No, it is not a koala. It is some kind of little animal. Given the onslaught on small business that was made by the previous Government of which the honourable member for Higgins was a member, when precious little was done to assist small business in terms of finance or protection and in view of the extraordinary number of bankruptcies that occurred in that area in the last year, I think it is true to say that if the previous Government had been in power for much longer we would not be discussing small business; we would be discussing minuscule business. Therefore I support the honourable member for Chisholm's view that the dumping legislation that is now before the House will do more to help the competitiveness and the profitability of Australian industry than any attempt to introduce gimmicks or names. The next contribution to which I would like to refer is that of the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) who raised some interesting points which I would like to answer. First of all he spoke about imports of brandy from France. I am pleased to be able to inform him, if he did not quite understand the position, that on 23 February the Department issued an Australian Customs Notice advising an affirmative preliminary finding on the subsidisation of brandy from France. Provisional measures in the form of cash or documentary securities have been imposed on the import of brandy from France entered for home consumption from 24 February. The investigation of the complaint will now proceed to reach a final decision within the timeframes announced in this legislation-that is, within 120 days. Within 45 days there needs to be a preliminary finding; within 120 days a decision has to be made. I hope that the brandy producers in his electorate will be happy that that action has been taken, and taken very promptly and very properly because the brandy industry is a very important industry not just in the electorate of Wakefield but also to the Australian agricultural area generally. I am pleased to note that that action has been taken. The honourable member also asked a couple of other questions which I would like to answer. He asked whether the anti-dumping duty will be refunded on goods that are exported. Of course, it is. In normal circumstances, particularly where the drawback of duty has been applied, those duties, including dumping duties, will be refunded if those goods are in fact exported. He also asked whether dumping duties would be still payable if an exporter increased the price. The answer is yes. However, if the price has been increased to accord with normal values there will be no question of dumping and no dumping duty will be applied. The honourable member also asked whether there could be an expansion of the area of appeal on dumping cases to producers as well as processors. I will perhaps answer this question when I get to the complaint raised by the honourable member for Murray. Certainly producers may join or support a complaint that has been made by the processing industry. I should answer one other question that was asked by the honourable member for Chisholm. The honourable member asked whether users of products could be represented at meetings at which a preliminary complaint is being made. I am pleased to tell her that the Department will organise meetings of interested parties in accordance with the procedures for dealing with complaints. The users of products as well as importers and processors may all attend those meetings and give submissions. All of these submissions will be taken into account when the Minister is making a decision on the dumping complaint. The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) mentioned the specific matter of Pyrox gas heaters which are manufactured in his electorate. This complaint has been registered. In the first instance, further information was required to meet the prima facie case standard. However, this information was received and accepted on 21 December and this matter will be processed in accordance with the revised procedures. Therefore, the honourable member for Hotham might be heartened by the fact that his complaint is being recognised and that the company that was under threat in his electorate might find new life. The honourable member for Murray asked about the definition of 'industry' when a complaint has been made particularly in the primary industry area. I should like to read to him the definition of 'industry' that applies not only to the processor but also to the primary producer. The GATT anti-dumping code to which Australia is a signatory provides, inter alia, that in determining injury the term 'domestic industry' shall be interpreted as referring to the domestic producers of like products as a whole proportion of the total production of those products. The term 'like product' is defined in the code to mean a product which is identical-that is, alike in all respects to the product under consideration or, in the absence of such a product, another product which, although not alike in all respects, has characteristics closely resembling those of the product under consideration. So, in the case of imported processed primary products the Government's policy is to allow primary producers to support a complaint being made by the local processing industry when the imported product competes directly in the local market with both the processed and the unprocessed product. The existing legislation is, in fact, adequate for this purpose. I would like both the honourable member for Murray and the honourable member for O'Connor to be satisfied that the definition of 'industry' is flexible and can include not just the processor but also the primary producer who has an input into a like product. So if a complaint by a processor is being dealt with, the primary producer has in fact an opportunity to join in that complaint. I would not like any primary producer to think he was being denied that opportunity. Mr Fisher —Can they initiate a complaint? Mr JOHN BROWN —I will have to check this matter. However, as I understand it, primary producers have equal rights with the processor in initiating a complaint if they think damage is being done to their industry. However, I will check further on this matter and report back to the honourable member. The last speaker, the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), made a very interesting contribution to the debate about the fishing industry in his electorate. I will take that complaint to the Minister and see that specific information is provided to the honourable member. In summary, I am pleased that the House has launched a very comprehensive and constructive debate on this matter. When the subject comes up for discussion in the other House, the Opposition will introduce its amendment to cover the subject of what they believe to be an imposition on civil liberties. I am sure that the Minister, in responding to that, will be able to allay those fears. In view of this Bill's very important impact on Australian industry, first of all in terms of protection from dumped imports and secondly in terms of our necessity to comply with international agreements to which we are a signatory, I hope that it will get a speedy passage through the other House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 7 December 1983, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown) read a third time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(12.42) —by leave-I move: That Mr Maher be appointed a member of the House Committee to fill the vacancy now existing on the Committee. The honourable member for Lowe, Mr Maher, is acknowledged as one of the outstanding members of this House. Members from both sides of the House are extremely pleased that he has sufficient time to put some consideration into the operations of the House Committee. Question resolved in the affirmative. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr PORTER(Barker)(12.43) —The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) during his recent sojourn in Singapore said at a business council breakfast that last year Australian workers received a wage increase of 4.3 per cent and that this year the increases are not likely to be significantly higher. The fact of the matter is that average weekly earnings rose by about 7 per cent during 1983. Why did the Prime Minister seek to mislead Asian businessmen on such a vital issue? Why is he incapable of telling the truth? I raise this issue of the rate of wages growth because it is fundamental to our future economic well-being. The Prime Minister's statement in Singapore highlights his failure to face up to the real problems confronting the economy. He is leading us into higher inflation, higher unemployment, higher interest rates, and generally putting economic recovery at risk. Let me be the first to admit that there has been a substantial lift in the economy over the last year, but it is important to recognise the significant factors which have contributed to that recovery. They have been the ending of the drought, the wages pause implementation by the Fraser Government, and world economic recovery. Those three factors have one thing in common, that is, the Prime Minister had nothing to do with them. What then has been the Government's contribution to economic recovery? Firstly, we had the National Economic Summit. At that Summit the Prime Minister gave away all the benefits which were accruing from the wages pause. The wages pause was implemented at a time of high real wages growth. It was not easy to get the wages pause in place but it was working , inflation was coming down, and the job scene was improving. The pause would have continued to work had the Prime Minister not generously given all to the big unions. The unions, of course, were pressing for a renewal and backdating of full wage indexation. The Prime Minister was determined to pay off the union bosses. The only man who was right at the Summit was Joh Bjelke-Petersen. The Prime Minister sacrificed the wages pause, economic growth and jobs for his own short term political gain. After the Economic Summit we had the August Budget, with a deficit of around $8 billion. That is double the biggest deficit ever recorded by a coalition government. The results of this Government's economic policies are now beginning to show up. Unemployment is rising; the rate of inflation is rising; interest rates are rising. The previous Government had recognised that our inflation rate was of major concern and took steps through the Budget and through the wages pause to contain the increases in our inflation rate. From September 1982 the quarterly consumer price index increases fell every quarter until a year later, September 1983. Then the influence of the Labor Party's Budget deficit, together with the ending of the wages pause and wage indexation, started to have their effect on the CPI. The December quarter CPI was higher than that for September, indicating quite clearly that our rate of inflation is now starting to grow again. This is a disastrous situation, especially for exporters such as our farmers and our miners. They are confronted with costs rising in Australia at a much greater rate than in those countries with which we trade. Our competitive position is being seriously eroded. Our inflation rate for the year to December 1983 was 8.6 per cent. Let us compare that with some overseas countries. In the United States the inflation rate was 3.8 per cent; in Japan 1. 8 per cent; in West Germany 1.9 per cent; in the United Kingdom 5.3 per cent. In fact, the average inflation rate for Australia's major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development trading partners was 3.6 per cent, compared with our rate of 8.6 per cent. These figures indicate our growing competitive disadvantage. Worse still, the inflation rate of our overseas trading partners continues to fall while ours is going up. The result will be the loss of export markets, a fall in our standard of living, and the further erosion of the incomes of our exporters, in particular farmers and miners. The gloomy prospects for further economic recovery in this country were highlighted again this week with the release of the Australian Bureau of Statistics forecast for capital spending. We need a lift in capital spending to ensure that the flagging recovery has a chance of surviving. However, the forecast indicates that business expects an 11 per cent real fall in capital spending in 1984-85. The industry most seriously affected is mining, with a real fall of over 20 per cent . This continuing downturn in forecasted capital expenditure will result in a further real cut in spending on new buildings and structures of about 20 per cent, more than halving the real spending levels of 1982-83. If this Government is to address the economic problems confronting this nation then hard decisions have to be made, hard decisions to curb inflation, to curb wage growth, and to restore our international competitive position. The Prime Minister's record clearly indicates that he is not capable of making the hard decisions necessary. He always chooses the course of least resistance through the factions in his party. Hard options will have to be adopted if he is to contain wages growth, reduce the Budget deficit and give the promised tax cuts. I do not believe he will deliver the goods. Certainly the Prime Minister has been adept at getting to the right sporting functions. However, he has not been adept at making the right economic decisions . The Prime Minister has avoided the hard decisions. He has always gone for the soft option. At the Economic Summit he gave away the hard-earned gains of the wages pause by conceding automatic indexation. Another classic case of a hard decision not faced by this Prime Minister was the uranium decision. That was not a decision at all. The issue was fudged. We had a decision neither for mining nor against mining. We had a decision for a little bit of uranium mining. The confused, indecisive, muddle-headed decision making of this Government has meant that we now have 1,400 assets test wallopers with nothing to do. There are 1,400 public servants sitting in rented offices, with nothing to do. The cost to the Australian taxpayer of these people and their offices is around $20m a year. The Prime Minister has no excuse for such an enormous waste of taxpayers' funds, other than, of course, his own Administration's incompetence. This Government is lurching from crisis to crisis. Continued economic recovery is in the balance. Hard decisions are needed to ensure economic growth, and this Prime Minister has shown he is incapable of making such hard decisions. Compromise is fine, but Prime Minister Hawke's actions have compromised future economic growth. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(12.53) —Madam Deputy Speaker, may I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation to the Chair. I want to address my comments today to a matter of great concern to very many country parents and country students, and that is the problem many young people are having gaining tertiary education. This Government has professed a sincere belief in the goal of increasing the opportunities for young people to pursue their education to tertiary level. The Australian Labor Party policy was to reverse the thrust of the previous Government and to increase the number of student places in tertiary education by 25,000 over a number of years. As honourable members might know, the cost of this proposal is great, and it must be phased in if it is not to affect seriously other very important Government programs. Because of the unexpected increase in applications for places in tertiary institutions this year, the Government, on top of the increase of 3,000 places announced in the Budget, has recently decided to allocate funds to enable an extra 3,000 students to enrol. This readiness to respond to an obvious need is to be commended. The 1983-84 Budget also included an 8.8 per cent increase in funding for universities and an 8.7 per cent increase for colleges of advanced education, an increase in real terms of one per cent over the previous year. This was done in spite of the inept handling of the economy by the previous Government which resulted in the massive increase in deficit. While the Government is to be commended for its concern for tertiary education generally, there is one area of concern that must be addressed. For years it has been recognised that, in general terms, access to a wide range of tertiary studies has been more difficult for non-metropolitan students than for those living in metropolitan areas. I recognise that certain groups living in metropolitan areas have been under-represented. Socio-economic factors and parent occupation have been important influences on children's academic and occupational opportunities. However, country students face particular problems that do not necessarily face those from cities with universities. Even those students who live in provincial cities with colleges of advanced education are not free from these problems if the CAE courses available are not those of their choice. They will still be required to leave home if they wish to study at a university or if their local CAE does not provide courses that suit them. It is a pity that the Government should have chosen to reduce by 25 per cent the operating subsidy for collegiate residents before the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission reviewed the arrangements for support for student accommodation. From my experience, this will mean that a considerable number of students aiming at CAE courses will not be able to commence courses and a number of students will be unable to continue their studies. In a recent study undertaken by Mr Robert Pledger, a student services officer of Victoria College, the number of rural students, both male and female, who declined their offers of places in tertiary institutions in the metropolitan areas was markedly more significant than was the case with metropolitan-based students. According to this study, the major reasons why non-metropolitan students were deterred were twofold. Firstly, students, and I suggest parents, are deterred by the perceived financial cost and the lack of perceived benefits of tertiary education. Secondly, and closely allied to the first reason, is the social risk factor of undertaking tertiary education that necessarily involves a geographic removal of the students from their accustomed social environment. With respect to the issue of financial cost, I sympathise with the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), who I know would have wished the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance to have been given a significant boost in the last Budget. The Minister is still hoping for an increase as she would like to have the allowance moved to equal the adult unemployment benefit. However, I guess that is a goal to be reached through a number of Budgets. Given that the value of TEAS was reduced significantly in real terms under the previous Government, which was determined to restore tertiary education to be the preserve of the privileged in our society, the present Government has considerable leeway to make up. As I indicated, the recent decision of Cabinet to approve an allocation of an extra $10.47m in order to give 3,000 extra students the opportunity to enrol in tertiary institutions is evidence of the Government's true commitment in this regard. Some 74 per cent of the $10.47m will go to colleges of advanced education, many of which are in non-metropolitan centres. I commend the Government for that step, especially as there is an emphasis on encouraging disadvantaged groups to enrol. However, there is still this one disadvantaged group that is not adequately recognised, and I emphasise that that is the country and other non-metropolitan students. I indicated that a number of deterrents to participation in tertiary education face the country student. The TEAS allowance for those eligible for maximum payment is $2,110 per year for a student living at home. For those students living away from home the allowance is $3,255 per year, a difference of $1,145, or $22.08 per week. On one estimate, the cost of educating a student living away from home is around $6,400 per year. That figure might be somewhat inflated, but the question of an exact figure would be academic for most rural and provincial parents on moderate incomes. They would just not be able to afford to send their children to either the provincial cities or the metropolitan area for tertiary education. This situation effectively places such students in the category of disadvantaged as much as if they were living in the outer or the less privileged suburbs of the metropolitan area. It is far more difficult for young people from the country to establish work contacts in the city to enable them to meet some of their costs. The fact that they do not have part time jobs before they commence their studies can be crucial in their decision to turn away from tertiary studies. They are aware of the fact that in many cases they will be heavily dependent upon their parents for the necessary finances, and if the parents cannot meet the costs the students cannot enrol. I repeat that those eligible for a full TEAS allowance get only $1,145 more if they are living away from home. It was sad to see the Victorian Government place the erstwhile teachers college hostels in that State up for sale. For years these hostels have provided country students with the opportunity to find their feet in the city, especially when attending colleges of advanced education. They have provided the low cost subsidised accommodation so necessary as students adjust to the often traumatic experience of leaving home and settling into a new social environment geographically distant from home. The hostels have also been an important factor in influencing parents to agree to their children's acceptance of places in tertiary education institutions. I could understand that eventually the Victorian Government would seek to have the Federal Government assume responsibility for the hostels. After all, tertiary education is the responsibility of the Federal Government and the State Government has its own priorities to meet. What is upsetting for so many students in Victoria is that there is now a major obstacle in their way that was not there previously. It certainly did not help to have the hostel accommodation allocation to colleges of advanced education reduced by 25 per cent in the same year. I exhort the Minister and the Government to assume a much greater responsibility for assisting rural students by providing subsidised accommodation for country students. As many of these students would wish to seek private accommodation in the later years of study and many would gain access to part time jobs as they became accustomed to city living, the necessity for students to remain in subsidised accommodation for the entirety of their courses would not be critical. As well as a more realistic TEAS allowance, one that is more closely related to costs, it would be of great benefit to country students if subsidised accommodation were more readily available for more students, and I hope the Government will act to rectify the situation as soon as possible. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(1.03) —Madam Deputy Speaker, the grievance I wish to present to this House today can be built around a single word, the word ' hypocrisy'. In this case, I direct that word to the many actions I have perceived in the Government ranks in recent times and in the last couple of days in particular. To take myself as the first example, it is almost a daily occurrence that members of the Government, and one in particular, remind me of a problem that occurred to me in 1967. It is a matter of record, and one which I have never denied, that I was convicted of assault, and assault against a black Australian. When those outraged people rise to their feet to do this, they take no notice whatsoever of the fact that within their own ranks is a person much more recently convicted of assaulting an Australian person, in this case a woman , and in the case a non-black woman. That is okay for them; they associate with and support that person. I hope that I will never have to raise that matter again in this place, but I promise them that, if they continue those attacks on me time and time again I will respond by drawing their attention to the situation in their own ranks. They put themselves forward, although now to a much more limited degree, as the keepers of the public revenue. They stand up and advise the world of their great purity in the area of taxation collection from Australians for Australians. Yet the reality is that they all came into this House and stood behind one of their own Ministers, a proven tax avoider and a proven tax evader. They stood up for him and they voted down a motion of no confidence in that man by their solidarity behind him. They are guilty by association, and they have no right whatsoever at any time, on any occasion, while that man remains either a Minister or a member of their Party, to claim that they have some special role in this area. It is a disgraceful situation and one about which this Parliament has yet to receive the proper answers or to see even a reasonable investigation of the very concise documentation brought before it. While I am talking about this situation and while I am thinking about the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), it is of interest to me that during the recess a very small country newspaper in my electorate bothered to raise the issue of my service to the electorate and gave me some credits. The following week the newspaper received a letter to the editor, under the letterhead of the Minister for Finance literally accusing them of biased reporting. What a childish thing for a Minister to do! Let us get down to more serious matters. Let us look at yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald-a big and well-circulated newspaper. The first three pages are almost entirely devoted to matters relating to the activities of the Labor Party and the Labor Government in New South Wales. What are some of the headlines? Firstly and most importantly is the one that states: 'The Log of Corruption Claims'. Down a full three-inch wide column we get a list of the circumstances and activities of that Government and that political party. The first item on the list states: Four Corners alleged in April 1983 that-- a particular judge is referred to- at the request or direction of Mr Wran, influenced the outcome of committal proceedings against the football official . . . The articles goes on to tell us what the result of all that was, and we know it anyway. We know that grave accusations have been proved and others are still pending. We know also that the Premier was exonerated. As in so many of these cases, of course, his tracks were well and truly covered. Further on the article continues: In September/October 1983 the NSW Opposition Leader, Mr Greiner, alleged that prisoners bribed Corrective Services officials to gain early release. What do they say was the outcome of that? The article goes on: The Minister for Corrective Services, Mr Rex Jackson . . . resigned . . . for misleading Parliament. Mr Maher —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am led to believe that the proceedings the honourable member for O'Connor is mentioning are the subject of a judicial inquiry which is at present proceeding in New South Wales. I believe that there must be a fair hearing of this matter, and if the honourable member proceeds along the course he is taking that will be prejudiced and there will be no fair hearing. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The point of order is upheld. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Deputy Speaker, I am referring to a newspaper article that was published in the public Press yesterday. Quite clearly, if the prejudice has occurred it has occurred. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the matter the honourable member is referring to comes directly from a newspaper the point of order is not upheld. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I come to the hypocrisy of the situation and further guilty associations. When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) raised matters relating to that very situation, what happened? They had two weeks to take action on this matter. They did nothing in that time officially, but unofficially there was a lot of talk and a lot of effort to muddy the waters, to cover the tracks. To my great disappointment, the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley), a young man whom I admire and who I believe has a great future in the Parliament, stood before us with his honest face and told us that everything was all right, everything had been done properly. Quite clearly, that was not so. As in all of these New South Wales Watergate matters-it is interesting that the Premier of New South Wales has never learnt the lessons of Richard Nixon-they continue to deny and to try to cover up. The newspaper refers to 'New South Wales, the Allegation State'. Let me say of that that where there is smoke there has to be fire. What do we see further on this page? There is a huge photograph of a huge man. 'I never belt a lady', said Mr Domican. Mr Domican has stated himself that he was employed by friends of the Labor Party at $20,000 per year. Mr Maher —That has been denied. Mr TUCKEY —It has been denied, but I will take Mr Domican's word for it, thank you very much. I bet that if any action is taken in any court none is taken against Mr Domican. There would be two good reasons for that. The first is that that statement is true, and the second is that not one honourable member opposite would be game to deal with a gentleman like this. He is quoted as being Senator Richardson's enforcer, and it is interesting to note that he claims that he recruited members. I love that word 'recruited'. When he knocked on somebody' s door that person would accept recruitment with great alacrity. He is a bash artist, and he has been a close associate of members of the New South Wales Labor Party. Peter Baldwin is not here now, but Peter Baldwin probably recognised his features through his black eyes. We know how the New South Wales Labor Party operates, and it is a shame to see the Federal Government, in trying to protect its political mates, and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in trying to protect his political power base, entering into guilt by association with what has been proved time and time again to be a shameful organisation. On the front page of the newspaper we see the headline: 'Judge should be more careful'. He certainly should, but it is a pity that someone like the present Prime Minister did not give him that advice years ago. 'Judge should be more careful'. He should be a better person! We then have the Attorney-General ( Senator Evans), after this horrible event, saying: No one will ever be able to blow off steam with loved ones or trusted intimates ; no one will be able to gossip, or brag, or exaggerate, or fib in the way that every one of us has done from time to time in circumstances which he would be appalled to ever find made public. That is what he is suggesting about the day to day activities of one of our most senior judges. It was disgraceful to suggest it. Quite clearly we expect a judge , whether he is on the telephone, in his court, or speaking at some luncheon, to have the propriety and the decency of mind not to behave in that fashion. If that is the only charge against him he is condemned on that, but I suspect there is a lot more of it. The Sydney Morning Herald is full of it-Trimbole, Allan-- Mr Maher —If you read what Wran says you will agree with it. Mr TUCKEY —If the honourable member is worried about it, he can get up and speak next on this matter. He can associate himself with the tragedy that is New South Wales politics. It is a disgrace. There is a log of corruption claims. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(1.13) —It is well nigh time that some of the myths developed by the Northern Territory Government's propaganda machine were exploded. Propaganda is used widely by the Northern Territory Government to cover up its incompetence in most areas of its Administration. That Government clearly subscribes to the Hitler principle that the great mass of people will more easily fall victim to a great lie than a small one. Many great untruths have been told by the Northern Territory Government and many people have fallen victim to them. Many gullible members of the Australian media can count themselves among those victims. Not the least are the so-called political journalists of the Northern Territory News who, it seems, have swallowed the Country Liberal Party line in the Northern Territory, hook and sinker included. I have no doubt that the Northern Territory News and its CLP masters will attack me for making these comments. They will say, among other things, that I am attacking the Northern Territory and its people. I am not. The fact is that the Northern Territory Government and the Northern Territory people are not, fortunately, synonymous. Most of the advances made in the Northern Territory in recent years have occurred in spite of the bungling and incompetence of the Northern Territory Government. These advances have been made as a result of the hard work and dedicated spirit of the Territory people. They are the people who are responsible for the advances made. They are the people who should feel proud . They are the people who should be given the credit, not the Northern Territory Government, which spends most of its time claiming the credit. Let us look at the bungling and incompetence of this Government and the untruths it keeps telling. We should keep in mind that the Northern Territory Government has served only three months of its current four-term term, and this is what has happened in that short period. Firstly, the Territory Insurance Office annual report was tabled yesterday in the Legislative Assembly in Darwin. The report discloses that the Office lost $5m and it suggests that former members of the Office's staff will be prosecuted. Over the past four or five months, numerous Government Ministers have consistently denied that the Office was in any trouble. More untruths. Secondly, in January the Northern Territory Government closed the Darwin primary school and arrogantly gave next to no notice to parents and students that they would have to go to some other school. It is widely rumoured that the school land has been marked for property development. That has been denied by the Northern Territory Ministers concerned, but who would believe them? Many members of Darwin's Chinese community attended that school in the early days of Darwin and it has a very special place in their hearts. That did not make the slightest bit of difference to the Northern Territory Government in its arrogant decision to close the school. Thirdly, the Northern Territory Government had recently helped out one of its land developer mates by purchasing 16 units in the Marraki unit development. That is unusual enough when we consider that Housing Commission money was used to purchase these units. Some of the units cost up to $200,000, and they are to be leased to public servants in the Northern Territory at a rent of $90 per week . In the meantime, thousands of Territorians wait up to 18 months in Housing Commission queues for a humble house. I ask: What sort of fair allocation of Housing Commission money is that? Fourthly, earlier this week the Secretary of the Department of Primary Production resigned. He is the fourth person to resign from that position in as many years. All have resigned without adequate explanation. The Secretary of that Department joins a long queue of talented senior public servants who have resigned in similar circumstances. The departments concerned include the Department of Community Development, the Department of Mines and Energy, the Department of Education and many more. The resignations raise serious questions about the relationship between the Northern Territory Government and its senior public servants. It is indicative of more administrative bungling. Fifthly, last month the Australian National Line operated its last east coast shipping service to Darwin. The Northern Territory Government had been given almost four years notice that it would have to replace the service when the Australian Government subsidy ran out. It ignored these notices. The notices were given, I might add, by both this Government and the former Liberal Government-the Northern Territory Government's colleagues. At present Darwin has no east coast shipping service, and it is certain-in fact this has been admitted by wholesalers and retailers-that the price of beer, building materials and some foodstuffs is certain to rise. Why? Because the Northern Territory Government bungled it yet again. It is only now that the service has been stopped that it has really got serious about finding an alternative service. Sixthly, and this is probably the most serious matter, by loose talk, the Northern Territory Government and its Chief Minister have put at risk the funds for the accelerated upgrading of the Stuart Highway between Alice Springs and Darwin. Last year, during the debate over the Alice Springs to Darwin railway, the Chief Minister said, among other things, that the Stuart Highway between Alice Springs and Darwin was adequate and did not need upgrading. The report of the Independent Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory, the Hill report, which was tabled yesterday, concludes that the case for the accelerated upgrading is not strong. Those two statements, taken together, have put the accelerated upgrading of the Stuart Highway between Alice Springs and Darwin under a very big cloud. I have had discussions with the Minister for Transport (Mr Morris) and I am sorry to have to say that that cloud puts the funds for the accelerated upgrading at considerable risk. I am trying now to fight a rearguard action to salvage those funds for the Northern Territory people to ensure that the Northern Territory Government's bungling does not result in the only transport link between the Northern Territory and the rest of Australia being left in a totally inadequate condition. The seventh matter relates to the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign. This week the Minister for Primary Production in the Territory suspended compensation payments under the BTEC scheme, saying that the Budget had been overspent. There are very strong rumours circulating, in the Northern Territory and elsewhere, which raise some very serious allegations about the Northern Territory Government's administration of that scheme. Those rumours include the administration being totally inadequate, government funds, and in this case the Australian Government contributes a large part towards those funds , being misused, insufficient control or supervision of the scheme, and collusion being involved. I am sure more will be said about this issue in coming weeks and months. Again, we see incompetence and bungling from the Northern Territory Government. I have not mentioned a number of other incidents that have occured in the last three months, including the 6 per cent increase in electricity charges, the $2. 25m that Territory Ministers are spending on their travel and entertainment, the Chief Minister's destructive politicking over the Kakadu tourist plan, the closure of the second ward at the Gove hospital, the 30 per cent per annum turnover rate among Territory public servants, the broken election promise to introduce a foreign ownership registry and the money being wasted in continuing to employ Canberra lobbyist David Combe. The bungling goes on and on and all of it has occurred in the last three months. I come back to the question of propaganda. With the use of propaganda and an unquestioning Press, the Northern Territory Government is drawing attention away from its incompetent bungling by continuing its negative, destructive, whingeing , whining, Canberra-bashing campaign. The Northern Territory Government continues its conflict politics in this area. While its administration of the Territory is in chaos, it tries to draw the fire by concenrating on national issues it has no control over, very little interest in and very little responsibility for. I refer to issues such as communications, which falls within the realm of the Federal Minister and Telecom; the free trade zone, which is a matter for national trade; tariff policy, which is again a matter for national trade; and uranium mining, which is a matter to be decided by this national Government. At the same time, the Northern Territory Government continues a scare campaign on the future of Australian Government funding by untruthfully claiming that the Australian Government will not continue to fund the Territory. The irresponsible Northern Territory Government is eroding confidence in the Territory's economy by continuing to make these statements. The track record of the Hawke Labor Government speaks for itself on this matter . In the 1983-84 Budget, we increased funding for the Territory by $124m, which is the largest dollar increase ever. So the combination of incompetent bungling, the scare-based Canberra-bashing campaign, and a leader pre-occupied with using Territory taxpayers' money to run a Federal campaign, has given the Northern Territory and its people a bigger handicap than Phar Lap's. I hope that the handicapper, namely, the Northern Territory Government, will start to act a little responsibly. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(1.23) — Madam Deputy Speaker, today I speak on behalf of Australia's 120,000 sheep and cattle producers, who are being badly hurt by yet another broken promise of the Hawke Labor Government. Honourable members will recall that before the last election Labor made a firm promise to increase government involvement in research for primary industry. It was quite specific about this when it told graziers how much better off they would be under a Hawke Labor government. Words, as always, are rather cheap. Not only has the Hawke Labor Government failed to speed up research which would benefit primary industry, but also livestock producers are today suffering from long delays and seemingly endless red tape when it comes to getting new and improved veterinary products approved and on to the market. For this deplorable state of affairs our farmers and graziers can thank both the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). The Minister for Primary Industry certainly has not flexed his axeman's muscles. Maybe he is not even aware of the example I am about to raise, but surely he would have done something about it if he was on top of his job, carrying out his election promises, and even remotely interested in the welfare of farmers and graziers, their wives and their families. Australian livestock producers have been waiting for 12 months for the Hawke Labor Government to approve a new veterinary wonder drug, Ivermectin, which is helping to wipe out internal and external livestock parasites in more than 30 other countries. Despite the fact that the drug has been approved by primary industries authorities in the United States, New Zealand, South Africa and South America, Ivermectin has still not been approved by Australia's own National Health and Medical Research Council. We live in a world trading environment where we are largely price takers, and Australia's farmers are very adaptable and very cost efficient. However, if they are to be subjected to competition from other countries which have access to veterinary products which significantly reduce costs obviously they are at a disadvantage. Furthermore, there appears to be no prospect of Ivermectin being approved in the foreseeable future. Ivermectin works in a completely new and different way. It paralyses and ultimately kills parasites through a unique action on their nervous system. Some of the world's foremost veterinary authorities are describing this drug for sheep and cattle as the greatest breakthrough since the discovery of penicillin. Even in the United States of America, a nation which is universally known for its strict agricultural regulations and its acute concern about chemical residue dangerous to humans, Ivermectin-related products are approved not just for sheep and cattle but also for horses. The problem in Australia is that instead of learning and benefiting from all this overseas research about the drug, the National Health and Medical Research Council is imposing testing requirements which have not been insisted upon anywhere else in the world. If the Labor Party was genuine about practical research and its professed desire to assist primary producers, it would accept that not only has this drug been well and truly tested overseas and found to be safe, but its potential for better parasite control among livestock in Australia is enormous. If the Labor Party was genuine about primary producers, it would also realise the potential damage this excessive and unwarranted red tape is doing to Australia's meat export trade. Ivermectin is widely used throughout the world already, but it is proving of particular benefit to New Zealand, which competes directly with Australia on world beef and sheep meat markets. Our neighbours across the Tasman have found this wonder veterinary chemical a formidable productivity tool. They have found that it safely and effectively controls all internal parasites and resistant strains which affect sheep, along with lung-worm, nasal bot and itch mite. In point of fact, lice are the only major sheep parasite for which control with this drug is not claimed at present. There is no excuse for the Minister for Primary Industry or the Minister for Health either not knowing about the drug or , if they do know about it, not acting on this problem. It is a problem with the potential to cost Australia millions of dollars in lost exports and a problem which has resulted from just another broken promise of the Hawke Labor Government. I suggest that if the Ministers require any further information they consult their own departments or purchase a copy of this week's Queensland Country Life, which has an excellent article setting out the concern of graziers . Mr MAHER(Lowe)(1.29) —Madam Deputy Speaker, with this opportunity today to comment about general problems in our electorates or in the nation at large, I thought I would speak again about an important issue in my electorate of Lowe, the issue of education. I notice that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his talk to the National Press Club dealt with education and the quality of education in our nation, but because of other matters he touched on education got very little mention in the national Press. The Prime Minister reiterated and reinforced his Government's commitment to improving the quality of education in Australia, and in relation to financial assistance he stressed that the Labor Party is committed to 'diversity of educational opportunity'. The Prime Minister continued: Such assistance to schools is provided with due regard both to the principle of equality of educational opportunity, and the principle of need as defined in close consultation with interested parties. As I go around my electorate visiting primary schools and secondary schools, both state and new state, I really believe that in many of the schools our young Australians have little hope of equality of educational opportunity. Many of the schools are old, some buildings were constructed as long ago as the 1850s, and many of the playgrounds are inadequate. In some suburbs the school population is largely from families in which English is a second language, so that the families do not have English language books or even, in some cases, English language newspapers. The parents, if they are born overseas, are not familiar with joining parents and citizens or parents and friends groups, and in some cases, the schools have no active parent support. Now this makes for great difficulty in trying to ensure equality of educational opportunity. I know that the Government has been very generous with the non-government schools and with the government schools, but as I go around the electorate I must confess to a sense of hopelessness in relation to the schools I see. The primary and secondary schools will need an enormous injection of capital funding to do anything about inadequate playgrounds, old buildings, lack of resources. The principle of need, which was the second part of the Prime Minister's comment , was well thrashed out last year. Towards the end of 1983 there was almost a sense of hysteria about the Labor Party's 'needs' policy. There were meetings in Sydney, meetings in Melbourne, meetings around the country. There were advertising campaigns by the Parents Council and other groups. I believe that now the school authorities and the parent groups that opposed the Labor Party see that the ALP is here to stay. Labor has a big majority. The swing to the Labor Party in the Richmond by-election will only confound those who feel that Labor is not entrenched and will not be in government for a long time. In fact, the total exodus of members from the Opposition benches certainly would support an argument that Labor is here to stay. I thought I would raise today the matter of the expectation being built up in the Press, in the media and in the public at large that the Government must make large tax reductions. If our nation is to do anything about the future of young Australians and the schools and institutes and technical colleges in which they are educated, then I do not see how such a policy, such a commitment, can be compatible with enormous tax cuts. I believe that we will sell short the future of Australian children and Australian youth if we give substantial cuts in taxation at the expense of adequately funding the schools and technical colleges . I have discussed this at some length with non-educationalists, people in the Catholic Education Office and the State Government offices, and they tell me that schools are even worse off in the country. In particular, the parish schools in small country towns are unbelievable. I have seen only one of these and that was at Bourke, where I have a cousin who is a nun at the convent school . A large number of the children are Aboriginal, and they pay no fees at all. I was staggered at how bad this parish school at Bourke was. It was lacking in basic facilities, and it is in a very hot and arid part of our nation. If many schools in other country towns are in as bad a way then our nation should be ashamed. We cannot hold our heads high at the international conferences on education matters which our public servants attend at great expense. The issue was thrashed out at great length last year, but I have raised the matter today because I believe that there is now a calmer atmosphere, with perhaps less hysteria, in which people can look at eduation in our nation and see where we are going. I have always believed that had we a continuation of the previous Government's political philosophy of a basic grant to all non- government schools, by which the wealthy schools got wealthier and the poorer schools got poorer, then the Australian people would have turned against all aid to non-government schools, and that would have been a tragedy. The whole concept of aid to non-government schools would have been at risk had the previous Government remained in office. What concerns me is that the previous Government' s funding of non-government schools set government schools against non- government schools. If there is to be funding of education, as there must be in our nation, there has to be a united approach to the government schools that need aid and the non-government schools that need aid. Funding of one is not and must not be at the expense of the other. The children of our nation deserve a decent acceptable standard of education, and in many of the schools in my electorate they would be very lucky to get that . If the child is bright, he will survive. If the child is not bright, if he has English language difficulties, if he has reading difficulties, then the schools that I see as I go around my electorate and to other parts of the country are very deficient in resources and facilities for that child. In the small playgrounds I see in schools in my area the ethnic kiddies need more room to run around. The schools have not got facilities. Many families who do not speak English are very protective of their children. They are not allowed to take part in weekend sporting activities. If they cannot get their sporting facilities at school then they do not get any involvement with other kiddies because the families are very home conscious and keep the children at home. I have raised before the matter of inadequate playgrounds. I have raised the matter of inadequate buildings and lack of resources. What I really want to emphasise today is this whole concept of tax cuts vis-a-vis education funding. The amount of money needed to improve the schools in our nation to any extent is enormous. I am sure that one could sink $50m into the electorate I represent and perhaps see a lot for it, but that is just one electorate out of 126 in our nation. If the country schools, the isolated schools and all the others are so bad, then our nation will use up a lot of funds. Already the Federal education bill is mounting at an enormous rate. I congratulate the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, who is proving particularly competent and very sensitive to the needs of schools and has introduced many innovative programs that have done a lot not only to keep young people at school but also to improve the quality of education. Once again I stress this problem of the expectation of tax cuts while at the same time taking positive steps to improve both the government schools and the non-government schools in our nation. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(1.39) —I wish to address the House today on the question of penalty rates and the effect of penalty rates on youth unemployment. I consider that penalty rates are the major inhibiting factor on small business in Australia employing school leavers this year, 1984. I say this because I have recently conducted an Australia-wide survey of small business. The results show that 20 per cent of businesses surveyed stated that the major reason for not taking on school leavers this year was penalty rates. This is an alarming and a concerning result, and I consider that the Government should take note of it. It is frightening that jobs in Australia are being lost because of the lack of capacity of small business to pay penalty rates. Whilst my survey concentrated on school leavers it logically follows, I believe, that penalty rates inhibit small business across the nation from taking on employees of all ages. The survey that was conducted from my office contacted a variety of small businesses across Australia, including nurseries, newsagents, chemists, service stations, hairdressers and small manufacturers. It uncovered a number of disturbing facts. It showed that last year 60 per cent of firms took on school leavers, but this year only 26 per cent will be employing school leavers and another 10 per cent have yet to make up their minds. So even if the undecided group actually employ young people, the figure would still be well below last year's figure. Considering that an estimated 80 per cent of new jobs in the Australian economy will have to come from the small business sector, this is a most frightening and alarming statistic and paints a grim picture for school leavers in Australia. My survey was necessarily limited but was randomly carried out and honestly done, and I think it is a most reasonable guide to trends. It was a telephone survey, and initial contact was made with over 100 organisations picked from the yellow pages. Reasons given for not employing school leavers were penalty rates, 20 per cent; business being down, 15 per cent; workers compensation and other imposts on small business, 12 per cent; youth wages being too high, 10 per cent; industry award anomalies, 10 per cent; payroll tax, 5 per cent; and 28 per cent other. Let me quote what some small business respondents said during the survey. From a chemist in Queensland: If there were no penalty rates I would definitely employ more people. A newsagent in Queensland said: Penalty rates are the most ridiculous thing I've heard of. From a newsagent in Tasmania: I employ less staff out of business hours than I actually need because of penalty rates. I believe the alternative to penalty rates should be an overall increase in wages . . . Another quote from a chemist in Western Australia: Percentage of wages to turnover have crept up dramatically in the last two years. What is the Government doing about penalty rates? I believe that the Government should live up to its promises in this area, and its activity has been nil. Let us look at what the Government has said. On the 22 February 1983, before the election, the now Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) said that a Labor government would seek a reduction in the outrageous penalty rates for workers in the tourist industry. He has backed off from that statement , under the thumb of the union movement, but has at least admitted in the House that in certain isolated areas of the tourist industry they have a horrendous effect. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is reported as saying on 24 February last year, before the election, that a Labor government would call discussions between all parties in the industry to agree on new penalty rates. Senator Button, since he has been the Minister for Industry and Commerce, has raised the issue and canvassed the question of penalty rates and has said that they might be reviewed or abandoned. On 18 April, the Prime Minister said that he would be prepared to review penalty rates in some areas if jobs could be created. Now the Government has gone silent; it has gone quiet. The Prime Minister has said nothing further, the Tourism Minister has gone quiet. There is a silence. What has happened to the conference that the Tourism Minister said was going to be called between industry, Government and employee representatives to look at penalty rates in the tourist industry? Why has the Government gone silent? Why has the Prime Minister gone silent? Why has the Minister gone silent? They have gone silent because Labor is frozen in to the institutionalised framework and structure of the union movement. I repeat today, as I have said before in this place, that the parliamentary Labor Party is the captive of the union movement and is the formal representative in Parliament of the union movement. That is why the Labor Party was formed. The Minister and the Prime Minister have developed feet of clay on this issue of penalty rates. Labor talks of jobs, Labor talks of growth, but it is only rhetoric. The reality is that the Prime Minister, the Tourism Minister and the Labor Party are frozen stiff in the vested interests of the union movement, who want no change. The union movement is thinking only of itself and is not concerned about growth, profit, investment or the creation of wealth in our society. The union movement fails to realise that the creation of a bigger wealth cake through profits in fact benefits employer and employee alike. I am not alone in my concern. In a gallup poll last year, 54 per cent of Australians said that they wanted wage penalty rates reduced and 60 per cent of Australians said that they would like penalty rates reduced or eliminated as part of a special program to increase youth employment in service industries such as the tourist and travel industries. What is required in Australia today is for the Government and the union movement to understand that working patterns are changing, that the traditional concept of the five-day, Monday to Friday working week is no longer regarded as sacrosanct, that many people would be happy working a regular working week on any given five days of a week. There is a community-wide shift towards a greater flexibility of working hours. The union movement and the Government must appreciate that penalty rates do inhibit growth , do inhibit expanding opportunities for Australians. Penalty rates stop Australians, young and old, getting jobs. Labor talks rhetoric, but the reality is that it will do nothing about penalty rates. Labor should be facing this question. The Government should be honouring its commitments to hold an inquiry. I think the Prime Minister indicated that there would be one, and the Tourism Minister said that he would call a conference. We should be creating jobs in society today, creating wealth, encouraging profit, and encouraging investment, but the Government is doing none of this, none of this at all. Can I look, in the time available, at the tourist industry? Recently there was a 5.7 per cent consumer price increase in the cost of domestic holiday travel and accommodation. This makes it imperative and urgent to tackle the problem of penalty rates, particularly in the tourism and hospitality industries. The abolition of penalty rates would reduce costs and create thousands of jobs in these industries because penalty rates, by their very nature act as a barrier to employment. The Australian Tourist Commission currently has a task force investigating the effects of penalty rates on the tourism and hospitality industries. It must have wider terms of reference than a recent Monash University penalty rates study, which in fact was interpreted very selectively by the Victorian Premier, Mr Cain, who said that the abolition of penalty rates would not have significant impact on prospects for economic growth. Mr Cain is absolutely wrong, and I am saying to the Australian Tourist Commission that I hope that in its study it will take into account those matters in the Monash study that were ignored by the Victorian Government. That includes statements that the Victorian hotel, restaurant and boarding house wages bill would decrease by over 25 per cent if penalty rates were abolished and that the average hospitality industry wage bill would be reduced by 19 per cent if penalty rates were abolished. The Australian Tourist Commission should also take into account matters such as the effect of the additional add-on costs of penalty rates on workers compensation and payroll tax payments. It should concentrate on the new employment opportunities that are lost because of penalty rates. I call on the Australian Tourist Commission, in its study, to look at all the inhibiting effects of penalty rates on the potential growth of the tourist industry. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(1.49) — Madam Deputy Speaker, since you were elected to your position this is the first time I have been on my feet, so might I take the opportunity to congratulate you. We in this place are very pleased about having you as Deputy Speaker and I know that the community in Australia, especially many women, are very proud that you are there. They feel that you have shown great courage and great perseverance and that you really deserve the position. I think it is appropriate that the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) spoke about the travel industry. I should like to speak initially very briefly about the travel industry today and then go on to speak about some problems involving the housing industry. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Higgins, mentioned the question of penalty rates. One of the issues his Party never did address when it was in government, and I think it is rather unfortunate, is the question of the duty free shopping in Australia. People in the community would be aware that currently it is possible to buy duty free goods in Australia, but unfortunately one has to carry those out of the country and bring them back into the country to comply with the requirements of the Customs Regulations. Obviously that is a very inconvenient way to handle shopping, and so the practice is that, despite the fact that we do have duty free businesses in Australia, many people do their duty free shopping in places such as Singapore and Hong Kong. I would suggest to the relevant Minister and to the Government that it would really make sense if we were able to buy our duty free goods when we return to the country. Perhaps we could buy them and put them in a bonded warehouse so that we could collect them when we returned to the country. The implication is very clear. If we did that we would keep money in Australia and we would help some Australian businesses. I share the concern of the honourable member for Higgins about the need to have good Australian business and I believe that this would do something substantial to improve Australian business. Obviously this is not directed against shopkeepers in Singapore and Hong Kong, but I feel that our primary obligation is to the businesses of Australians and the travelling public of Australia. My suggestion to the Government is that we look seriously at developing inbound duty free or bonded warehouses. According to the research I have done, not only would that keep money in Australia but Qantas estimates that it could save some $6m per annum in fuel because of the extra freight that people currently carry out of the country and bring back into the country. There is also the safety factor, of course. If everyone on board a 747 has a one litre bottle of spirit, as they are allowed to, that is very dangerous. We might have 400 bottles, 400 litres, on board a 747, and if there was a fire it would cause serious problems. There is also the fact that it we buy duty free goods in Australia we can go to the shop from which we bought them and follow up guarantees. Most goods carry no international guarantees but we would certainly have guarantees within Australia . So, my suggestion is that the Government look seriously at this idea. I believe it would help the Australian travelling public and it would certainly help businesses in Australia, and I believe that both sides of the House have a commitment to doing that. Along with that, I believe we have an urgent priority to look at the question of licensing and registration of travel agents. Currently, of course, there is an International Air Transport Association arrangement whereby people can get IATA recognition as travel agents. However, governments have not done anything to license travel agents. What has happened, very clearly, is that the travelling public are at risk because from time to time companies default on their commitments to their customers. We ought to have a licensing arrangement whereby everyone who wanted to join the travel industry as a travel agent would either have to have a certain amount of paid-up capital or lodge a sum of money as a bond. In the event of people becoming stranded in places such as Singapore or Hong Kong, and we know that that happens frequently, that money could be drawn upon to ensure that the travellers were able to return to Australia. I believe that as a matter of priority this Government and State governments ought to look at the question of licensing and registration of travel agents. It would do a great deal for consumer protection. The second industry I wish to talk about is the building industry. In a speech on the adjournment last night, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) raised some concerns about processing of applications for the Government's first home owners scheme. He went to some lengths to criticise this Government for the way it was processing those applications. I find that rather strange because, in terms of overall performance, this Government is looking at something like 130, 000 new housing commencements in the financial year July on June 1983-84, whereas for the previous financial year, when the former Government had the say in housing, commencements were only 105,000. So we will be adding at least 25, 000 houses to the private sector of building because of our housing policy. I do not believe it is good enough to come into this place, as the honourable member for O'Connor did, and say that we are not doing the right thing. Let me deal with a couple of points about the reality of processing first home owners' applications. We accept that there have been some delays, but that is because there was an enormous flood of applications when we commenced our scheme . In Western Australia in particular, where the scheme has been very successful, we have had great co-operation from the building industry, from the finance companies, certainly from the State Minister for Housing, and from the Federal Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford). I can understand why the honourable member for O'Connor feels that it is a sore point. The success of the scheme shows him up and his Government as being lamentable failures with respect to housing. We cannot afford to fool around about that. There are many areas where our Government is performing well and housing is one of those. The clear situation I want to convey to the public, because I understand that the honourable member for O'Connor was trying to scare members of the public, is that if a person has lodged a first home owner's application for a grant of money, if he has indicated that he has a particular settlement date he has to reach then the housing assistance scheme will be able to ensure that his grant of money is made available for that settlement date. A lot of people out there in the community at the moment must be very uneasy because of those words last night, but I would like to reassure them that if they do indicate a settlement date on the application form and if the application is completed properly and fully, the grant will be made available by the settlement date. I think it is important that we take some care in handling these grants. The honourable member for O'Connor may have been a little slipshod in his comments and he may be slipshod in his own financial practices, but this Government is not about to start being cavalier with public money. We are handling public money with care and due regard. This is not Carnarvon Shire Council, this is the Federal Government of Australia. We are handling money with due care and consideration. We are processing the money appropriately, and if members of the public wish to have their first home owner applications processed and they do have a settlement date, then we can meet that settlement date. I think it is important to convey that message here today. The other important thing to indicate is that in terms of the overall performance of the first home owners scheme, it is meeting the goals of the Government. I should point out that the previous Government did have a home savings grant scheme. The honourable member for O'Connor said: 'You are not getting your applications processed inside of six weeks'. Under the previous Government's scheme people were given only a month in which to lodge applications, and if they did not succeed in that time then they did not qualify . So on 2 July 1982 if people had not indicated that they wanted to lodge home savings grant applications or their application were not in, then they simply did not qualify. The current Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) is still getting letters from the community about problems the previous Government so cavalierly ignored by giving people only four weeks in which to lodge their applications. In relation to the overall approach to handling first home owner applications, we are doing what we can in terms of staffing. We are retraining people and we are looking at reallocating people from other departments. We believe that the industry can assist us a great deal by conveying the sort of message that I am conveying today. The reality is that if people wish to have a first home owner scheme grant processed, if they indicate to the office on their application what their settlement date is and they fill out that application clearly, then we will process it. In fact, 80 per cent of applications do fit that criteria. The message for the people in Western Australia particularly and in my Federal electorate of Stirling is very clear. We can process the home owners grant applications effectively. We can do it if people indicate their settlement date. We have a responsible scheme. It is a scheme that can meet the demands of the community. All we ask of the community is that a clear indication is given to the housing office. We can do indicative assessments to advise people whether or not they are entitled to that grant and we can process it with due expedition. To refute the statements of the honourable member for O'Connor, this Government has a responsible housing policy. It has an excellent Housing Minister. It is getting good co-operation from the industry and from the State governments. I do not believe it is the business of Federal parliamentarians to come into this place and use scare tactics around the community. We have a responsible policy. We aim to see that that policy will succeed, and I believe that in terms of the direction and thrust of the policy so far there is every reason why this scheme will continue successfully in the future. In conclusion, I say to the community of Australia that we as a Government intend to continue this good housing scheme . It does show up the inadequacies of the past. The honourable member for O' Connor cannot talk about the housing policies of the past. We have a good scheme to pursue. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does he agree with the statement this week by his Minister for Social Security that the assets test will go ahead? Mr HAWKE —I repeat that this Government has not retracted from the principle involved in the legislation introduced into this place. That remains clear. I will be in a position later today or tomorrow to announce the composition of a broadly-based representative committee which will assist the Government in an advisory capacity as to how we can give effect to that principle, taking account of the fact that, as I have readily acknowledged, there is some degree of misunderstanding and uncertainty in the community and perhaps some anomalies in the nature of the proposals we put forward. Mr MORRISON —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. What steps has the Government taken to respond to a request from the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Mr Somare, for assistance in the event of a volcanic eruption at Rabaul? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for St George for his question. The Government has been in touch with the Government of Papua New Guinea for some time and has arranged for a speedy and co-ordinated Australian response to requests from Papua New Guinea for assistance in respect of the threatened volcanic eruption at Rabaul. The Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Mr Somare, rang me on 17 February requesting assistance with pre-disaster preparations. Naturally I assured him of Australia's willingness to help with relief assistance in whatever way possible. I asked him then on the phone to provide me in writing with details of what he had in mind. He wrote to me on 23 February and today I wrote to him informing him of the Government's response. We have agreed to provide an emergency broadcasting system. The Government will help with temporary shelter for people not already provided for under the local evacuation plan. Also, two Australian experts requested by Mr Somare flew to Papua New Guinea on 29 February to carry out key tasks, advising our two governments on evacuation planning and material requirements. Those two experts are Captain Doyne Hunt, Royal Australian Navy, retired, who is the former head of plans and operations and is attached to the Australian Development Assistance Bureau, and Dr Hugh Davies of the Bureau of Mineral Resources, who will help to establish a volcanological information service. I am informed that two earlier requests by Papua New Guinea for assistance, which Prime Minister Somare mentioned in his Press conference of 23 February- that is, for airfield and water supply construction-have been deferred but our officials will keep in close contact about progress on these requirements. Finally-I am sure I speak for the whole House and all Australians-we are monitoring the situation closely in order to ensure that Australia is ready to respond to any further requests from the Government of Papua New Guinea as the situation evolves. Mr STEELE HALL —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. I refer the Minister to newspaper reports today which indicate that the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence has asked Victorian police for photographs of two journalists who have written articles on the New South Wales corruption tapes. Did the Minister originate this request? If so, what is the purpose of his request? If not, who did make the request and for what purpose? Mr YOUNG —I am grateful to the honourable member for Boothby for his question. I am advised that photographs of the persons were sought by the ABCI because the Bureau believed it was necessary as a safeguard for the security of their information against the background that the reporters concerned were known to be investigating matters related to current police inquiries involving persons not connected with the Age tapes articles they had written. It is my view that this action was an error of judgment by the Bureau and I wish to make it clear that I and the Government do not approve of any police surveillance of journalists legitimately conducting inquiries. I should point out that the ABCI is not a federal crime intelligence agency, as reported, but an inter-governmental body responsible to all Australian governments through the Australian Police Ministers Council. I have today spoken to the current Chairman of the Police Ministers' Council, Mr Mathews, the Victorian Minister for Police and Emergency Services, with a view to having the matter of proper procedures for the accreditation of journalists to the ABCI placed on the agenda of the next Council meeting in May. I have also been briefed on the background to the request for photgraphs by the Director of the Bureau, Mr Anderson, and have discussed the matter with the current Chairman of the ABCI management committee, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police . I have indicated to them that while I accept the need for the Bureau to take appropriate measures to safeguard the security of its information holdings, it must do this in a way which is consistent with the civil liberties of law- abiding Australian citizens. The Editor of the Age newspaper, Mr Burns, when he contacted my office last night, asked a series of questions about photographs and files in relation to the Bureau's activities. I want to make it clear that only files and photographs kept by the ABCI related to persons known or suspected to be involved in criminal activity of a kind covered by its charter. Therefore, I can assure the honourable member and the Australian public that any citizens who do not fit this criterion are not the subject of the ABCI's records. Of course this policy has been transgressed in this instance and the Government apologises to the two journalists concerned for that transgression. The Director has expressed his regret and assured me that there will be no recurrence of this incident. I should also make it quite clear that the request for the photographs was in no way connected with the fact that the reporters concerned had written articles published in the Age on police telephone taps. The ABCI is not and has not been involved in the inquiries now being conducted by Special Prosecutor Temby. As indicated, I am seeking to discuss the matter of accreditation procedures for journalists to the ABCI at the next Police Ministers meeting. Under the inter-governmental agreement establishing the Bureau-which, I add, was a very sensible step by the previous Government in an attempt to get some co-ordination between the various police forces-ultimate responsibility for the ABCI in matters of policy rests with the Australian Police Ministers Council, although the agreement also provides that the Bureau shall be independent of any one participating government and administratively accountable through a management committee of all Australian police commissioners, who report annually to the Council. I have approved the tabling in this Parliament of an annual report on national common police services under the auspices of the Australian Police Ministers Council, including the activities of the ABCI. The report is currently being printed and will be tabled in the current sittings of the Parliament. Mr ROBERT BROWN —My question is directed to the Treasurer. Why was the time of 1 p.m. on 24 June 1982 selected for the operation of clause 8 of the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5), which disallows taxation deductions attributable to ownership of property which is used, among other things, in tax exempt activities? Will this apply in future to joint venture developments similar to the Eraring power station and the Maritime Services Board coal loader in Newcastle despite the fact that the end user, at least in part, is engaged in tax exempt activities but the owner/user is producing taxable income? Mr KEATING —One o'clock on 24 June 1982 was the date and time announced by the former Treasurer when giving notice of the fact that transactions or arrangements similar to those entered into by certain parties in the New South Wales Government, I think in respect of the Eraring power station, had prompted him to make that announcement. In that respect the Government has achieved continuity by making the legislation retrospective to that time. I understand that the Eraring project and the Newcastle coal loader project will not be affected by the provisions as they are based on contracts entered into, I think, before 24 June 1982. I am unable to give any other precise details of which other companies or consortiums are likely to be affected, because that information is contained in the office of the Commissioner of Taxation and, under the secrecy provisions, is not available to me. The purpose of the measure is to ensure that tax exempt bodies do not obtain tax benefits such as the investment allowance through the device of leverage leasing which was used at that time and which, I am certain, would have been used on a much wider scale had the measure not been proposed. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask the Minister for Defence: What are the technical and safety factors and the strategic and operational circumstances which would determine his acceptance of requests by allied and friendly nuclear nations for their warships to be dry-docked in Australia? Would his new policy permit the dry- docking of HMS Invincible at some future date in the same circumstances as led the Government to refuse to allow it to be dry-docked before this new policy was announced? If so, has the Minister apologised to the Government of the United Kingdom because HMS Invincible was not dry-docked? If not, can he assure the House that, as a result, the ANZUS arrangements for the United States are not now prejudiced? Mr SCHOLES —Firstly, the question contains a considerable amount of hypothetical matter and an allegation which is untrue. I repeat, the allegation that the Australian Government refused to allow the Invincible to dry-dock is untrue. The fact is that the statement I announced on Sunday is a statement which was agreed between the governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Australia. It is a statement with which we will comply. It indicates, quite clearly, that matters relating to any circumstance of a request will be assessed at the time and on the basis of the circumstances at that time. Mr BLANCHARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Does the Government regard it as a matter of concern that apprentice intakes have fallen dramatically since 1981? If so, what action does the Government intend to take to reverse this trend? Mr WILLIS —I assure the honourable member that the Government does view with great concern the fact that there has been a very substantial decline in the intake of apprentices. In 1982-83 there was a fall of 15,000, or 32 per cent, which is the worst fall ever recorded. In 1983-84, unless other action is taken, we are likely to see some slight increase, but not a substantial increase, in that number. That has significant implications for the economy and, indeed, for youth unemployment in this country. Obviously such a decline deprives 15,000 young people of the opportunity to become apprentices. It has impacts also on the availablity of skilled workers. A recent study by the Federal and State departments of labour in this country showed that we need an intake of 37,000 to 44,000 a year just to replace wastage from the current trades labour force of around half a million. The Government is very concerned about this matter. It is also concerned in this context about the fact that outside the trade of hairdressing only 2 per cent of all apprentices are female. Since we are committed to increasing opportunities for females in the labour market, we are very concerned about that . The Government has taken a number of responses so far-they are of a relatively minor nature so I will not detain the House with them at the moment-to try to make some impact on the apprenticeship intake situation. It is now clear that, unless something more substantial is done, this year we will have an intake increase of only 2,000 over the 34,000 of last year. To meet that situation the Government has decided to introduce a four point proposal which will cost around $19m over three years. Specifically, the measures which we will introduce are: Firstly, a special additional employment incentive of a $1,500 tax exempt payment for each additional apprentice in training on 30 June this year compared with the level of training of apprentices for each employer last year. So for each additional apprentice in training there will be a $1,500 payment in addition to the normal Commonwealth rebate for apprentice full-time training. Secondly, there will be a $750 tax exempt payment for each additional female in apprenticeship training over the same period in all trades other than hairdressing. That will be payable in addition to the $1,500 where that is applicable. Thirdly, there will be a $ 750 tax exempt lump sum payment for each graduate of a pre-apprenticeship course taken on by an employer after 1 January this year. That will replace the existing premium on ordinary CRAFT rebates and is designed to encourage employers to take on young people who have been through these pre-apprenticeship courses for which we have provided for an extra 3,000 in the course of this year . Fourthly, we increased all CRAFT rebates by 4.3 per cent from 1 January this year to strengthen the assistance to all employers who are providing apprenticeship training. Those measures represent a substantial package of incentives to employers in private industry to take on apprentices. I very much hope that employers, when they become aware of these measures and when they receive a letter from the Prime Minister, will take full note of what the Government is doing, recognise their responsibilities and greatly increase their apprenticeship intake. Certainly, the Government hopes strongly that they will see the importance of taking that step. In addition, the Government is investigating the level of apprenticeship training in its own establishments to ensure that its training effort is maximised. I hope to announce in the near future some steps to increase our own apprenticeship intake. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask the Minister for Defence a question which is supplementary to the one I asked earlier. I presume that the circumstances at the time to which the honourable gentleman referred are the strategic and operational circumstances referred to specifically in his statement. What are those circumstances? If he is not prepared to advise this House, does he accept that as a result our ANZUS allies must have the same uncertainty as that with which we are left and that our ANZUS arrangements are weakened? Mr SCHOLES —Our allies are satisfied with the terms of the statement. It is only the Opposition, which sees an opportunity to cause disunity and disruption by creating doubt, that is dissatisfied with the statement. I have nothing to add to the statement. It was agreed to by our allies. I would have thought that it would have the support of the Opposition, but cheap politics obviously have much more to do with it in its case than national interest. Ms FATIN —Is the Minister for Health aware that a significant number of doctors in Western Australia are choosing to present age pensioners with accounts rather than bulk bill them? Can the Minister say whether this draconian practice is widespread? Is there anything the Government can do to prevent doctors causing this distress to the elderly? Dr BLEWETT —The Government is aware of the problem that has been raised by the honourable member for Canning. I understand that in her electorate at least two group practices-I think one in Kwinana Medina and another in Kelmscott-have publicly advertised that they will provide no bulk billing services. It is clearly the Government's preference that doctors should bulk bill. Firstly, this produces a major reduction in the community's health bill. To doctors and Medicare it brings administrative advantages. For doctors it removes the problem of bad debts. For patients it means that they do not have the worry of going and collecting a refund from the Medicare office. However, we have always accepted that some doctors have reasons, their own preferences, for not bulk billing all patients. The Government has always said that it would respect that right. But what we do regard as quite unacceptable is that doctors in their ideological opposition to Medicare should now refuse to bulk bill pensioners and the disadvantaged, whom for years they have bulk billed. That is the traditional practice, but for ideological reasons they are now punishing the old and the disadvantaged. Let me give honourable members one example in relation to the honourable member 's constituency. The result of this activity in, I think, the Kelmscott service was that an aged pensioner of 89, on a day when the temperature was 42 degrees, was forced to collect a refund from the Medicare office because the doctor refused to bulk bill. I believe that honourable members on both sides of this House will regard that kind of opposition to Medicare as wrong and unreasonable. They recognise that this Government does not, and its predecessors did not, have the power to compel doctors to bulk bill the disadvantaged and the pensioners. But let me say that this Government and the Health Ministers of at least every Labor State will take every opportunity to publicise these kinds of practices. While we recognise that there are reasonable objections which doctors can make, these kinds of practices are simply intolerable and will be presented to the public as so. Mr MACPHEE —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. In addition to the band-aid measures which he has just announced, is he prepared to negotiate with the States and the Australian Council of Trade Unions to change the apprenticeship system so that the inequity under that system whereby before people can get training they must have a job will be removed so they can get vocational training without first having to get the job? Is the Government prepared to reimburse employers by paying, on their behalf, the payroll tax for the people additionally employed? Mr WILLIS —I am interested in the honourable member's description of these measures as a band-aid. They are a considerable advance on the measures introduced by the previous Government when it was concerned about a drop in the intake in about 1979-80. Far from being a band-aid I believe they will be a considerable incentive to employers to take on apprentices. As regards the other measures which he has mentioned, it is our intention to ensure that there is a complete review of the assistance which is provided to employers and of the encouragement they are given to take on apprentices. Of course we have established a review of all of our labour market programs headed by Mr Kirby, the Director of the technical and further education colleges in Victoria. That committee will be reporting to the Government by the end of this year. If the honourable member has any bright ideas which he would like that committee to consider I invite him to make a submission to it. I am sure it will be very interested to consider any intelligent suggestions which he makes to it. Mr HUMPHREYS —Has the attention of the Minister for Defence been drawn to Press reports appearing in today's Brisbane Courier-Mail in which union officials call on the Federal Government to have Royal Australian Navy ships based in Brisbane repaired in Cairncross Dockyard? Can the Minister inform the House why Australian naval ships are not repaired at the Cairncross Dockyard? Will any ships be repaired there in the future? Mr SCHOLES —My attention has been drawn to the newspaper article, both by the honourable member for Griffith and by Senator Jones. The article is basically correct; naval ships are repaired at yards in Ballina and Bundaberg, which are period contractors for the Royal Australian Navy. Cairncross is not a period contractor. The Queensland Government owns the facility and is prepared to accept work only when the dry dock is involved. If any other work is required, it is necessary for the Navy to engage a second contractor. The Government of Queensland does not allow the yard to enter into Commonwealth contracts, for reasons that we do not know. Period contractors do exist in the Brisbane area, but Cairncross is not one of them. It is anticipated that when HMAS Tobruk undergoes a refit the work will be done in Brisbane by one of the period contractors. It is also alleged in the article that the Commonwealth Government has poured money into the Ballina yard. I am unable to find any record of defence investment in that shipyard, and I am informed the the Department of Transport is also unable to find any record of such investment. If Cairncross is being disdavantaged by the present situation I suggest that those employed there take the matter up with the Queensland Government, and perhaps the practices of the management of that yard can be changed so that it can compete for Commonwealth work. I should also indicate that Ballina and Bundaberg are successful in obtaining work over Brisbane because there is a significant cost penalty in getting work done in Brisbane compared with the costs involved in the other yards. Mr WHITE —My question is also directed to the Minister for Defence. I refer him to the dry docking of allied ships. In view of his answer to previous questions, that each case would be treated on its merits, I ask him: What would happen if HMS Invincible were to return in the same condition as it was when it was here last? Would that ship be dry docked in Australia? Mr SCHOLES —The question by the honourable member for McPherson is a hypothetical one. Should HMS Invincible return under exactly the same circumstances, negotiations would be resumed where they were broken off. Mr CHARLES —My question is directed to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. Is it a fact, as reported in this morning's Launceston Examiner, that the Minister has not been invited jointly to open the international rowing course at Lake Barrington this Saturday? Did the Commonwealth make funds available for the establishment of this course? When projects are jointly funded with States what is the normal arrangement about the performance of official opening ceremonies? Has the Minister been given any undertaking by the Tasmanian Government that the Commonwealth contribution to this project is to be acknowledged on Saturday? Mr JOHN BROWN —Unhappily, it is a fact that I was told by the Tasmanian Minister that I was not allowed to speak at the opening of this rowing course in Tasmania on Saturday despite the fact that it has been jointly funded by the State and Commonwealth Governments. It is also a fact that this course, among a whole series of projects of a sporting nature in Tasmania, was funded conjointly. We in fact contributed $0.7m to the building of this international rowing course at Lake Barrington. I must observe that this is occurring with quite regular frequency in non-Labor States. It recently occurred in the Northern Territory when I was not invited to participate in the opening of an athletics stadium that was built, also jointly by the State and the Commonwealth. In contrast, I recall an instance in New South Wales when the State Minister, Mr Cleary, and I jointly laid the foundation stone for an indoor sports stadium in that State, built jointly by the Commonwealth and the State. It seems to be a very childish attitude on the part of the Tasmanian Government because, very clearly, this Australian Government, the Hawke Government, has been the greatest benefactor to sport of any government that has existed in Australia since Federation. I know quite openly that the rowing authorities are very concerned about the snub by the Tasmanian-- Mr Goodluck —I didn't get an invitation. Mr JOHN BROWN —Well, the honourable member is a typical Tasmanian. The public will not be fooled by this snub, by this crude attempt by the Tasmanian Government to grab the kudos for the building of this project. The Tasmanian people know where the funds came from, particularly if they read the Launceston Examiner this morning. Quite clearly, this tactic is part of Mr Gray's continuing tactic towards an early election. He is continually belabouring this Labor Government and claiming that Tasmania is being discriminated against in terms of Commonwealth funding to the States. This is clearly not the case. Of course that argument would fall very clearly to the ground if there was to be a joint opening of this facility; people would know where the funds came from . It is about time that the Tasmanian Government started to tell the truth about the facts of life. Certainly its attitude will make no difference to us. We will continue to fund in a very even handed fashion sporting facilities around this country in every State in order that Australian youth will have an opportunity to compete on equal terms with their opposites in other countries. I can assure honourable members that we will do that however petty and however grubby the attitude of State governments like the Tasmanian Government is to these policies . Mr PEACOCK —My question is to the Minister for Defence. It follows the answer that he just gave. In his earlier advice to the House that there was no approach or request by the British to dry dock the Invincible, how can he now refer, as he just did, to negotations being broken off? Who was negotiating, at what stage were the negotiations broken off and for what reason and, therefore, in which answer has he misled the House? Mr SCHOLES —Discussions took place, as I think the honourable member knows as well as I do, between the Royal Australian Navy and the British Royal Navy. Mr Sinclair —But you said there was no request. Mr SCHOLES —We talk about things quite often without having someone request something from us. The British Government ultimately advised that it did not wish to use facilities in Australia, for operational reasons. The facts are as they were stated previously. They have not changed. The statement which has been issued by me, after agreement with our allies, is a statement which will ensure that the problems of no policy being in existence, as was the case when we came to office following the previous Government, do not occur again. Mr HAND —My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Is the Minister aware of an ongoing dispute between the Tasmanian Aboriginal community and the Liberal Government of that State relating to the disposal of human remains currently being held by the Tasmanian Museum? Mr HOLDING —I am aware of the problem to which the honourable member referred. A collection of human bones is currently held by the Tasmanian Museum. It has become known as the Crowther collection but should be more correctly entitled the Oyster Cove collection. While I was in Tasmania last week I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of several Aboriginal groups at Oyster Cove. I considered it important to meet with these people because Tasmania remains somewhat of an outpost with respect to the status given to Aboriginal people and their rights. The issue was one of several that were raised with me by the Aboriginal community last week. It is important that honourable members should be informed of the background of this dispute. Mr Burr —Oh! Mr HOLDING —Well, it is important to those people. It is important that honourable members should be informed. From a period from about October 1847 to 1876 a number of Aboriginal people were buried-- Mr Tuckey —You are giving us a history lesson. Mr HOLDING —I propose to. They were buried in a cemetery at Oyster Cove and in 1908 Professor Berry, an anatomist, asked William Crowther, then a medical student, if he could obtain skeletons of Tasmanian Aborigines for him. Mr Tuckey —I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a responsibility on Ministers at Question Time to answer questions concisely. I do not think there is any need whatsoever to enter into a discussion of history at this time when the Minister has an opportunity to make a statement. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HOLDING —If the honourable member for O'Connor was buried, he could be certain that the Leader of the Opposition would not dig him up. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —I point out to honourable members that if they interrupt answers, they are only lessening their opportunity to ask questions and receive answers. Mr HOLDING —Crowther went to the Oyster Cove Cemetery in 1909 with three of his colleagues. He said: I led a team to rob the graveyard here. We met at the churchyard and we started to dig. We exhumed about, there must have been nearly a dozen of the poor creatures. Crowther donated the remains to the Tasmanian Museum in January 1963. It is not clear exactly what was originally excavated but it is clear that some of the material was lost at various times before 1963. What is present now in the Museum from Crowther's excavations at Oyster Cove are seven skulls and two boxes of post-cranial bones. In addition, there are two skulls from two others who were at Oyster Cove, known as Augustus and Caroline. There is also the skull of Waubedaba, who was not at Oyster Cove, but is a known individual. These three skulls should be considered as part of the collection with which the negotiations are concerned. Around the turn of the century there was in fact a brisk trade in Aboriginal skeletons. The last person, William Laney, not only had his head, hands and ears cut off before his body was cold, all in the name of science, but also his skin used to make a tobacco pouch. It is under these circumstances that Aboriginal people in Tasmania feel with some sensitivity that the remains of people who are their ancestors ought to be respectfully and decently interred in accordance with their wishes. I have had discussions with the Attorney-General in Tasmania. I have expressed the view that I do not believe that this is an area that ought to be the subject of confrontation either between the Commonwealth or the State. It is something which, if handled with some sensitivity and having regard to the needs and wishes of Aboriginal people, could be fixed up quickly. We have had positive discussions and I am hopeful that the Tasmanian Government will act quickly in respect of this matter and in a way which will make it unnecessary for any further Commonwealth intervention. Mr SPEAKER —Before calling the next question, I observe that at times the Chair does not have any power over the length of answers. While the Minister's answer was completely relevant, I hope Ministers will co-operate with me in trying to have brevity of answers. Mr BURR —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. Has any change been made to the policy of issuing free copies of the Queen's photograph to community groups? Are copies of the Queen's photograph readily available? If the Queen's photograph is available, why are copies of the coat of arms now being substituted for the photograph of the Queen in the items issued with the Australian flag? Mr YOUNG —There has been no change in the policy. If community groups request a portrait of Her Majesty it shall be supplied. Mr O'NEIL —My question is directed to the excellent Minister for Transport. Given the vital importance of railways to my electorate of Grey, particularly to the railway workers at Port Pirie, Peterborough and Port Augusta, can the Minister confirm that an examination is currently being made of the standardisation of the Melbourne to Adelaide line? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his very important question. Railway efficiency and financial performance are critical to the economy of South Australia and particularly to the electorate of Grey. I am able to confirm that an investigation is currently under way by the Australian National Railways Commission and the State Transport Authority of Victoria into the standardisation of the rail link between Melbourne and Adelaide. My understanding is that such a project would comprise a new standard gauge line from Melbourne to Geelong and a third rail being laid on the existing line between Geelong and Tailem Bend in South Australia. I am advised that there would be significant advantages in such a project. For instance, it would reduce the rail freight time between Melbourne and the west of the continent by some 24 hours. It would complete the inter-capital standard gauge rail link and it certainly would result in considerably reduced operational costs for both VicRail and Australian National Railways. It would improve the efficiency and quality of service of the inter-system network around the continent. The matter is still under investigation and, as with all projects or this importance and with these financial implications, it is essential that there be a comprehensive financial analysis of the costs and benefits. My understanding is that the report of that analysis should be available in the near future. Mr McGAURAN —I preface my question to the Minister for Primary Industry by drawing his attention to the fact that the present formula for setting dairy underwriting levels was due to be revised at the end of the 1982-83 financial year. Does he regard the formula as being outdated and seriously disadvantaging dairy farmers? If so, will he undertake to draft a new formula which will increase underwriting levels for the financial year 1984-85? Mr KERIN —I see no change in the basing components of the underwriting formula. There is a set formula. A review of the general industry organisation arrangements will take place during the review now under way following receipt of the Industries Assistance Commission report. We have a working party of the Standing Committee on Agriculture following a meeting of the Agricultural Council in Perth. It will look at all matters, including price setting mechanisms, the organisation of the Australian Dairy Corporation and any system of arriving at underwriting levels. The other formula or arrangement that the honourable member could be reflecting on is the arrangement between the Commonwealth and the Australian Dairy Corporation with respect to the setting of the domestic wholesale price of milk for levy purposes. There are 10 criteria, of which one is not entirely agreed upon by the Commonwealth, the ADC and the dairy industry. By and large there is not much conflict among the parties concerned. That tenth criteria on which there is some debate is mainly about the international price of milk and how much that should influence the price we set for wholesale price determinations. All I can honestly say to the honourable member is that all this is now under intensive scrutiny on three levels, the Standing Committee working party, the Commonwealth Government's committee that is looking at a formal response to the IAC report, and also the committee comprising the Department, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the Australian Dairy Corporation and the dairy industry itself. All matters will be looked at. Mr MILTON —I direct my question to the Special Minister of State. In view of the large disparities between the net voter enrolments of Federal electorates and the recently announced redistribution of electoral boundaries involving the creation of 23 new electorates, can he advise when the redistribution will be completed? Mr YOUNG —I know that honourable members have a certain interest in this question . I suspect that already a fair bit of homework has been done on boundaries. The likely timetable of the Electoral Commission is that the redistribution will be under way almost immediately. The appointees to the various State Electoral Offices will be announced very shortly. The committees will also be announced and the redistribution will be under way. The timetable will be such that redistribution in the smaller States will probably be completed after the first maps are produced and the objections received. The Commission then makes its final declaration. Even the larger States, which will take a little longer, should have their redistributions completed by September of 1983. Opposition members interjecting- Mr YOUNG —I might have made a mistake with the year, but Malcolm wishes I was right. For the benefit of honourable members who, I know, have only a slight interest in the subject, the submissions will be called almost immediately. The first reports will be out by mid-year. The objections will be received and the final reports of the Commission, which, as honourable members well realise, are not subject to parliament, will be out of the way in all States by September this year. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members I present the Federal Court of Australia Judges Handbook. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members I table the statement by the Attorney-General on the Age tapes, together with the opinions of the Solicitor-General and Mr Temby, Q.C. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —On behalf of the Attorney- General, pursuant to sub-section 97 (1) of the Legal Aid Ordinance 1977, I present the sixth annual report of the Legal Aid Commission (ACT) for 1982-83. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 28A of the Parole Ordinance 1976, I present the Parole Board of the Australian Capital Territory annual report for 1982-83. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 33 of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Act 1977, I present the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council annual report for 1982-83. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Maintenance Agency for Australia report of the National Maintenance Inquiry, together with the text of a statement by the Attorney-General relating to the report. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —On behalf of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and pursuant to section 40 of the Curriculum Development Centre Act 1975, I present the Curriculum Development Centre annual report for 1981-82, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs outlining the reasons for the delay in tabling the Curriculum Development Centre annual report for 1982-83. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House, I present the financial statements of the Science and Industry Endowment Fund report for the year ended 30 June 1983. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Pursuant to section 12 of the Immigration (Education) Act 1971, I present the Child Migrant Education report for 1982-83. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Pursuant to section 21 of the Papua New Guinea Staffing Assistance Act 1973, I present the report by the Commissioner for Superannuation on the general administration and operation of the Papua New Guinea superannuation scheme and the contract officers retirement benefit scheme for the year ended 30 June 1983. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —On behalf of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and for the information of the House, I present a report entitled 'Participation and Equity in Australian Schools: The Goal of Full Secondary Education', which was prepared by the Commonwealth Schools Commission. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House, I present the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission supplementary report on the participation and equity program. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House, I present the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's supplementary report on participation initiatives in higher education, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs relating to the report . Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —On behalf of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and pursuant to section 67 of the States Grants Schools Assistance Act 1981, I present the report of December 1983 of the Commonwealth Schools Commission on financial assistance granted to each State. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —On behalf of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and pursuant to section 8 of the Independent Schools (Loan Guarantee) Act 1969, I present the Independent Schools (Loan Guarantee) 1969 report for 1982-83. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —On behalf of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and pursuant to section 63M of the Audit Act 1901, I present the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority annual report and interim financial statements for 1982-83. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 23 of the Egg Export Control Act 1947, I present the Australian Egg Board annual report for 1982-83, together with a statement on the operation of the Egg Export Control Act 1947. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to sub-section 34c (6) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, as amended, I table a statement outlining the reasons for the delay in tabling the Australian Honey Board annual report for 1982-83. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 18 (1) of the Wheat Research Act 1957, I present the Wheat Research Act 1957 annual report for 1982-83 which was released to honourable members during the recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 35 (1) of the Barley Research Act 1980, I present the Barley Industry Research Council annual report for 1982-83, together with a statement outlining the reasons for the delay in tabling the reports. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —Pursuant to section 72 of the Health Commission Ordinance 1975, I present the Capital Territory Health Commission interim annual report for 1982-83. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report on a survey of health of former atomic test personnel. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —Pursuant to section 19 (2) of the Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act 1970, I present the Anglo -Australian Telescope Board annual report for 1982-83. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian research grants scheme report on grants approved for 1984. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —Pursuant to section 9 of the Coal Research Assistance Act 1977, I present the National Energy Research Development and Demonstration Council annual report for 1982-83. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —For the information of honourable members, I present the National Energy Advisory Committee annual report for 1982-83. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —Pursuant to section 32 of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Power Act 1949, I present the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electricity Authority annual report for 1982-83. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Safeguards Office annual report for 1982-83. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —Pursuant to section 44 of the Australian Film Commission Act 1975, I present the Australian Film Commission annual report for 1983. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —Pursuant to section 43 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975, I present the Australian Heritage Commission annual report for 1982-83, together with the text of a statement outlining the reasons for the delay in tabling the report. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —On behalf of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and pursuant to section 13 of the War Graves Act 1980, I present the Office of Australian War Graves annual report for 1982-83. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Pursuant to section 50B of the Defence Service Homes Act 1918, I present the Defence Service Homes Corporation annual report for 1982-83. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present volumes 1 to 4 of the Australian Veterans Health Studies pilot study report into the feasibility of the epidemiological investigation of morbidity in Vietnam veterans for 1983, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs relating to the report. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs relating to the report. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —by leave-The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs presented its report , 'Strategies to help overcome the problems of aboriginal town camps', in October 1982. It was presented by the then Chairman of the Standing Committee, the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), and the Government would like to record its appreciation of the conscientious work done by the Standing Committee , and particularly by the honourable member for Dundas. The Committee provided a working definition of 'town campers' as: Any group of Aboriginals living at identified camp sites near or within towns or cities which form part of the socio-cultural structure of the towns and cities, but which have a lifestyle that does not conform to that of the majority of non-Aboriginal residents and are not provided with essential services and housing on a basis comparable to the rest of the community. The foreword of the report says: Aboriginals are generally acknowledged to be the most disadvantaged group in Australian society. The fringe-dwellers or town campers as they are referred to in the report, are the most disadvantaged section within the Aboriginal group. It was glaringly apparent to the Committee that the deplorable conditions in which town campers live, not only in a physical sense but also in social and economic senses, are of urgent concern to all Australians. While small in numbers (less than 20,000), they are the real losers of today. To be the most deprived members of Australia's most disadvantaged minority-the Aboriginal people-is to know true deprivation. Name a disadvantage or a social problem and the town campers suffer it: Offensive unsanitary conditions; abominable housing-if the pitiful shelters can be called that in many cases; virtually no employment prospects; inadequate education; and all the physical and mental health problems including alcohol abuse, social tension and frequent violence that accompany despair, anguish and hopelessness. The Standing Committee's report and recommendations provide a most valuable starting point for the development of the integrated and co-ordinated program of assistance that is needed if we are to succeed in removing these disadvantages. The Past and the Present The root causes of the town camp problem lie in the past. Town camps, in many areas, were the last remaining refuge for a proud and dignified people who were forced to move from their traditional lands, to pastoral stations, to government settlements, to missions, and then on again from these impermanent places. The growing populations in towns naturally meant further encroachments on Aboriginal traditional land, resulting in Aboriginals being pushed out to the fringes. The quite appalling economic and social results of the dispersal and dispossession which have led to the town camper situation have been fully documented by the Committee. It makes grim reading. After the 1967 referendum, and a general acceptance of Aboriginal rights in the seventies, some improvements took place in town camps-housing was provided in town for some who wanted to make the move. As well, some housing and facilities were upgraded in town camps and reserves, and land tenure by way of leases was provided in some cases. In addition the outstation movement has provided an outlet for some, particularly in the Northern Territory. However, for the great majority of town camps nothing much has changed, and cannot change unless the problems are dealt with as a whole. The Future The Committee made recommendations which covered the complexities of the problems. In response to these recommendations and the Committee's overall report, the Government has decided to adopt a multi-faceted, co-ordinated and integrated program to be known as the town campers assistance program. This program will reflect the complexities inherent in these situations by involving myself, my State and Territory counterparts, their colleagues responsible for local government and lands, local government authorities, Commonwealth Government Departments and Authorities, national and local Aboriginal organisations, general community groups and, most importantly, the people who are most affected by the problems-the Aboriginal town campers themselves. These organisations and individuals will be involved in the town campers assistance program to varying degrees but the contribution of all to the program will be guided by the principles of consultation, Aboriginal self-determination and the need to develop flexible responses to the individual needs of each community rather than meeting any one particular need on a national basis. To achieve this , a local consultation process involving officers within the Aboriginal affairs portfolio, including the National Aboriginal Conference, will be further developed. The consultation process will then allow the community to identify its needs and relay them to the Government and other authorities which can then help develop and implement effective, localised programs. The consultation arrangements will ensure that Aboriginal women are directly consulted and involved in the decision making process. Town camper communities will therefore be involved in determining the form of consultation, their priorities and the appropriate agencies to meet their needs. The willingness of the appropriate agencies to meet the needs of the town campers is crucial to the success of the town campers assistance program. Of particular importance is the support and co- operation of State and local government authorities. It is relevant to mention here that State and Territory Ministers entered into a commitment at the Australian Aboriginal Affairs Council meeting in July to provide Aboriginal citizens with at least the same level of services that are provided to other citizens. Although I have been referring to the future and to what will happen, in fact the town campers assistance program has already begun to operate. My Department has earmarked a total of $4m for expenditure on town camps in 1983-84. These funds will be spent in conjunction with the Aboriginal Development Commission and Aboriginal Hostels Ltd. It is also interesting to note that even at this early stage of the program, two State Governments, New South Wales and Western Australia, have entered into joint funding arrangements with the Commonwealth in respect of certain projects. This demonstrable co-operation in New South Wales and Western Australia is in marked contrast to the situation in Queensland. The Queensland authorities declined to present any views or attitudes to the House of Representatives Standing Committee when it undertook its investigations. I will now mention several key aspects of the program. Land Tenure The question of land tenure is recognised by the Committee as a threshold issue to be resolved in the development of programs of assistance. Apart from the sense of security which comes from tenure there is also a practical economic reason-substantial improvements in facilities cannot be made without a guarantee of security over the land on which the improvements are to be made. I will do everything in my power, through legislation and special arrangement, to gain land tenure for those campers who currently lack it. Excisions The Committee also recognised the needs of former residents of pastoral leases living in town camps who want to return to live on those leases, and recommended that procedures be developed to make this happen. The Committee considered that the granting of excisions could arrest the drift of Aboriginal people into town camps from pastoral properties. The question of excisions is a most important one not only for town campers but also, of course, for Aboriginal people already resident on pastoral leases, but having no secure tenure over the land on which they live. In respect of the Northern Territory, Mr Justice Toohey, in his recent report, has recommended that Northern Territory legislation be enacted to provide a machinery for consideration of excision applications by a tribunal headed by a Northern Territory Supreme Court judge and, where excisions are recommended, for these to be held as freehold land by Aboriginal land trusts. I have had discussions with the Chief Minister, Mr Everingham, concerning early implementation of these proposals. Last year I wrote to a large number of Territory pastoralists urging them to negotiate in-principle agreements with Aboriginal applicants. The response of the pastoralists and their cattlemen's organisations has been a generally positive one and I commend them for it. Resolution of as many problems as possible, in advance of tribunal involvement, should make the tribunal's work a good deal easier and quicker. In Western Australia, the only other State for which excisions are a significant issue, administrative action has been taken by the State Government to resolve outstanding excision requests. For the longer term, the Seaman inquiry into land rights in Western Australia is expected to recommend the most appropriate method for achieving excisions. Local Government Co-operation The Committee noted the important role of local government authorities on the matters of land tenure and the delivery of services to Aboriginal camps. Local government decisions have an immediate impact on the daily lives of campers. Some authorities have been sympathetic and generous. Others, I regret to say, think that they have a responsibility to ordinary ratepayers only. This has meant that the people living on the fringes of towns have often been ignored and have gone without essential services. Officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and other portfolio agencies are initiating discussions with local government authorities to find ways of overcoming some of the current barriers to the provision of equitable services to Aboriginal town campers. Where appropriate, arrangements will be made to employ Aboriginal liaison officers to identify needs and assist peope to utilise local government facilities. This arrangement is now working, and working well, in a number of local government areas, for example, at Port Augusta. Improvements in Living Conditions Australia has been criticised, with justification, for allowing conditions to continue in some Aboriginal communities which are similar to those in underdeveloped countries of the Third World. The provision of adequate housing and shelter will play a key role in the Government's strategy towards improving the living conditions of Aboriginals in town camps. We do not, however, want to repeat the mistake of the assimilationist policies of the 1950s by expecting campers to live in urban, western-style settings. Some campers have tried conventional housing and have rejected it. We do not pretend to know exactly what types of housing and facilities campers want-they have to tell us, and we have to make their choice possible. The challenge is to develop appropriate technologies and styles of dwellings through consultation with the people who will use them. The task of providing accommodation will be shared by my Department, the Aboriginal Development Commission, Aboriginal Hostels Ltd, and the Department of Social Security through its homeless persons assistance program, as well as the States. All of these agencies will be responsible, with the National Aboriginal Conference, for consultation about housing. The Government has increased by $23.8m, or 28 per cent, to a total of $108m, the funds for Aboriginal housing and accommodation in the current financial year. Of this, $13m has been allocated to Aboriginal Hostels Ltd, $43m to the Aboriginal Development Commission and $52m has been earmarked for Aboriginal housing under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Although this is a creditable response to a very important area of need, we are under no illusion about how much more still needs to be done. Employment Town campers have not benefited to any extent from most of the Aboriginal employment programs and unemployment is at very high levels. Most camps depend almost entirely on welfare payments. We will make sure that the town campers benefit from government employment schemes, such as the community employment program, which will receive a total of $300m in the current fnancial year. Within my portfolio, my Department's special work program this year received a 73.4 per cent increase over last year's allocation. The Aboriginal Development Commission and Aboriginal Hostels Ltd will also assist through their programs directed to the employment of Aboriginals. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations will give high priority to the provision of appropriate training for the future employment of town campers under the training for Aboriginals programs. Public Awareness Very high among the problems town campers experience is the unsympathetic attitude shown by many Australians. The conditions in which campers live are taken by many people to mean that campers themselves are, in some peculiar way, unworthy of the types of services and opportunities which the rest of the nation take for granted. The Government has begun a public awareness program designed to help promote a climate of understanding about the problems of town campers and the Aboriginal situation as it is today. Concluding Remarks Mr Speaker, the Standing Committee is to be commended for drawing attention to the very real difficulties faced by town camper, outstation and pastoral property communities. I have outlined the Government's multi-faceted response which involves more employment; improved living conditions; security of tenure; and public awareness; and which overall seeks to enable Aboriginal town campers to gain for themselves, a better future. If we are to succeed, governments, Aboriginal organisations and individuals, and members of the wider Australian community must all work together. The Australian Government is determined that the town camper program will succeed. Common humanity demands that we succeed. In conjunction with the NAC, we will monitor progress. Each year, a situation report on each town camp community will be provided to Parliament and be made available to State and Territory governments, relevant local government authorities and to the communities themselves. This annual report will show us how much has been achieved and indicate how much more remains to be done. Let me assure honourable members that this Government will not stand by and allow Aboriginal people to be denied a fair go. Mr Speaker, I present a schedule providing the Government's response to each of the recommendations made by the Standing Committee. I present also a schedule showing in summary form, the existing situation in respect of the town camps identified in the Committee's report. I table the schedules and I also seek leave to incorporate them in Hansard. Leave granted. The schedules read as follows- ABORIGINAL TOWN CAMPS LISTED IN 1982 REPORT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS ENTITLED ''STRATEGIES TO HELP OVERCOME THE PROBLEMS OF ABORIGINAL TOWN CAMPS'' Schedule of Present Situation-November 1983 Number Essential services in Popu- Land employ- Number of houses/ Sewer- Elec- Community and location lation tenure ment shelters required age Water tricity New South Wales Baryulgil Square, Baryulgil 28 Yes-ALT Nil Yes Yes Yes North Camp, Bourke 3 No Nil No No No Reserve, Bourke 100 Yes-ALT Nil Yes Yes Yes Water Resources Commission, Dareton 36 No 1 No No No Merrinee, Dareton 17 No Nil Yes Yes Yes Reserve, Title will Goodooga 39 be provided 1 No Yes Yes Gunnedah Hill, Title will Coonabarabran 36 be provided Nil Yes Yes Yes (a) New Burnt Bridge, Kempsey 56 Yes-ALT Nil No Yes Yes (b) Old Burnt Bridge, Kempsey 44 No 1 No Yes No 3 Mile Camp, Lightning Ridge Currently unoccupiedReserve, Menindee 10 Yes-ALT Nil No No No Garden Sheds, Nowra South 16 No Nil No No No Quambone Reserve, Quambone 40 Yes-ALT Nil Yes Some Yes Namoi Reserve, Walgett 185 Yes-ALT 1 No Some Yes Nanima Reserve, Wellington 101 Yes 8 Yes Yes Yes Mallee, Wilcannia 116 Yes-ALT 1 No Some Yes Brewarrina West (Police Paddock and Tip Road, Brewarrina 6 No Nil No No No West Gulargambone (Gulargambone Reserve), Gulargambone 12 Yes-ALT Nil No Some No Bellbrook Reserve (Nulla Nulla Creek, Kempsey), Bellbrook 85 Yes-ALT 4 Yes Yes Yes Erambie Reserve, Cowra 110 Yes 7 Yes Yes Yes Barwon 4, Title will Brewarrina 84 be provided Nil Yes Yes Yes Enngonia Reserve, Enngonia 20 Yes-ALT Nil Yes Yes Yes Goodooga Camp, Goodooga Currently unoccupiedTown Common, Wellington 13 No Nil No No No South East Gulargambone, Gulargambone 80 Yes-ALT 5 Yes Yes Yes Mission Reserve, Condobolin 30 Yes-ALT Nil Yes Yes Some 3 Way Reserve, Griffith 45 Yes-ALT Nil Yes Yes Yes Cummeragunga, Cummeragunga 35 Yes-ALT Nil Yes Yes Yes Gingie Reserve, Title will Walgett 184 be provided 1 Yes Yes Yes Dewhurst, St, Walgett 2 No Nil No Yes No Wirrajarri (formerly Helin Top Camp), Moree 302 Yes-ALT 7 Yes Yes Yes Pilliga Reserve, Pilliga 35 Yes-ALT Nil Yes Yes Yes Walhallow Reserve, Caroona 205 Yes-ALT 14 Yes Yes Yes Walcha Reserve, Walcha 44 Yes-ALT Nil No No Yes (Current APHIP Project) Pimbaacla, Wee Waa 228 Yes-ALT 8 Yes Yes Yes Belwood Reserve, Nambucca Heads 78 Yes-ALT 2 Yes Yes Yes Cabbage Tree Island, Wardell 177 Yes-ALT 8 Yes Yes Yes Coffs Harbour/Sawtell, Coffs Harbour 280 Yes-ALT 35 Yes Yes Yes Box Ridge Reserve, Coraki 84 Yes-ALT 3 Yes Yes Yes Gundurimba Reserve, Lismore 40 Yes-ALT 1 Yes Yes Yes Hillcrest Reserve, Maclean 50 Yes-ALT 1 Yes Yes Yes Tabulam, Tabulam 179 Yes-ALT Nil Yes Yes Yes Pippie Beach Reserve, Yamba 45 Yes-ALT 2 Yes Yes Yes Bowraville Reserve, Bowraville 65 Yes-ALT 1 Yes Yes Yes Woodenbong (Muli Muli Reserve), Woodenbong 127 Yes-ALT Nil Yes Yes Yes Toomelah, Boggabilla 490 Yes-ALT 18 Yes Yes Yes Ashford Reserve, Ashford 39 Yes-ALT Nil No Yes Yes South Guyra, Guyra 76 Yes-ALT 5 Yes Yes Yes North Guyra, Guyra 53 Yes-ALT 1 Yes Yes Yes Stanley Village, Moree 313 Yes-ALT 10 Yes Yes Yes Green Hills, Kempsey 138 Yes-ALT 10 Yes Yes Yes South West Rocks, South West Rocks 36 Yes-ALT Nil Yes Yes Yes Karuah Reserve, Karuah 80 Yes-ALT 4 Yes Yes Yes Cabrita-Forster, Cabrita-Forster 145 Yes-ALT 18 Yes Yes Yes Purfleet (Taree), Purfleet (Taree) 276 Yes-ALT 7 Yes Yes Yes Murry's Flat, Bega 24 Yes-ALT Nil Yes Some Yes Brown's Flat, Nowra 23 No 3 Yes Yes Yes Mission Reserve, Wilcannia 69 Yes-ALT 5 Yes Yes Yes Balranald, Balranald 25 Yes-ALT Nil No Some No Mission (Namitjira Ave Reserve), Dareton 124 Yes-ALT 1 Yes Yes Yes Kiah Reserve, Eden Currently unoccupiedGol Gol, Mildura 22 No Nil No No No Council, Taree Area Office has no information on this Camp- unoccupiedNeilpo Stn., Wentworth 20 No Nil No No No Victoria Lake Tyers, Gippsland 126 Freehold- Land Trust 38 44 Bedrooms Yes Yes Yes Framlingham, Western District 60 Freehold- Land Trust 8 1 Single man's qtrs. 6 Shelters/ bungalows Yes Yes Yes Parkies/Fitzroy, Melbourne 30-40 No 5 1 Homeless persons' hostel No No No Queensland Boulia Reserve, Boulia 24 No-Local Govt. res. in DAIA trust 2 6 Houses Yes Yes Yes One Mile, North Stradbroke Island 26 No 4 6 Shelters No No No Camooweal Reserve, Camooweal Unoccupied for some years nowChillagoe Reserve, Chillagoe 80 No Nil 1 Transient Hostel Yes Yes Yes Cooktown Reserve, Cooktown 30 No 1 2 Houses No Pumped Yes 5 Shelters from dam Djarra West End Reserve, Djarra 21 No-Cattle/ camping reserve in Shire trust Nil 4 Houses No No No Georgetown Reserve, Georgetown No longer a town camp- demolishedHerberton Reserve, Herberton 37 No Nil 2 Houses Yes Yes Yes Kuranda, Kuranda 335 No Nil No No No Laura Reserve, Laura 49 Far Beach, Mackay 6 No Nil 1 House No Yes Yes Mossman Reserve, Mossman See ''The Gorge-Mossman''Mount Garnett Reserve, Mount Garnett 52 No Nil 2 Houses Yes Yes Yes Orana Park Reserve, Mount Isa 79 No-Local Govt. housing reserve 2 12 Houses Yes Yes Yes Yallambee Reserve, Mount Isa 110 No 2 6 Houses Yes Yes Yes Happy Valley, Townsville Camp no longer exists-people rehoused in TownsvilleBridge Dwellers, Townsville 80 No Nil No No No Murray-Upper, Tully 84 Freehold-ADC 11 6 Shelters Yes Yes Yes Bessie Point, Yarrabah 100 Freehold and Special Lease Nil 3 Houses Yes Yes Yes Birdsville Compound, Birdsville 12 No-DAIA Country reserve Nil 4 Houses Yes Yes Yes Cairns, Cairns Homeless persons using parksCoen Reserve, Coen 84 No Nil Yes Yes Yes Mareeba, Mareeba 96 Not a town camp, a housing reserve under DAIA TrusteeshipYes Yes Yes Palm Island (Part of), Palm Island 24 separate improvised dwellings at 24 separate sites away from main Aboriginal Township.Ravenshoe, Ravenshoe Camp demolished, February 1983-Population rehoused in town by ADCFitzroy River, Rockhampton 17 No Nil No No No The Gorge, Mossman 130 No Nil 10 Houses Yes Yes Yes Normanton Reserve, Normanton Camp no longer exists-People rehoused in townPioneer River, Mackay 7 No Nil No No No Kennedy, Cardwell 140 No Nil Nil Yes Yes Yes Charters Towers, Charters Towers 12 Homeless persons using parksMusgrave Park, Brisbane 30 Homeless persons using park South Australia Half Way Camp, Ceduna 35 Yes-ALT 1 Yes Yes Yes The Flat, Coober Pedy 5-10 No Nil 3 Shelters No No No Davenport Reserve, (Sand Hills), Port Augusta 50-170 Yes Nil 5 Family Shelters 1 Day Shelter No (Planned) No No Oodnadatta, Oodnadatta 57 Yes Nil Yes Yes Yes Western Australia Ann St. Reserve, Broome No Nil Current SHC Devpmt Yes Yes Yes Kennedy's Hill, Broome 200 No 2 6-10 Yes Yes Yes Meatworks Broome No 3 Nil No No No Morgan's Camp, Broome No 1 3 No No No One Mile Reserve, Broome No 3 5 No No No Boor St., Carnarvon 75 No 3 Current SHC Devpmt Yes Yes Yes Reserve, Derby 110 No Nil Yes Yes Yes (a) No. 1 Reserve, No 13-Construction Hall Creek 82 SHC Title 10 commenced No Nil Yes Yes Yes (b) No. 2 Reserve, No Halls Creek 20 DCW Reserve 1 Yes Yes Yes Kalgoorlie Camps, Kalgoorlie 20 No Nil 7 No No No Reserve, Kununurra 90-150 No 7 Yes Yes Yes Lake Kununurra Camp now unoccupiedLilly Creek, Kununurra Camp now unoccupied-Community has moved to Emu SpringsLaverton Camp, Laverton 40 No Nil 20 No No No Leonora, Leonora 26 No Nil - Yes No Yes Brockman Camp, Marble Bar 32 No Nil No No No Reserve, Meekatharra 39 No Nil Yes Yes Yes Reserve, Mullewa Camp now unoccupiedWoolshed, Roeburne 50 No Nil SHC Housing Complex No Yes No Skippers Camp, Wiluna 20 No CDEP 4 No No No Reserve, No Wyndham 40 DCW Reserve 2P/T Nil Yes Yes Yes Guda Guda, Wyndham 40 Yes-ALT 2P/T 10 Yes Yes No East Metropolitan (Lockridge North), Perth 100 Yes-ALT Nil Yes Yes Yes Tjalkawarra (12 Mile Reserve), Pt. Hedland 54 Yes-ALT Nil Yes Yes Yes Coolgardie, Coolgardie 15 No Nil Yes Yes Yes Central Metropolitan, Perth 50 No Nil Nil North Metropolitan, 2 Houses Perth 65 Yes-ALT Nil 10 Yes only Yes South Metropolitan, Perth No particular camps-Aboriginals living in suburban situationSouth Western Metropolitan (Medina), Perth Nil No Nil No No No Kadjina River Camp, Fitzroy Crossing 20 Yes-ALT 2 3 No No No Reserve, Marble Bar 28 No Nil Yes Yes Yes Reserve, Onslow 104 No Nil Yes Yes Yes 3 Mile, Pt. Hedland 65 No Nil Yes Yes Yes 9 Mile, Pt. Hedland Camp no longer occupied-people have moved to Well 61Irrungadgi, Nullagine 67 Yes-ALT Nil No No No Nicholson Stn, Halls Creek 41 No Nil No No No Blueberry Hill, Halls Creek 12-15 No Nil 3 No No No Northern Territory 15 Mile (16 Mile), Darwin 10 No Nil 10 Cabins No No No Rock Hole, Katherine 37 Yes 5 3 Cabins No Some Yes Myalli Brumby, Katherine 100 Yes 5 3 Cabins Pit type Yes Yes Meatworks, Katherine 18 No Nil Pit type No No Binjari, Katherine 65 No Nil No no-water tank only No Katherine Gorge, Katherine 17 No Nil No No No Golders Camp (Billarye-Illpryn) (East Side), Alice Springs 28 No 1 No No No Railway Dam, Darwin 17 Yes 2 2 Cabins Yes Yes Yes Knuckeys Lagoon, Darwin 16 Yes 2 2 Cabins Yes Yes Yes Kulaluk, Darwin 23 Yes 3 Nil Yes Yes Yes Transient Camps, Darwin (15) Camps no longer existRailway Hill, Darwin 4 No Nil 2 Cabins No No No Palmerston Park, Darwin Camp no longer existsKalano Farm Kalno farm is an Alcohol Rehabilitation Centre-not a town campTransient Camps (2) Katherine , Katherine Dump High Level Top Camp People in these camps have moved to Myalli Brumby Camp, KatherineElliot, Elliot 240 Yes-SPL Majority Yes Yes Yes Anthonys Lagoon; Anthonys Lagoon 115 Yes-SPL Majority Yes Yes Yes Areyonga (Karnte), Alice Springs 57 No-Vacant Crown Land 2 4 Houses 8 Shelters 2 Acc. for transients No Piped to central point No Anthelk Ewlpaye, Alice Springs 180 Yes-SPL (but 13 on adjoining Crown Land 7 7 Houses 19 Shelters Yes Yes Yes Anthepe, Alice Springs 44 Yes-SPL 5 Nil Yes Yes Yes Aper-Alwerrknge, Alice Springs 15 Yes-SPL 2 2 Cabins Yes Yes Yes Bazzo's Farm, Alice Springs 6 Yes ALFC 1 Nil Yes Yes Yes Ewyenper, Atwatye, Alice Springs 107 Yes-SPL 1 10 Houses Yes Yes Yes Ilparpa, Alice Springs 44 Yes-SPL 8 3 Houses, 1 Flat Yes Yes Yes Ilyperenye, Alice Springs 71 Yes-SPL 13 3 Houses Yes Yes Yes Inilunga, Alice Springs 100 Yes-SPL 8 4 Shelters, 10 Houses, 6 Flats, 2 x Accommod'n for transients Yes Yes Yes Akngwertnarre Aknugatnurra, Alice Springs 44 Yes-SPL 2 3 Houses Yes Yes Yes Ilperlia, Tyathe Llibili Tja Tja, Alice Springs 31 Yes-SPL 2 Nil Yes Yes Yes Mpwetyerre, Alice Springs 33 Yes-SPL 3 2 Houses Yes Yes Yes Mt Nancy, Alice Springs 46 Yes-SPL 5 2 Houses Yes Yes Yes Ootnarungatcha, Alice Springs 70 Yes-SPL 7 3 Cabins Yes Yes Yes Yarrenty Arltere, Alice Springs 50 Yes-SPL 4 6 Houses Yes Yes Yes Kunoth's Camp Now incorporated in Anthelk EwlpayeLeo's Camp 7 No Nil 2 Houses No No No Transient Camps (9) including under New Bridge Charles Creek, Creek Bed opposite Mbutjarra, Alice Springs There are several impermanent camps used by transients or people seeking leases. These are so impermanent that no valid statistics can be provided.Blueberry Hill, Tennant Creek 5 Yes-SPL Nil 4 Yes Yes Yes Mulga, Tennant Creek 79 Yes-SPL 3-Seasonal basis 8 Yes Yes Yes Village, Tennant Creek 40 Yes-SPL 3 8 Houses Yes Yes Yes- uncon- nected Karguara, (Epenarra Group) Tennant Creek 40 No Nil No one tap only No Camp (behind Blueberry Hill), Tennant Creek 10 Yes-SPL Nil No No No Brunette Downs This is a pastoral property communityBunny's Camp No longer existsBush Camp No longer exists AbbreviationsADC-Aboriginal Development Commission ALT-Aboriginal Lands Trust APHIP-Aboriginal Public Health Improvement Program SHC-State Housing Commission SPL-Special Purpose Lease NotesInformation regarding housing requirements in many cases will await consultations with town camper communities. Population figures in many cases are approximate only, as the number of residents varies from time to time. 'Sewerage' in this table includes septic systems. Some of the localities and groups located in this schedule, e.g. park people, people on reserves, do not appear to be 'town camps' as defined in the House of Representatives Standing Committee report. Assistance to these groups may be more appropriately provided through existing programs rather than through the Town Campers Assistance Program. GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES' STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS' REPORT ''STRATEGIES TO HELP OVERCOME THE PROBLEMS OF ABORIGINAL TOWN CAMPS'' Recommendations Present situation Proposed response Local Government Liaison with Town Camps 1. That the Department of Aboriginal Affairs: (a) initiate discussions with local government authorities with town camping communities within their boundaries (identified in Appendix VI) about establishing Aboriginal liaison committees and/or appointing Aboriginal liaison officers; (b) initiate discussions with local government authorities, identified in Appendix VI, to develop projects for the provision of services to town camps; and (c) provide funding to local government authorities where suitable projects are developed; Aboriginal Liaison Committees/Officers: New South Wales. Partly implemented. Some Shire Councils have appointed youth or community workers with State funds. Queensland. Mt Isa, Cairns, Townsville. South Australia. Port Augusta. Western Australia. Halls Creek, Kwinana. Northern Territory Darwin area, Jabiur, Katherine, Alice Springs. (a) Endorsed in principle. A feature of the proposed arrangements for the town campers program is the development of local level consultative procedures. Consultation arrangements will ensure that Aboriginal women are directly consulted and directly involved in decision making. Members of the town camping communities, with assistance from DAA and Aboriginal organisations will be encouraged to identify needs and formulate programs. Discussions with Local Government Authorities will be conducted at this level and local arrangemens will vary accordingly. The establishment of Aboriginal liaison officers will be encouraged. Aboriginal liaison committees have been established and Aboriginal liaison officers appointed in a number of localities. (b) The Minister has written to State Ministers responsible for Aboriginal Affairs seeking their co-operation in the town campers program and that of their colleagues responsible for local government and lands. It would be for the local level consultative groups to discuss with Local Government and other Authorities projects for the provision of services to town camps. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs will assist as appropriate. (c) The Government will consider appropriate funding for projects identified at the local level. Attempts will be made to encourage State and Local Government authorities to share in the provision of services. Where possible funding by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs will be in the form of grants to Aboriginal organisations. Alcohol 2. Each State and the Northern Territory establish a co-ordinating committee on Aboriginal alcohol problems with significant Aboriginal participation; State Co-ordinating Committees on Aboriginal alcohol problems have been established in New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia. The future direction of the State Committees in South Australia and New South Wales is currently under discussion and at present they only meet infrequently. The Western Australian Committee meets monthly. All the above committees have at least a majority Aboriginal representation. Victoria. Alcohol problems are dealt with by the Victorian Aboriginal Health Resources Consultative Group, an all Aboriginal body, which includes a member representing the Aboriginal alcohol projects in that State. Queensland. The recently formed Aboriginal and Islander Health Advisory Council provides the opportunity for expression of Aboriginal views on alcohol matters. Northern Territory. Two of the five members of the Northern Territory Drug and Alcohol Committees are Aboriginal. Endorsed. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs has recognised the significance of alcohol problems in Aboriginal communities, and has been assisted by the findings and recommendations of the Standing Committee's Final Report on ' Alcohol Problems of Aboriginals'. The Department will consult with the National Aboriginal Conference, the National Aboriginal and Islander Health Organisation and with the Australian Foundation on Alcoholism and Drug Dependency which has, in the past, provided advice on Aboriginal projects. State Co-ordinating Committees on Aboriginal alcohol problems have been established in New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia. In Victoria and Queensland, Aboriginal committees on health advise on alcohol matters. In the Northern Territory two of the five members of the Drug and Alcohol Advisory Committee are Aboriginal. Homeless Drifters 3. The Department of Social Security, as the Department responsible for the administration of the Homeless Persons Assistance Act: (a) encourage the appropriate local government authority and relevant Aboriginal organisation to apply for funding for the establishment of night shelters for homeless Aboriginals; and (b) give favourable consideration to such requests for funding when the need for such shelters is established; In 1981-82, the Government allocated $10m to a three year capital program for homeless persons for which $1.2m was earmarked for Aboriginal projects. In 1982-83, the Department of Social Security, under the Homeless Persons Assistance Act, has provided funds to a total of nine Aboriginal organisations in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, and Northern Territory. The amount comprises 20 per cent of the 1982-83 allocation for homeless pesons. (The Department of Social Security is currently funding the construction of ablution blocks and shelters for town campers in Camooweal, Queensland.) The Department of Social Security is encouraging local organisations to apply for funding under the Act. This is encouraged through the employment of Aboriginal Liaison officers. The Homeless Persons Assistance Act provides for Aboriginal organisations and other non-Government organisations as well as Local Government Authorities to seek funding to establish shelters for homeless Aboriginals. The Homeless Persons Assistance Program is currently being reviewed along with a number of crisis accommodation programs. The Standing Committee's comments on the need for special financial provision for Aboriginals will be taken into account in the review. Aboriginal Hostels Limited has been approved as an eligible organisation under the Act. The Transients 4. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs be responsible for, and consult with local Aboriginal communities, relevant local government authorities and Aboriginal Hostels Limited about evaluating the need for alternative style accommodation for transients. Reviews have been undertaken by Aboriginal Hostels Limited in conjunction with DAA Regional and Area Offices in the Northern Territory and elsewhere. Agreed. Identification of the need for alternative accommodation for transients will take place at the local level. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs will assist in encouraging direct discussions between the local level consultative groups and relevant Local Government Authorities, Department of Social Security and Aboriginal Hostels Limited on the needs for alternative style accommodation. 5. Funding be provided to an appropriate agency to establish transient facilities where the need for such facilities has been established. Aboriginal Hostels Limited currently operates or funds 15 hostels for transients (which provide 453 beds) one in Victoria, four in Queensland, five in Western Australia, four in the Northern Territory and one in South Australia. In Western Australia the Department of Aboriginal Affairs funds two organisations which provide accommodation for transients, namely the Anglican Health and Welfare Services Nungar Shelter in Perth and the Bloodwood Tree Association in Port Hedland. Aboriginal Hostels Limited or existing Aboriginal housing co-operatives would seem the appropriate groups to establish transient facilities, Aboriginal Hostels Limited currently operates 15 hostels for transients and would generally be the appropriate authority to establish transient facilities. The Government will give favourable consideration to further financial support for Aboriginal Hostels Limited where needs are demonstrated. Transient facilities would not need to be provided with essential services. 6. The charter of Aboriginal Hostels Limited be reviewed to allow it to provide alternative type accommodation for transients where it is the appropriate funding agency. The 1979 Commonwealth-Aboriginal Hostels Agreement limits Aboriginal Hostels Limited (AHL) to the provision of temporary or semi-permanent accommodation. The Review of the AHL Charter is nearing completion and a Submission will be put to the Minister shortly. AHL has been involved in the provision of alternative- style accommodation at Parkeston (near Kalgoorlie) and Camooweal (near Mt Isa) which is funded under the Homeless Persons Assistance Program. There is a need to clarify AHL's role in provision of alternative type accommodation for transients. The Charter of Aboriginal Hostels Limited provides for the Company to operate within guidelines, agreed upon between the Minister and the Company each year. Amendment to the Agreement or the Charter will ensure that the Company can meet the needs of transient people for accommodation and other necessary facilities. 7. Local Aboriginal organisations be given the responsibility for operating transient accommodation wherever possible. Currently 62 of the 117 hostels funded by Aboriginal Hostels Limited are operated by local Aboriginal organisations under its Third Party Program. Supported. Transient accommodation is provided by Aboriginal Hostels Limited in association with other Aboriginal organisations. Local Aboriginal organisations are given the responsibility for operating transient accommodation wherever possible. Aboriginal Hostels Limited Third Party Agreements combine local management participation and Hostels' expertise, and are to be encouraged. 8. In the construction of such accommodation the design should be appropriate to the needs of the campers. The first such modified hostel built by Aboriginal Hostels Limited was the Syd Ross Hostel in Alice Springs (1976). Since then Aboriginal Hostels Limited has developed a number of new designs in line with the needs and circumstances of the Aboriginal groups concerned, most recently at Parkeston, Western Australia and Camooweal, Queensland. The Company has designed aged persons accommodation and nursing homes, for example, an aged persons home in Alice Springs which accommodates tribal and non-tribal people. Endorsed. In general, designs should seek to meet the requirements of the local communities. Liaison will need to be maintained with local government authorities to ensure that the designs meet the requirements of local building regulations. Negotiation may be required to have modified designs appropriate to the needs of the transients approved by local government authorities. Land Tenure 9. An investigation should be undertaken, co-ordinated by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and involving the Aboriginal Development Commission and relevant State and local government authorities, of communities occupying non- tenured land to determine whether: (a) those that have not already been surveyed as part of the survey of communities lacking adequate town services, wish to remain on the land; (b) the land of permanent communities will continue to be available; and (c) tenure can be obtained for the community. Western Australia. Surveys have been undertaken jointly by the Western Australian Government and the DAA Regional Office. As a result of the joint survey, the Western Australian Government decided that there will be no change to the status of Department of Community Welfare reserves without consultation with the Aboriginal people involved, and without Aboriginal interests and alternative places of residence being taken into account. The Western Australian Government is committed to transferring title to the Reserves to Aboriginal ownership. Its Aboriginal Land Inquiry is considering the most appropriate form of title. Northern Territory. Expression of land needs and community wishes given by various Aboriginal organisations (including Land Councils) have resulted in a list of applications for special purpose leases in towns and excisions on pastoral properties. In recent years 12 excisions from pastoral properties have been obtained and 25 special purpose leases have been obtained in town areas. Endorsed. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has written to State Ministers responsible for Aboriginal Affairs asking for their assistance and that of their colleagues responsible for local government in seeking to obtain tenure for those communities wishing to remain on the land occupied by town camps. Specific details of the communities concerned were provided to each State Minister. If tenure cannot be obtained other arrangements will be made. The National Aboriginal Conference, Aboriginal Development Commission and Aboriginal Hostels Limited will be closely involved in the development of the town campers program. The Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies will also be consulted. The community Profile statistical collection is being updated by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs as part of the comprehensive investigation recommended by the Committee. 10. An investigation, co-ordinated by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and involving the Aboriginal Development Commission and relevant State and local government authorities, should be undertaken of town camping communities occupying tenured land to determine whether: (a) those that have not already been surveyed as part of the survey of communities lacking adequate town services, wish to remain on the land; and Endorsed. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has written to State Ministers responsible for Aboriginal Affairs requesting their assistance in implementing the Report. The Aboriginal Development Commission, the National Aboriginal Conference, Aboriginal Hostels Limited and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies will also be invited to participate in the investigations. A statistical collection is being undertaken by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. (b) the land title meets the four principles of security of tenure; integrity of boundaries; self-management by the residents; and full consultation with communities affected, to allow development according to the community's wishes to take place. 11. Where the land title does not meet the four principles to allow for development according to the community's wishes, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs have discussions with relevant State government authorities to obtain a more suitable form of title. Provision for freehold land tenure already exists in Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales and Northern Territory. In Queensland surveys have been undertaken by the Department's Regional Office. Supported. Successful negotiations have already been conducted over some years with most State and Territory authorities. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has written to State Ministers responsible for Aboriginal Affairs. The Department of Aborignial Affairs will continue to have discussions with State and Territory authorities. 12. An investigation take place to determine the reponsibility for provision of essential services in those camps with land tenure. Powers and responsibility of local government authorities (mandatory/permissive) vary greatly between the States. In some States (Western Australia, Victoria) local government authorities have little responsibility and some would be unwilling to assume responsibility. New South Wales. Local government authorities are unable or unwilling to provide services for those town campers living on freehold estates. Northern Territory. The NT Government has responsibility for provision of essential services. Western Australia. Essential services provided by DAA to the State Energy Commission, Public Works Department (in part) and communities themselves funded by DAA. Generally. Local government authorities have been unable to provide much assistance. Endorsed. The content of this recommendation was endorsed by Government in its response to Recommendation 5 of the report on Aboriginal health on 26 May 1981. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs is aware, in general terms, of local government authorities which have accepted responsibility for the provision of essential services. In the past the Department has negotiated with the authorities as a matter of routine and has had varying degrees of success. Powers and responsibility of local government authorities (mandatory/permissive) vary greatly between the States. In most cases Local Government Authorities will be unable or unwilling to take on additional reponsibilities for the provision of essential services. Every effort will be made to ensure that the provision of essential services for town campers is integrated into existing systems for the provision of these facilities to the wider community. 13. Where local government has the responsibility for the provision of essential services, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs pursue the matter with the appropriate authority and include in its Annual Report details of the achievements and failures by the appropriate agencies in providing these essential services. Agreed in principle. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs has pursued the matter of responsibility for provision for essential services with local government authorities for many years with a limited measure of success. As correctly identified by the Standing Committee many problems remain. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the National Aboriginal Conference, in conjunction with other Aboriginal organisations will jointly prepare an annual summary of the situation in each of the town camps/outstation/pastoral excision communities. This will be made available to State and local government authorities as well as to Parliament. 14. Where local government does not have the responsibility for provision of essential services, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs consider inclusion of the communities in either its Community and Management Service Program or its Public Health Improvement Program. This is normal departmental practice but the primary responsibility of State governments is acknowledged. In New South Wales, Victoria and the Northern Territory, funding of services to town camps is included in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs' Community Management and Services Program or its Aboriginal Public Health Improvement Program. Endorsed. The Australian Government provides funds to the State and Territory governments to assist them to carry out their constitutional and financial responsibilities and to provide services at similar standards to each other. The Government expects that Aboriginals, like other Australian citizens, will have equal access to these services. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs has for some years provided funds through its Community Management and Services Program (including the five-year Aboriginal Public Health Improvement program which was implemented in 1981-82) to many town camp communities where local or State government do not recognise responsibility. The Government has made special provision for town campers, and outstation and excised pastoral property communities through existing programs and a proposed Town Campers Assistance Program. Housing 15. New South Wales and the Northern Territory be urged to establish representative Aboriginal Housing Advisory Boards to their respective State Housing Commission, and Queensland be urged to establish a representative Aboriginal Advisory Board to the Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement. South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania and to a lesser extent New South Wales and Western Australia, have effective advisory arrangements. In South Australia and Victoria the effectiveness is enhanced by the existence of special 'Aboriginal Units' in the State Housing bodies. The Commonwealth Government has been seeking to establish effective committees in the Northern Territory and Queensland and discussions are currently being held. Endorsed. An Aboriginal Advisory Board has been established by the N.S.W. Housing Commission. In Queensland the State Government considers that the Aboriginal Advisory Council, consisting of representatives of reserve communities, is also the appropriate body to advise on housing. The Government has reservations about the effectiveness of this body. The recommendation remains to be implemented in the Northern Territory. The Government will continue to work for the implementation of the recommendation in Queensland and the Northern Territory. 16. The Aboriginal Development Commission: (a) present a program for meeting the housing requirements of Aboriginal town campers, both as to type and location of houses and dwellings, by 1988; and (b) be provided with increased funding to enable it to meet these requirments 1988. In 1982-3, $26.863m was made available for Aboriginal Housing through the Aboriginal Development Commission, and $34.2m was made available to the States and N.T. Government under the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement. (a) The Government has assigned high priority to meeting the housing backlog, including the housing needs of town campers, and has increased the allocation for Aboriginal Welfare Housing under the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement in 1983-84 to $52.0m. The Community Profile statistical collection is presently being revised. It will provide information on current housing and shelter needs, and form a basis for programs. (b) Responsibility for Aboriginal accommodation does not rest with the Aboriginal Development Commission alone. A co-ordinated approach is required involving implementing agencies and those with policy responsibilities or interests. Funding arrangements for Aboriginal Housing will be re-appraised in 1983-84 in the context of re-negotiation of the Commonwealth-State Housing. 17. Aboriginal town campers be involved to the fullest possible extent in the provision of housing for their communities. Aboriginal communities have been consulted prior to provision of housing. The requirement for detailed consultation with Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal involvement in the decision-making process at all levels is strongly endorsed. The involvement of Aboriginal communities in the provision of accommodation for their communities will be further encouraged. The need is recognised for a special concentration on increasing Aboriginal employment in the provision of accommodation and other services. 18. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs investigate expanding the Aboriginal Family Resettlement Program within New South Wales and extending the program to the other States and the Northern Territory. New South Wales Resettlement activities are taking place in Wagga Wagga, Orange, Bathurst and Cobar, and the Maitland/ Hunter Valley area. Supported. Investigations will be conducted outside New South Wales to establish whether Aboriginals see resettlement as a priority. A review of the program in New South Wales is being conducted. Following the completion of the review, discussions will be held with the N.S.W. government regarding continuation of the program and possible financial arrangements. 19. Local government authorities be consulted about all proposed housing developments both in the town camps and within the town. Planning and other building regulations usually require consultation with local government authorities. Consultation in some cases has sometimes given rise to conflict with the local government authorities which prefer to have Aboriginals housed in the town proper. Agreed. Local government authorities will continue to be consulted about all proposed housing developments both in the town camps and within the town. Implementation of Recommendation I will assist consultation. New South Wales. Already implemented, but Shire Councils tend to oppose the redevelopment of Aboriginal estates on the edge of towns. Queensland. The Department has kept local government authorities informed about housing developments. Generally local government authorities have not reacted positively to Aboriginal housing developments. Northern Territory. The Alice Springs Town Council has appointed an Aboriginal Liaison Consultative Council on Aboriginal Affairs and consultation about housing with Aboriginal communities occurs through the Tangentyere Council, an Aboriginal body representing town camper communities. Local Government Initiatives 20. The procedure of specifying Aboriginal labour and materials in Commonwealth contracts continue where appropriate. Victoria and Western Australia Commonwealth contracts require Aboriginal labour. Aboriginal Hostels Limited has been successful in negotiating with contractors the employment of Aborignal labour. The procedure of specifying Aboriginal labour and materials in Commonwealth contracts, where appropriate, will continue. 21. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations survey the training needs of Aboriginal town campers and develop appropriate training courses under its Special Manpower Training Scheme. In conjunction with Aboriginal organisations and the members of the communities the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations will assign a high priority to the provision of appropriate training for the future employment of Aboriginal town campers under its training for Aboriginal program. 22. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations develop a program to encourage local government authorities to employ Aboriginals and to make local government aware of existing programs. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations was allocated $25.76m this financial year for employment and training programs which will assist over 4,700 Aboriginals. $16.524m has been allocated towards assisting 1,700 Aboriginals to take up training in public sector departments, authorities and organisations-$3. 156m towards formal training assistance for some 900 Aboriginal trainees-$4.68m for employer subsidies in the private sector for on-the-job training assistance for some 2,000 Aboriginals-$1.2m for 60 special courses to assist Aboriginals in areas where suitable training is not available. $.2m towards other assistance such as clothing allowance, fares, etc. to assist Aboriginals to take up or continue training or employment. The National Aboriginal Employment Development Committee has also initiated programs to encourage the employment of Aboriginals in both the public and private sectors. Particular initiatives have been directed towards the tourist industry and the public sector and new initiatives have been planned in the mining industry, remote communities and in the transport, banking, insurance and retail industries. The DAA has in past years provided funds to local government authorities for Special Works Projects which give employment opportunities to Aboriginals. The requirement that preference will be given to authorities that are willing to provide opportunities for permanent employment has led to the creation of a substantial number of new jobs for Aboriginals. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs currently provides $3.321m for Special Works Projects to local governments, private employers and Aboriginal organisations for employment of Aboriginals. Overall this financial year, the DAA has made available $11.2m to State Governments and Aboriginal organisations for employment projects such as Community Development Employment Projects and Special Works Projects. Agreed. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations will give special attention to increasing employment for the members of town camper communities. This will include encouragement of National, State and Local Government Authorities to employ Aboriginals as a specifically disadvantaged group. Particular employment generation measures developed by the Government will make special provision for Aboriginals, including the members of town camper communities. Health 23. Discussions continue with all States and the Northern Territory to put in place the Government's policy of a marked increase in the degree of Aboriginal involvement in all stages of the provision of health care services by the end of 1983. Discussions took place during the term of the previous Government. Developments included: - new arrangements for Aboriginal controlled health care in Victoria; - Task Force in New South Wales examined the question of Aboriginal controlled health care and recommended inter alia the transfer of approximately $2 million in Commonwealth funds from the N.S.W. Department of Health to Aboriginal controlled health services and an increase in the number of community controlled health services. The report which was released on 13 September 1983 will be circulated for public comment for 2 months. - Aboriginal Health Organisation in South Australia to administer programs and provide Aboriginal advice to the State; - Queensland Aboriginal and Islander Health Advisory Council; - review of Aboriginal Health Worker training courses in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, Northern Territory; - appointment of Aboriginals to hospital boards in New South Wales and South Australia. In 1982 there were three Aboriginal medical students, 286 Aboriginals trained as nurses, and 5 Aboriginal professional medical workers. During 1982-83, the Department funded 30 Aboriginal Health and Medical Services. The Government is committed to the policy of increasing Aboriginal involvement in all stages in the provision of health care for the Aboriginal community. The Government is particularly concerned to develop and expand the role of Aboriginal Medical Services (AMS). Since coming to power arrangements have been made to commence and fund three new AMS's, namely: Kalgoorlie, Kintore and Nganampa, which are all located in remote communities thus showing the Government's endeavour to come to grips with problems in these areas. Funding of increased training opportunities for Aboriginal health workers, nurses and alcohol workers was approved in 1983 and discussions with tertiary institutions about expanded Aboriginal admissions to medical schools are continuing. The new arrangements for Aboriginal health in Victoria, recommendations of the Task Force Inquiry in New South Wales, and Aboriginal administrative advisory bodies elsewhere is encouraging. The Government receives through the NAC advice from NAIHO on series problem areas of Aboriginal health. 24. In these discussions, special consideration be given to the plight of town campers and to the benefits of having increased Aboriginal involvement in the delivery of health services to town campers in overcoming the health problems of the town campers. Endorsed. These issues will continue to be kept in mind when programs are being drawn up. The Community Management and Services Program and APHIP place special emphasis on town campers. Law and Order Aboriginal Police 25. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs take steps to encourage: (a) the recruitment of more Aboriginal police and police aides; and (b) the formation of Aboriginal-police liaison committees at both State and local level and particularly in centres with town camping communities. (a) New South Wales. Recruitment of Aboriginals into the Police Force is being promoted by the Aboriginal/Police Liaison Unit. Queensland. 'Aboriginal Police' operate on reserves with similar powers as inspectors under local government legislation. South Australia. Aboriginal wardens are employed by traditional Aboriginal communities and liaise with police patrols. The normal channels are available to Aboriginals wishing to join the Police Force itself. Supported. This recommendation was adopted as Government policy in 1977 and subsequently re-affirmed in the Government's response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs' Report on Aboriginal Legal Aid. Useful improvements can be reported for all States and Territories, and efforts will be continued. Western Australia. 15 Aboriginals are employed in the regular Police Force and there are 35 Aboriginals employed as police aides. Tasmania. an Aboriginal police cadet was expected to graduate in 1982. Northern Territory. There is one Aboriginal police cadet; and one Aboriginal constable; 20 Aboriginal police aides involved in coastal surveillance; one police Liaison Officer, and 42 police trackers. (b) New South Wales. An Aboriginal liaison unit was established in August 1981. A Police/Aboriginal Liaison Committee is established in Redfern, and committees for Community Relations are established in some centres. Ad hoc Police/ Aboriginal meetings are held in other centres. Victoria. There is informal liaison between the Police and the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service. Queensland. The Deputy Commissioner of Police chairs an Aboriginal Liaison Committee. Satisfactory informal links between local police and Aboriginal Legal Services have been developed in several areas. South Australia. The Aboriginal-Police Liaison Committee has been operating for a number of years. Western Australia. A special committee on Aboriginal/Police relations meets monthly and visits communities. Northern Territory. A Community Affairs Unit has been established in the Police Force and there is informal liaison between the Police, the Department and Aboriginal organisations. 26. The Australian Law Reform Commission fully investigate the operation of community justice systems in town camping communities. New South Wales. There are neighbourhood justice centres at several locations in Sydney. These might be extended to town camping areas. Western Australia. The State Government passed the Aboriginal Communities Act 1979 to empower Aboriginal communities to make by-laws for the maintenance of law and order in their communities. No study has yet been undertaken into the effects of the Act. Endorsed. The Australian Law Reform Commission's current reference on Aboriginal customary law will examine the situation of town camping communities. Northern Territory. Town campers find it difficult to effectively apply the elements of customary law for the maintenance of social harmony and good order. Transport 27. The aboriginal Development Commission investigate opportunities for aboriginal owned taxi operations. New South Wales. The Government subsidises many bus networks and could be asked to provide services to town camps. Victoria. Lake Tyers and Framlingham own and operate mini-bus services. General Taxi regulations could cause difficulties. Endorsed. The investigation by the Aboriginal Development Commission will include an examination of existing bus services and extension of existing transport services, or mini-bus services and the need for new services. The impact of taxi licensing regulations may also need to be examined. DEIR will assist with any training that may be needed. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs will investigate the extension of public transport services to town camps. 28. Where such investigations are favourable, the Aboriginal Development Commission take appropriate measures. The Recommendation is supported. Access to Government Services 29. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs investigate the feasibility of establishing the Community Development Employment Projects program under an Act of Parliament. There are 18 communities participating in the scheme: four in South Australia; three in Queensland; seven in Western Australia and four in the Northern Territory. A further 35 isolated Aboriginal communities have indicated an interest in participating in the scheme. A proposal for the expansion of CDEP is currently before the Government. It is not believed that an Act of Parliament will be needed to meet the intention of this recommendation. Conditions in Home Communities 30. The Aboriginal Development Commission: (a) expand its activities in the establishment of business enterprises such as stores and service stations to provide, on location, services to remote Aboriginal communities; (b) be provided with adequate funding to allow for these activities; and (c) include details in its Annual Report of employment of Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal staff at both the construction and trading stages of the enterprises. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs has funded a consultant to report on the operation of stores in remote Aboriginal communities. The Aboriginal Development Commission has indicated that it supports this recommendation and has provided funds for many social or commercial activities, including community stores, service stations and craft workshops. However, it is greatly concerned that it has to refuse many worthwhile enterprise applications because of lack of funds. Any expansion will depend on the availability of funds and on an assessment of comparative need and a review of funds allocations between functions of the ADC. The Government notes that funds totalling $51.4m and $57.3m have been made available to the Aboriginal Development Commission in 1982-83 and 1983-84 respectively. It is open to the Commission to determine its priorities in allocating these funds to particular activities. The Town Campers Assistance Program will provide an additional source of funds for such enterprises. Outstations 31. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs review the level of support given to outstations with a view to increasing the level of support to more positively reflect the benefits from such developments. Not applicable in New South Wales and Victoria. Queensland. The outstation movement is confined to a small part of the State. In January 1983 there were eight outstations identified, three of which were unoccupied. Western Australia. Support to outstations depends on competing priorities. In January 1983 there were 18 outstations identified, three of which were unoccupied. Northern Territory. At present the Northern Territory Government has the responsibility for funding essential services; the Department of Aboriginal Affairs funds provide support for such things as resource centres, radios and building materials. In January 1983 there were 277 outstations, 45 of which were unoccupied. Agreed. The Government has provided basic support to outstations for some time and envisages further support to any new homeland centres/outstations. Provision of services to all citizens, including Aboriginals living on homeland centres/ outstations, is primarily a State or Territory responsibility. Recommendation adopted: Portfolio Working Party including NAC are reformulating Government policy and establishing coherent policy guidelines with the States. South Australia. In January 1983 there were 14 outstations in the State. Outstation development was retarded by previous Government policy that: (1) required an outstation to be settled for two years before it attracted Government funding; (2) confusion arising from uncertainty between State and Commonwealth Governments as to whether outstations for purpose of funding was Commonwealth or State responsibility. Excisions from pastoral properties 32. Procedures to allow former residents of pastoral properties now living in town camps to apply to have areas excised from those pastoral properties be developed. Northern Territory. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has written to the owners of 39 pastoral properties urging them to negotiate for excisions sought on their leases, a number of which involve town camp groups. The response so far has been encouraging and negotiations are underway in many cases. Endorsed. Since the 1971 Gibb Report only 11 pastoral lease excisions have been achieved in the Northern Territory, 3 in Western Australia, and 2 in South Australia. From the Australian Government's point of view this is quite unsatisfactory and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has made public the Government's commitment to achieving adequate excisions in all relevant cases. Pressure for further excisions is evident in the Northern Territory and in Western Australia. A further 7 pastoralists not written to are also negotiating. Other less formulated excision requests will be followed up by DAA Northern Territory Division. At the Minister's request the former Aboriginal Land Commissioner, Mr Justice Toohey is examining the question of procedures for excisions and appropriate form of title. His report and recommendations are expected by late November 1983 . The Minister has asked the former NT Aboriginal Land Commissioner, Mr Justice Toohey to examine the question of procedures for excisions and appropriate form of title. Mr Justice Toohey's report and recommendations will provide a basis upon which Australian Government policy will be determined. Meanwhile the Minister has written to 39 NT pastoralists urging excisions, negotiations and underlining the Government's commitment to pursue an appropriate result. The response so far by pastoralists has been encouraging. In the meantime the NT Government has been asked to defer legislation on excisions. Western Australia. Since 1974 when the WA Government acted to provide an excision at Looma, only a further 2 excisions have been granted. The present Government is moving to streamline excision procedures and to resolve quickly a number of long-standing applications. 15 definite excision requests are known, 4 of which are from groups not resident on the properties concerned. The Minister has discussed Western Australian excisions with the WA Minister and is assured that the WA Government is moving to streamline existing excision procedures to meet requests in that State and to achieve an early result in a number of outstanding applications. South Australia. Two excisions have been approved. There appears to be no immediate pressure for further excisions. Queensland. There are no known requests for excisions. Due to historical lack of protection for Aboriginal residence and entry to pastoral leases in Queensland, attachments appear to have been eroded over time. Community Attitudes 33. That the Department of Aboriginal Affairs: (a) actively pursue its proposal for a public awareness campaign to improve understanding of Aboriginal people and society in the wider community; and (b) make a school-based education a particular focus of the campaign. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs conducts an Information Program directed at keeping Aboriginals and the wider community informed of current initiatives, policies and events in Aboriginal Affairs. Under this Program the Department has increased the flow of information about Aboriginals by producing a comprehensive information kit which has enabled targetting of information material to specific audiences at national and local levels. Much of this information is distributed to schools in support of school projects in relation to Aboriginals. The Department commissioned a study of attitudes towards Aboriginals which has led to the development of proposals for a Public Awareness Program aimed at improving race relations specifically in rural areas. In the 1983-84 Budget, the Department has been allocated an amount of $350,000 for public awareness activities and projects. (a) Agreed. Following completion of a study of attitudes towards Aboriginals, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has increased the flow of information about Aboriginals through its Information Program and has developed a major proposal for a Public Awareness Program aimed at changing attitudes at the community level. The Department will consult with Aboriginals and relevant authorities on all aspects of the Public Awareness Program. Proposals being developed for the Public Awareness Program include support for: information on awareness projects initiated by Aboriginals; projects highlighting Government initiatives; encouraging the interest of the wider community in Aboriginal Arts; a television series for Aboriginals, community forums; community awareness campaigns and a school project kit. As in other information projects undertaken by the Department where expert advice is required, the Department will seek the advice of the Commonwealth Department of Education and the National Aboriginal Education Committee on the content and use of material considered of value to schools. (b) Endorsed. Resource material such as the film series and project kit would support and enhance education about Aboriginals in schools. While the Public Awareness Program is not specifically oriented towards school-based education, schools would be encouraged to take advantage of the Program by participating in community forums including seminars and discussions led by Aboriginal people and visits to Aboriginal communities. Instead of these activities being exclusively for schools, the Department believes that they should be available to the entire community. RECOMMENDATIONS IN DISSENTING REPORTS Dissent by Messrs Cameron, Groom, Tambling and Tuckey Recommendations Present situation Proposed response (a) (i) The Commonwealth Departments of Aboriginal Affairs and Health review the level of support given to State/Northern Territory Governments and Aboriginal medical services with a view to ensuring the provision of sufficient funding and policy co-ordination of special health programs for disadvantaged Aboriginals. (ii) The review should carefully consider the advantages of introducing fee-for -service charges in Aboriginal medical services in lieu of direct grant funding Policy discussions were held with most States during 1982. (i) The Government is reviewing arrangements for the assessment of programs and determination of priorities in the broad context of the relationship between the Government and the National Aboriginal Conference. (ii) A review of arrangements for funding of programs, including the funding of Aboriginal Medical Services is under consideration by a working party comprised of representatives of the N.A.C, and the Departments of Health and Aboriginal Affairs. This consideration is at an early stage. Definite approaches to review have not been determined pending resolution of the matters referred to in (i) above. (b) The Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs and Health, in association with State/ Northern Territory Ministers for Health, continue to make provision for involvement of Aboriginals in the delivery of health care. Cf. Recommendation 23 (b) The Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs and Health, in association with State/ Northern Territory Ministers for Health, will continue to make provision for involvement of Aboriginals in the delivery of health care. (c) Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory Governments and educational institutions be urged to provide training and scholarships for Aboriginals in medical, and para-medical fields of study. In co-operation with the Department of Education, approaches have been made to professional health groups, Aboriginal Medical Services, tertiary institutions and State/NT health authorities about increasing opportunities in education and training in Aboriginal health. Developments include review of health worker training courses in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, Northern Territory and special arrangements for Aboriginal nursing trainees in South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. In addition the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations provides special training programs for Aboriginals (c) Current consultations with State/ Northern Territory authorities, tertiary institutions and professional groups are complemented by a review of scholarship scheme benefits. Normal Aboriginal Study Grants (Abstudy) benefits are available to those undertaking a wide range of courses including those related to the Health field. Assistance for full-time courses is not provided to those in receipt of income. The Abstudy scheme is under review by consultants, and a report is expected to be available in March 1984. Mr PORTER(Barker) —by leave-I believe the Government responses to the recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs ought to be incorporated in Hansard. I think by doing so a courtesy would be paid to the members of this House who have done a great deal of work in relation to this specific investigation. I thank the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs for providing me with a copy of his statement in advance of its being presented to the Parliament. I think that this arrangement assists the working of the Parliament. The report entitled ' Strategies to Help Overcome the Problems of Aboriginal Town Camps' was presented to the Parliament in October 1982. So some 16 months has elapsed between the tabling of the report and the presentation of this Government's response. This long delay is of concern to the Opposition. Whilst an election was held last March it has still taken a year for the Government to respond. Many members of parliament have put a great deal of work into this report and into similar reports. I think it is the duty of the Government to respond to the Parliament faster than it has done on this occasion. The report arose out of a concern held by the previous Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Peter Baume, about the deplorable conditions in many fringe dweller camps. The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs was asked to review the situation and this report was the result. The Opposition joins with the Minister in recording its appreciation for the detailed work done by all members of the Committee, especially the Chairman, Mr Philip Ruddock, the Liberal member for Dundas. The Minister in his statement quoted parts of the report which highlight the grave situation faced by fringe dwellers and town campers around Australia. I only add to that by saying that just as when in government we were active in developing and pursuing policies to overcome these problems, so in opposition we continue to regard the resolution of these problems as needing to be given a very high priority. I come to the report itself. The Standing Committee undertook considerable research into the problems of Aboriginal town campers or fringe dwellers and their particular socio-economic problems. It presented a series of wide ranging recommendations on how some of the problems identified by the Committee could be overcome. In particular, it made recommendations concerning the direction of funding for town campers, administrative improvements to facilitate the provision of services and the implementation of programs to assist town campers and more specific recommendations with respect to how the health, accommodation and employment problems of fringe dwellers could be overcome. This is a very comprehensive report covering a broad area of activity and, as the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), has just said to me, this is one of the best reports into a very difficult problem. As I well know, the honourable member has a number of these camps in his electorate and he can see the benefit of the report and the implementation of its recommendations. In general terms the recommendations of the Standing Committee fall into three categories. Firstly, there are the recommendations which are aimed at streamlining the administration and implementation of programs to assist town campers. These recommendations relate to liaison between departments, local government and State governments in the delivery of services to fringe dwellers. They are designed to improve existing programs and make them more effective and to involve the relevant authorities where their responsibilities cut across the boundaries of the responsibilities of other bodies. The second category of recommendations involves the need to consult and include Aboriginal input in the planning and delivery of programs. This is in accordance with the need for consultation and a recognition that unless the Aboriginal people are closely involved there is a good chance that the programs ultimately will fail. The third main category of recommendations refers to funding. It includes recommendations for more money for night shelters, transient facilities, houses and dwellings for town campers, the Aboriginal Development Corporation and a public awareness program. In addition-and this could perhaps be a fourth category but it is an isolated recommendation-there is a recommendation relating to land tenure. The Committee correctly recommended that the problems of land tenure must be overcome before other recommendations such as those relating to the provisions of water and sewerage services can be implemented. The Government has agreed to nearly all of the Committee's recommendations. I want to look in detail at some of the responses by the Government but first I want to consider the statement by the Minister. The Minister outlined the setting up of a town campers assistance program. I welcome the involvement of all the government agencies and the Aboriginal organisations and communities in that program. It is essential that a co-operative approach be adopted. The Minister then went into some detail about excisions. The Committee recommended that procedures be developed for excisions to be granted to Aboriginal communities on pastoral leases. The Northern Territory Government was moving in this direction last year. It had prepared legislation to do just that. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs then asked the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Paul Everingham, not to proceed with that legislation. He asked the Northern Territory Government to delay any action in relation to the implementation of that legislation until the Toohey report was handed down. It has been handed down and it recommended that the Northern Territory Government is the appropriate authority to implement such a policy for excisions. The Minister, after delaying the implementation of the Northern Territory legislation for about 12 months, is now saying that he had discussions with Mr Everingham concerning 'early implementation of these proposals'. The Minister's interference in this matter has led to a 12 months delay and no net benefit to the Aboriginal community. I turn now to funding. The Minister has said continually-generally, in relation to this report and in response to some of the recom- mendations-that this Government has given a high priority to funding to overcome the problems facing Aboriginal communities. He said that funds had been greatly increased. The truth is that under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, for example, whilst there has been an increase in the total allocation of funds, the share going to meet the needs of the Aboriginal community is exactly the same as the amount provided by the previous Government. So the argument that this Government is giving a higher priority to funding housing for Aboriginal communities has a distinctly hollow ring about it. I turn now to some of the specific recommendations. Recommendation 12 states: An investigation take place to determine the responsibility for provision of essential services in those camps with land tenure. It is clear that that recommendation addresses the fact that buildings alone will not solve the problems facing the Aboriginal communities. The last sentence of the Minister's response to this recommendation states: Every effort will be made to ensure that the provision of essential services for town campers is integrated into existing systems for the provision of these facilities to the wider community. That is a very imprecise and unclear statement of what this Government intends. It is an example of how the Australian Labor Party rhetoric about providing funds to overcome the dismal housing situation has not been matched by its action. The Opposition believes that the Government needs to give this matter more attention. It is a high priority issue and the response given by the Government is unsatisfactory. Recommendation 16 states: The Aboriginal Development Commission: (a) present a program for meeting the housing requirements of Aboriginal town campers, both as to type and location of houses and dwellings, by 1988; and (b) be provided with increased funding to enable it to meet these requirements. In relation to this issue, the ADC, in its report tabled by the Minister this week, states: In late 1982 a Commission survey revealed about 8,000 Aboriginal families were either on its waiting list for home loans or were living in appalling circumstances as town campers, not, at that time, having been registered with appropriate authorities for housing assistance. At the current rate of housing expenditure, which provides for about 500 additional homes a year this backlog will not be cleared for 16 years. The recommendation was that the ADC present a program for meeting the housing requirements by 1988. The ADC-- Mr Ruddock —The bicentennial year. Mr PORTER —It is our bicentennial year, as the honourable member suggests. Mr Ruddock —The Minister himself was very interested in this proposition. Mr PORTER —I think that is right. The recommendation was that this program be implemented and completed by 1988. The ADC says that it has no hope of completing if for at least 16 years. What is the Government's response to the recommendation? The response was that the Government has assigned high priority to meeting the housing backlog, including the housing needs of town campers, and has increased the allocation for Aboriginal welfare under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement in 1983-84 to $52m. I have already addressed that aspect. That is exactly the same proportion of the total funds being allocated under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement as was allocated under the previous Government. The meaning of high priority is very doubtful. The Government's response continues: The Community Profile statistical collection is presently being revised. It will provide information on current housing and shelter needs, and form a basis for programs. As I understand it, the ADC has done such a profile. I ask the Minister: Is this revision undertaken by the ADC or is it being undertaken by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs? Mr Holding —It has been completed. Mr PORTER —It was completed by whom? Mr Holding —By the ADC. Mr PORTER —I thank the Minister for that information. I was concerned that if it was to be undertaken by the DAA there would be unnecessary duplication. Going on with the Government's response, in paragraph (b) it states: Responsibility for Aboriginal accommodation does not rest with the Aboriginal Development Commission alone. A co-ordinated approach is required involving implementing agencies and those with policy responsibilities or interests. Funding arrangements for Aboriginal Housing will be re-appraised in 1983-84 in the context of re-negotiation of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. That, to me, is a classic bit of bureaucratic jargon which makes absolutely no commitment. What this Parliament needs to know in relation to the recommendation from the Committee which has been outstanding for some 16 months is what the Government is going to do. That bureaucratic jargon is no answer. I turn to recommendation 18, which says: The Department of Aboriginal Affairs investigate expanding the Aboriginal Family Resettlement Program within New South Wales and extending the program to other States and the Northern Territory. I am concerned that, whilst the Committee supported the Aboriginal family resettlement program, the response from the Government leaves the whole question up in the air. The response says: Investigations will be conducted outside New South Wales to establish whether Aboriginals see resettlement as a priority. A review of the program in New South Wales is being conducted. Following the completion of the review, discussions will be held with the New South Wales government regarding continuation of the program and possible funding arrangements. That response from the Government throws doubt on the continuation of the program in New South Wales. The Aboriginal family resettlement program gives assistance to Aboriginal people if they choose to move to areas where there are better prospects for jobs and better accommodation. The Minister's response suggests that there will be another review. What we need is a commitment from the Minister that the purpose of the review is to find a way of implementing the Committee's recommendations rather than an exercise in finding a way to knock the recommendations on the head. Mr Ruddock —This says it is supported. Mr PORTER —That is right. As the honourable member for Dundas says, the Government's response says the recommendation is supported but the detail of the response certainly leaves it open to question. We ask the Minister to say what the Government's intention is in relation to that recommendation. Another matter raised with me-I ask the Minister to consider it-is the need in the housing and building programs for town camp areas to provide to Aborigines as many as possible of the jobs that will be created under this program, especially those Aborigines from the town camps. There are good Aboriginal housing organisations. I have spent some time with the organisation in Alice Springs, which I believe is doing a very good job under the Tangentyere Council, and I hope that the Government can find a way to ensure that Aborigines are employed in building houses for their own use, whatever types of houses they are. The Minister quite rightly says they probably will not be typical suburban brick houses, but something to meet their own needs. I welcome the Minister's suggestion. In summary, the Opposition welcomes this long awaited response to the Standing Committee's report. Action must be taken in this area and, whilst I have expressed some reservations about some of the responses to the Committee's recommendations, we welcome the fact that at least some action will be taken by the Government. Finally, I want to refer to three paragraphs of the Minister's statement. On page 5 of his statement, in regard to the implementation of the town campers assistance program and the organisations involved, he said: These organisations and individuals will be involved in the town campers assistance program to varying degrees but the contribution of all to the program will be guided by the principles of consultation, Aboriginal self-determination and- note this- the need to develop flexible responses to the individual needs of each community rather than meeting any one particular need on a national basis. To that the Opposition says 'Amen'. That is exactly the argument I have used continually in relation to the Minister's proposal for uniform land rights legislation. The Minister is adopting here an approach of meeting the housing needs of individual communities. But in relation to uniform land rights, he is adopting the absolute opposite approach. The Minister is totally inconsistent in his approach to his portfolio. He wishes to meet the individual needs of Aboriginal communities in the area of housing but not in the area of land rights , where he has rushed headlong into imposing legislation on the States, which are also in the process of considering what legislation ought to be implemented in the land rights area. In other words, they are doing for land rights exactly what he is doing for housing, and they are saying to him: 'Why don't you let us do the same for land rights'. He is saying: 'No, I am going to impose ALP principles on land rights on all the States'. We see another contradiction on page 8 of the Minister's statement. The second paragraph on that page states: I will do everything in my power, through legislation and special arrangements, to gain land tenure for those campers who currently lack it. He says 'to gain land tenure'. That is an interesting approach because on 8 December the Minister introduced into this House a motion which states, in part: the recognition by this Parliament of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's rights to land, in accordance with the following five basic principles: The first basic principle is: Aboriginal land to be held under inalienable freehold title. So he is saying in that motion that Aboriginal land must be held under inalienable freehold title. In relation to housing for fringe dwellers, he is saying in this statement that secure tenure ought to be granted. Why has he suddenly backed down? To me, this is the approach we have been looking for. It is certainly an approach that the Opposition has been proposing for a long time. There is no point, in our view, in getting hung up over the term 'inalienable freehold title'. What is needed is secure tenure. Therefore, whilst we welcome the Minister's statement, it seems to be directly contradictory to the terms of his motion. The motion will be debated later this session, so perhaps we will get some answers then. That is one matter I raised with the Minister when the motion was introduced. I have yet to get an answer and now he is adopting the proposal I put when that motion was moved. Perhaps he will agree to some amendments I have to the motion. Finally, the last paragraph on page 9 of the statement reads: In Western Australia, the only other State for which excisions are a significant issue, administrative action has been taken by the State Government to resolve outstanding excision requests. For the longer term, the Seaman inquiry into land rights in Western Australia is expected to recommend the most appropriate method for achieving excisions. Again I ask the Minister why he leaves excisions to the Western Australia Government and yet continues to press on with his idea of imposing uniform land rights legislation on all the States. Western Australia is in the process through the Seaman inquiry. Certainly Seaman will make recommendations to the Western Australian Government regarding land rights legislation applicable to that State. So again we have this contradiction in relation to excisions. He has now accepted that the Northern Territory and Western Australian governments are the most appropriate bodies to recommend the appropriate method for achieving excisions. Yet when land rights legislation is being implemented in almost every State-certainly in every mainland State-the Minister says: 'No, the States are not to have a say in that. I intend to implement overriding legislation'. I suggest to the Minister that he reconsider his approach in relation to his uniform land rights legislation. I welcome the approach that he has adopted in this statement. Motion (by Mr Ruddock) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —I move: That the debate be now adjourned. I think that the Opposition shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), is aware that by arrangement we will bring this matter back on as part of a composite debate on the resolution. So there will be a fairly wide ranging debate on the issues covered in the report and the resolution. Mr PORTER(Barker) —I want to reserve my right to speak in the debate, but I express the concern of the Opposition that this is a very important area-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Does the honourable member seek the indulgence of the Chair to make a statement? Mr PORTER —Yes. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr PORTER —There is concern among members of the Opposition that this is a very important report and areas for which they have responsibility will be affected by it. They would like to join in the debate. It seems to me that it is a different matter from the resolution which discusses a number of fundamental principles in relation to land rights. This report deals with specific problems related to housing. Honourable members would have an opportunity to speak only once in the debate with a time limit and if they had to address both issues I think it would unduly limit them. I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) to take up with his colleagues the possibility of having a separate debate on the two issues, especially if he intends to tie in the Toohey report as well. I believe there is too much to be considered in one debate. Many honourable members would like to discuss the separate issues involved in each matter. Perhaps the Minister will take it up with the Leader of the House (Mr Young). We would appreciate an opportunity to speak separately on the different matters. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I also seek your indulgence to make a short statement. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister may continue. Mr HOLDING —If the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) could provide me with a list of those honourable members who are interested in speaking I am perfectly happy to suggest that the matter be taken separately and apart from other matters and I will bring it on for debate earlier. Debate adjourned. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The alarm and confusion among Australia's elderly created by the Government's decision to yet again review the direction of its proposed assets test on pensions. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.44) —I raise as a matter of public importance on behalf of the Opposition the continued widespread concern and, indeed, distress amongst the aged and people nearing retirement over the threatened assets test of pensioners. This time last year Australians were told that a Labor government would bring new levels of consultation to the decision making processes. This was to be a government of consensus. That was the rhetoric. But what is the reality? Why is it that after less than a year in office we have the elderly organising to campaign, and justifiably so, against the Government during its cynical, premature election exercise? Why is it that we have the almost daily spectacle of the Minister responsible shifting ground on the shape and form of Labor's assets test? Why are the media now talking about 'grey power' in Australia? And why did we have last week's ludicrous spectacle of a Government in total disarray on the assets issue? The answers to these questions are bound up within the sorry saga of the clumsy and heavy-handed attempts by the Government to reintroduce the assets test. The previous coalition Government abolished the assets test in 1976. We abolished the assets test for very sound reasons. They were: First, an assets test, of its own nature, is extremely complicated to administer; secondly, it is extremely costly to administer; thirdly, an assets test is intrusive into people's private lives-that is why the Hawke Goverment had to recruit an army of 1,400 enforcers. Fourthly, and above all else, an assets test is filled with inequities. These factors were as clear as crystal to the coalition then as they should have been to Labor last August. There was reason to believe that Labor politicians understood the inequities of an assets test. The former Leader of the Opposition, the present Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden), was unequivocal in his opposition to an assets test. He said that it was: . . . another kick in the teeth for the aged and retiring citizens as well as half a million widows, invalids and supporting parents. The argument about millionaires receiving pensions is a cruel and emotive device to cover up the Government's real intentions . . . of ripping the pension off ordinary people with modest savings they have worked for all their lives. Mr Donald Cameron —Who said that? Mr PEACOCK —That was the former Leader of the Opposition. Let me read to honourable members the 1982 Australian Labor Party platform because that agreed with the statement of the former Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden. The 1982 Labor Party platform said: Labor believes people past retirement age should have security of income and services which would allow them to enjoy their lives and leisure. Less than a year before Senator Grimes became the Minister for Social Security he made his position clear. In a written statement, Senator Grimes said that a Labor government would be 'ensuring that pensioners with savings are not penalised by policy changes'. Let me repeat that statement of Senator Grimes, the current Minister for Social Security: He said that Labor would be 'ensuring that pensioners with savings are not penalised by policy changes'. There can be no misunderstanding about what that means. That was Labor's position during the election campaign last year. The elderly were not to be disadvantaged by any changes in policy by the Labor government. Pensioners were justified in believing that there was bipartisan agreement that there would be no assets test . It is important to get the position clear. It is important to understand the position before 5 March 1983 because it contrasts markedly with the duplicity that has followed. The first serious indication that the Hawke Government would not honour its commitments to the elderly came after only a couple of months in office. In its mini-Budget the Government introduced the 30 per cent lump sum superannuation tax as a bolt out of the blue. The way it was introduced-the lack of discussion, the lack of consultation, the confusion, the anger, the confrontation and the backing down were all part of a governmental behaviour pattern that has been repeated time and again. It is a way of doing business which is light years away from the much vaunted consensus. The super slug caused uncertainty and upheaval which will not die down. In August, the Government chose to introduce its assets test using the same tactics. Again, it came out of the blue. There was no prior indication. There was no prior consultation with the representatives of those affected. That became crystal clear in the aftermath. What the Government proposed was shot full of anomalies and inequities. It was manifestly unfair. It showed beyond doubt that the Government was willing to ignore those fundamental reasons which motivated the coalition Government to scrap the assets test in 1976. The same inequities, the same injustices which plagued the previous test did not matter to this Hawke Government. It was those inequities and injustices which generated such vehement opposition . Pensioners, their organisations, social service organisations and the Opposition united in condemnation. It was not as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) charged in a fit of face-saving hindsight, after having votes ripped off him at the by-elections last Saturday week when he said that scaremongering by the Opposition parties had brought about his change. From the day that the Government's intentions were made known there was genuine concern about what the assets test would do to Australia's elderly. The extraordinary form which the assets test took when it was first introduced- although it is still there in principle, reiterated by Senator Grimes two days ago, and reiterated by the Prime Minister today-fanned the concern and the uncertainty. It was to be a tax which did not penalise pensioners for some assets-they could lose their pensions for having money in the bank, but they might not lose the pension for having a collection of paintings. They could lose their pensions if they had a holiday home, but they might not lose the pension if they had jewellery or antiques. The fact was that the assets test went against the grain. It crudely threatened the things which mean the most to Australians-their homes, their savings, their security and their independence in retirement. And it still threatens them because bear in mind that it is only the nature of that test which is being re-examined by some ill-defined and as yet unannounced panel. Even some of the Government back benchers began to wake up to the implications of the assets test. They should take their minds back to it. With the pressure mounting, the backsliding began. The twisting and turning of course only added to the confusion. The Government attempted to buy off some of the resistence with its so-called leisure package. But that made matters worse. Mr Cadman —Confusing. Mr PEACOCK —Totally confusing; the honourable member is absolutely right. What was a fair level of leisure allowance? Was it $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000? The debate and the uncertainty, honourable members will recall, rolled on through November, three months after Labor's announcement. Fearing an electoral backlash which would torpedo his leaking ship, the Premier of New South Wales joined in the condemnation. In the process he simply reiterated what the coalition had said since 1976-that this assets test brought in by the Government is unfair in its operation. Mr Howard —So the penciller got something right. Mr PEACOCK —The penciller got something right that time but he has still got an assets test looming over his head and that was confirmed by the Prime Minister today. New South Wales pensioners would pay the penalty of living in a State which has higher property values, we were told. Was it fair that the leisure package would disadvantage pensioners in New South Wales and Queensland? The Government's pathetic reaction to these rebuffs was to replace the carrot with the stick. If they could not buy off resistance they would resort to standover tactics. On 17 March Senator Grimes had rejected as false a news story that Labor's promised increase in pensions would not be paid. But eight months later and feeling the pressure of resistance to the assets test, the Minister threatened just that. Pensioners would not get an increase unless they knuckled under. The Hawke Labor Government under pressure from all sides was now threatening to break yet another promise to the elderly. The net result of that heavy handedness was that the Prime Minister and his Ministry slipped deeper into the quicksand of their own making. And all the time, is it not recalled, the anxiety mounted amongst the elderly and within the ranks of the Government. At year's end Labor was clutching at straws. It argued at that time that it was not the product, but the marketing campaign that was wrong. In time worn fashion the Prime Minister said that the assets test had to be sold better. The Government would do this through a series of national workshops. Another twist in the assets knot. It is significant that at the same time the Government called in the super salesman on the assets test it was launching another marketing campaign. Again, it was pushing a bodgie product, an early election. It was neither the question of fairness nor the continuing concern and uncertainty amongst pensioners which brought about the latest act in the assets test farce. Last week the nation witnessed a Government in disarray over this issue. On 22 February the Prime Minister used the forum of the National Press Club to announce what, at first glance, was a backdown on the assets test. He talked of mistakes and of the possibility that this was not the best assets test. After six months of twisting and turning he had reached the conclusion which the majority of Australians had reached last August. There was to be another look at Labor's assets test. He added a new term to his buck-passing vocabulary. There would be a panel established to look at the assets test. But let us face it, there would be, and there is no scrapping of the assets test. The next day it became clear that the Prime Minister was shooting from the hip. His own Minister , Senator Grimes, had to face the embarrassment of learning of the Prime Minister's pre-emptive strike while watching the news. The Prime Minister's extraordinary performance last week ended up with Labor in a Clayton's backdown on assets testing. It is the backdown you have when you are not really having a backdown. It is a position devoid of credibility. Australia's elderly are now faced with further vacillation and uncertainty over the future of the pension. We are to have a panel of indeterminate composition which will report its findings either at the end of this session of Parliament or to do it, if the Government is a position, after some election depending on whether you believe the Prime Minister or Senator Grimes. Honourable members can reach their own conclusions. In the meantime pensioners live in uncertainty, unable to make major personal decisions and unsure whether or not they will have a pension later this year. The tortured history of this Government's attempts to impose an assets test on pensioners has caused tremendous concern throughout the community-concern about the security of the elderly; concern about a government that talks of consensus but practices bully tactics, and concern about a government which changes course as regularly as people change their clothes. In less than a year in office this Labor Government has run up a record of unparalleled duplicity in its dealings with Australia's retired and elderly. From a 'no assets test' position and promises of better conditions for pensioners while in Opposition the Hawke Government has moved in the opposite direction-the 30 per cent lump sum superannuation slug; the assets test; the means test for over 70s; threats of not meeting its commitments on raising pension levels; failure to rule out federal death duties, and promoting the cause of a capital gains tax. The record speaks for itself. This Government has replaced heart disease as the greatest health threat to Australia's senior citizens. The way out of the assets test quicksand is certainly not through the vacillation of this Government. It is not through setting up another panel of review, in other words, reinventing the wheel. The way out is clear. As the report of the Australian Council of Social Service found after consulting pensioner representatives during January and February: The strong sentiment, virtually unanimous among pensioner groups, was that the Government might better institute a review of the income security system in conjuction with its review of the taxation system. That ought to be done by sending the matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare. I urge the Prime Minister to do just that if he is not going to cancel and scrap the assets test. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(4.0) —We do not need to wheel the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) in here to do over the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). The Leader of the Opposition made great play in his speech of some supposedly disastrous results for the Labor Government in recent by-elections. In fact, as the Leader of the Opposition would know, in the seat of Richmond, as one example, there was a swing to the Government. It was the first swing to a national Labor government in 60 years. That followed the decimation of the Fraser Government at the last general election. Heaven knows what will happen at the next Federal election. We have just heard the pathetic utterances of a Leader of the Opposition who is in his death throes. I will say more about that later. This matter of public importance refers to 'the Government's decision to yet again review the direction of its proposed assets test on pensions'. There is no review of its direction on policy for the aged. The Government's policies are very clear in regard to the aged and the assets test. The Federal Government is committed to the principle that expenditure on pensions should be directed to those who most need it. The Leader of the Opposition agrees with that, as I will point out a little later. We recognise that many elderly people have been worried and alarmed about the assets test. That is why the Government has decided to establish a broadly based panel of community based representatives to advise on how the principle of a needs based pension system can best be implemented. But why have we got to the stage where there is confusion? The confusion has not been caused by the Government. The confusion has been caused by the utterances from one end of Australia to the other of members of the Opposition, in particular the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock. Mr Peacock has run from one end of Australia to the other deliberately creating confusion. He knows that 85 per cent of Australia's pensioners will be in the same position as they are now, or better off, under the assets test. He knows that. He has advocated a similar test in past years but he has deliberately attempted to confuse aged people. So there is confusion and we admit it. That is why the Prime Minister quite rightly moved last week to dispel that confusion. He announced the setting up of a broadly based committee to make sure that we have some equitability in the pensions test and that when it is brought in it will benefit Australian society. Another reason why this confusion and political point scoring is being carried on by the Opposition is apparent when one reads the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald of 21 February. An article by John Short states: Plans to hold up the Government's controversial assets test legislation in the Senate for six more months will be presented to the Opposition's shadow ministry next week. The move would see the scheduled introduction of the assests test pushed back from November to May next year. That is 1985. The article continues: The proposal, by the Opposition spokesman on social security, Senator Messner, is aimed at maximising the political backlash against the assets test in an early federal election. The last part is the most interesting. It states: Liberal Party tacticians believe community opposition to the test could quickly dissipate once it was introduced because it is not as draconian as many people believe. That was on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald only 10 days ago. Those are some of the reasons for the Opposition's political point scoring. It has nothing to do with facts about the equitable nature of the test. It has nothing to do with the fact that some people have half a million dollars tucked away in bank accounts or cheque accounts and are receiving the maximum pension as the result of a system created by the previous Government of which the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, for most of the time was a prominent member of Cabinet. Let us not forget that he was a prominent member of the Fraser Government which introduced that system. A large book put out by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) shows that many people have vast sums of money and assets yet still receive their full penion. I will mention a few examples. In New South Wales one couple has $107,000 in a cheque account yet receives the full pension. Another person in Victoria has $165,000 in various capital growth and friendly society investments. That person is receiving the full pension. Another person in Queensland has $270,000 in a family trust and, of course, is receiving the full pension. Another person in Queensland has $449,000 in a cheque account. Those people obviously have been wrongly advised or they are not telling the truth. Mr Cadman —That is four. Mr CHARLES —I have a whole book of them here. This has happened under the system that the Opposition created. The now Leader of the Opposition, as a prominent member of that Cabinet, was part of those decisions. Let us look at what the Leader of the Opposition thinks about means testing and an assets test. Let us go back to an address by the Hon. Andrew Peacock of 11 September 1981, just over two years ago. At that time the honourable member for Kooyong said this: By socially productive I mean a Budget- he was talking about the Budget which had been released a few weeks prior to this speech- which caters for carefully identified areas of genuine human need and avoids the situation where those who don't need government assistance are given help at the expense of those who do. Five days later, at a National Press Club luncheon, Mr Peacock again said this about how to cut the growing 27 per cent which goes to social welfare in the Budget: The way to cut it is to ensure that it goes to those who are in genuine human need, and not to those who I've described as demonstrably not needing it. Now that means perhaps some form of income or means testing. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said back in 1981, just over two years ago. Further on, at the same luncheon, he said: But with the ageing of the Australian population, the percentage we spend on social welfare now is going to increase and we have to face up to this harsh reality. I am not in a position to implement the changes but if I ever become in a position- I do not think he ever will; in fact I know he will not- to implement change I will certainly be seeking to see that the sort of things I am giving voice to, not only today but over the period of the months ahead, will become a reality. I am not engaging in rhetoric for its own sake. There he was talking about means testing, income testing and other sorts of testing yet here today, and over the last six months, we have heard the exact opposite, purely for political reasons, as the Sydney Morning Herald pointed out only a few days ago. I reiterate what Mr Peacock said. He kept saying it. In the Sydney Morning Herald on 17 September 1981, under the by-line of Mr Paul Kelly, it states: The former Minister for Industrial Relations said that social welfare spending 'has to be cut'. 'The way to cut it is to ensure it goes to those in genuine human need,' he said. 'That means, perhaps, some form of income or means testing, difficult as that may be for some.' That was Mr Peacock. On 3 March 1982, in the Australian Financial Review, under the headline 'Lynch calls for means test', an article starts off by saying this: A senior Cabinet Minister, Sir Phillip Lynch, has argued strongly for the return of means testing for all old age pensions and other social welfare benefits. Further down the article states: The former Cabinet Minister, Mr Andrew Peacock, has spoken publicly about the need to direct welfare to those in need. I am glad that he agrees with the Hawke Government's policies. Addressing the National Press Club in Canberra, the Leader of the Opposition said that social welfare spending had to be cut. He continued: The way to cut it is to ensure that it goes to those who are in genuine human need. He explained that this meant 'some form of income or means testing'. I am glad that he agrees with the Government. He has now changed his tune for the political reasons I have already described. Let us turn to the Liberal Party. A resolution passed at the Liberal Party Federal Council of 1983 reads: That this Council expresses its support for a needs-based social welfare system and therefore believes that welfare benefits should be payable subject to a means test . . . That resolution was passed only last year, yet honourable members opposite have the hide to come into this House and say exactly the opposite and parade from one end of Australia to the other. The credibility of the Opposition and, in particular, that of the Leader of the Opposition, is in total tatters. Judging from the results of the by-elections recently, the Federal Opposition will be even more tattered after the next Federal election. Let us look at what the Fraser Government did and what the Leader of the Opposition, as a member of the Cabinet of that Government, was a party to. During its term of office the maximum rate of pension, with which the needy 80 per cent of pensioners are concerned, declined from around 24.5 per cent to 22 per cent in December 1982. So much for that Government's concern for the neediest members of our community! What about the future? One would have thought that the Liberal Party would by now have unveiled some policies. No policies from the Opposition are coming forward. I can understand that in the case of the Leader of the Opposition, because his intellect does not go that far, but I thought someone may have come up with some sort of policy. But no on has come forward with one. We are debating a very important matter. The Leader of the Opposition has left the chamber; he is not concerned. He has said his bit and gone. Only four members of the Opposition are listening to the debate. That shows what the Opposition thinks of the pensioners in this country. Its rhetoric does not match its performance. Let us consider the previous Government's performance with respect to fringe benefits for pensioners. It failed to increase fringe benefit levels thus disadvantaging many pensioners in our society. It increased the levels of taxation applied to lower income earners, yet high income earners had a reduction in taxation levels. Mr Cadman —I haven't noticed any action on your part with the tax scales. Mr CHARLES —The honourable member's Party has been in government for 31 of the last 34 years. We have been in government for 11 months, so the honourable member need not talk to me about performance. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member for Mitchell will cease interjecting. The honourable member for Isaacs will take no notice of the interjections. Mr CHARLES —I refer to the taxation performance of the former Government of which the honourable member for Mitchell was a part. Taxation is an area which affects all people, including pensioners. The record shows that between 1975-76 and 1981-82 a taxpayer with a dependent spouse and two children, earning a wage of $11,000, had a percentage change in net tax of proportional income of 72.9 per cent. A taxpayer with the same family composition earning $16,000, or average weekly earnings at that time, had an increase of 21.6 per cent. A family earning in excess of $1,000 a week had a decrease of nearly 3 per cent. Those are the policies that the former Government put to the people of Australia. That is why the vast majority of people found themselves in poverty and looked for a change in government. They voted for that change in no uncertain terms 11 months ago. My colleague the honourable member for Canning (Ms Fatin) will elaborate on the policies of this Government and on what we have done and what we intend to do. Let us talk about what we have done with regard to the assets test. The assets test proposal was a very sound one. We have consulted many groups, as can be seen by the changes that have occurred over the last few months. Given the Opposition's stated attitude to deferring and continuing to defer the proposal in this Parliament, the Government is prepared to consult even further. We have decided to utilise the additional time available to us to establish the broadly based panel of community representatives announced by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Security. This will be done and I am sure that there will be an equitable system of pensions and benefits to the advantage of the vast majority of Australian pensioners. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(4.15) —The 1,400 rubber stamps which said 'Government approved' have gone back into the drawers of 1,400 public servants. There has been a stay on their use. The 1,400 public servants who were to use their stamps to mark 'Government approved' on assets held by people throughout Australia have been temporarily withdrawn. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) today made it clear that it is the Government's intention to proceed with an assets test. The stamps are in the drawers ready to be brought out and used to stamp assets and savings when the new assets test eventuates. What will the stamps be used on? What will be stamped 'Government approved'? Will it be the family home, the savings account, the cheque account, the building society account, the jewels, the diamonds and rubies, the boat, or the antiques? Will these things be stamped ' Government approved'? Will they provide that only the quarter acre block of land will be Government approved? Will they want to search under the bed and use the Government's stamp there? Will they stamp part of the family farm 'Government approved'? What is the intention of the Government with regard to the assets test? It is interesting that not one Minister is in the House to support the assets test; there is not one Minister to reveal the Government's intentions to defend its decision to backtrack, or to defend the people's committee set up to look at the matter. There is not one Minister in the chamber supporting the Government's attitude to the assets test. Mr Hunt —The Minister for Finance is here. He is watching the money. Mr CADMAN —As the honourable member says, the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) is here. No one knows what will occur, but everybody waits with apprehension. Almost from the first day, the Government commenced to attack those who are most vulnerable in our community. The Government attacked them and has continued to attack them, not only with the assets test. The Government has raised uncertainty and concern in the minds of all those with savings and assets. It has attacked those who are aged over 70 with a means test. It has attacked retired people with a lump sum tax on superannuation benefits. Yesterday in the House two more measures were brought in that will affect the savings of those who have retired. But the assets test is not the only action being considered. The Government has a number of other measures under consideration; for example, a gifts tax and a capital gains tax to which many Ministers say they are committed. It also has a wealth tax under consideration and is considering death duties. All these matters are being thought about by the Government so that it can further attack retirees. The Government's policies are in disarray. It has nothing for retirees . The only policy it has is that people must conform to what the Government considers are people in need. That is the one policy. The attack on savings and assets is not limited only to those people affected. It is not confined to this most vulnerable group in our community. It affects their families, their children and their grandchildren. Decisions on retirement, on savings and on assets are not made in an ad hoc way. They are made over a long period. They are discussed at the breakfast table. They are discussed during the commercials that appear on television. At family gatherings, Christmas time and other times during the year families sit down and talk together about the well being of members of their families. Such decisions are not just taken by a person who is seeking to avoid taxation or to rip off the Government; these are careful decisions. They are planned jointly by families, with many generations joining in those discussions and making those decisions. Planning is used to initiate goals and also to further the dreams and aspirations of families. It is not an impulsive decision in any way to prepare for retirement. People building a weekender do so in their spare time. The whole family participates. It may take a number of years to complete the project. Yet honourable members opposite are saying that such a family does not conform. We will see what the Government says. People working and saving in this way add to the production of the whole nation. When their individual goals are accumulated they add up to what drives the nation ahead. National productivity is the result of families planning and working together for their personal goals. We all benefit and we all feel secure when families do this. Why does the Government want to disallow this process? Why must the Government stamp everything 'approved' before this vulnerable age group can realise its dreams? Australians do not want that. They do not want such interference. They do not want government involvement; they want their freedom. It is almost as if the Government does not trust them. It is almost as if the Government cannot give its confidence to the people of Australia. I think we need to encourage our retirees. They must have productive lives. They must have predictable lives and they must have their personal freedoms. The Government, by a series of measures, has raised so many concerns for people who have retired or who are about to retire that the community is saying that the Government does not care, it does not understand, and it has no policies for people in retirement. I think that all honourable members on this side of the House want people to have their goals. We want them to strive for things that they see to be important and we want them to plan for their goals without interference. We want them to use their initiative to achieve those goals. We do not want, nor do we stand for, government interference. I believe that the Australian Labor Party has created the need for people to plot, not plan, their future and the use of their resources, savings and assets. While they are plotting they are surrounded by concern and worry because they do not know what the Government is likely to do next. In order to achieve the Government's stamp of approval-'Government approved'-they have to plot, and while they are plotting they are worrying and they are concerned. That does not lead to healthy and long lives and happiness for people who are retiring; it leads to illness and abuse. That is what the Government is fostering and encouraging by its actions. I believe that worry and concern are no substitute for people's dreams, but the Government has caused this worry. Plotting is no alternative to planning one's future. I believe that government approval can never replace individual initiative. The Government is set on a deadly course in every action it has taken since the National Economic Summit Conference in regard to these important matters. There is no comprehensive overview. The Government has lost course. It has lost direction and in so doing it has damaged the future, the well-being and the sense of security which a vast section of our community needs. As I have said, the Government has affected not only that vulnerable group of people but also their families and their grandchildren. I believe that these people will judge the Government at election time as being inadequate to deal with their circumstances. Ms FATIN(Canning)(4.30) —If any one thing has characterised this Labor Government during the past 12 months it has been our determination to make Australia a fairer society. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) has been talking utter nonsense and much of what he said was scaremongering. He made deliberate and misleading statements. I refer, for instance, to the suggestion that the Government would go into people's houses and look in their drawers, look at their possessions and check them. It is absolute and utter nonsense to suggest that. This Government has a higher regard for its aged persons. It cares about the elderly in this society to the degree, I suggest, that within a very short period we will have an Office of Aged Care in this country. The objectives of that office will be to secure a range of services for the aged which are equitable, comprehensive, balanced and cost effective. Mr Shipton —What is that going to do for the family? Ms FATIN —In reply to the honourable gentleman at the table, it will bring together and prevent-- Mr Ian Robinson —That has got you. Ms FATIN —No, it has not got me. It will co-ordinate the services for the aged in this country and put them under one office so that we can better serve the aged people in this land. We will help prevent the confusion and time wasting that often occurs in the administration of programs for the aged in this country . As I was suggesting, it has been our determination to make Australia a fairer society. This was the basis of our campaign to win government, and it has been the underlying motive in all the actions that we have taken since our election last year. After seven years of Liberal-National Party government the people of Australia were crying out for fairness to be restored to Australian society. They showed clearly how they felt about the years of discord and hypocrisy under the conservatives when they voted in a Labor government last March, and they have supported us ever since. Let us think for a moment about events in the last few months and the discussion which has surrounded the assets test. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced the proposed test in August with the following words: We must reform our taxation and welfare systems so that tax burdens are spread throughout the community on the basis of capacity to pay, and welfare payments are provided according to needs. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) immediately began a long series of discussions with pensioner organisations. My colleagues on this side of the House and I went out of our way to explain the proposed test to pensioners and their families in our electorates. I can say quite categorically that I personally saw dozens of pensioners who left my office, having been reasurred about their positions and fully supporting the Government's moves in this area. They are not the pensioners with diamonds and pictures and other such things. What were members of the Opposition doing at this time? They were ranting and raving about attacks on pensioners and thoroughly frightening people about the proposed test. Yet it is the Opposition which has been entirely inconsistent in its approach to retirement incomes. It appears that the Opposition does not have a policy at all, let alone an alternative suggestion to put forward. When members of the Opposition were in government, the basis of all their decisions was the number of votes at stake. Why else would they have made the politically cynical and socially irresponsible step of abolishing the means test in the first place? Why else would they have turned a blind eye to the recommendations to restructure the taxation and welfare systems which were piling up from government advisory bodies? Why else would they have paid lip service to the rights of the elderly, and at the same time let the value of age pension slip to only 22 per cent of average weekly earnings? I spoke before of this Government's commitment to direct welfare payments to those in need. I really think that the antics of the Opposition over the assets test must be caused in large part by its utter confusion in finding its leader to be in total agreement with a Labor government. Let us just remind ourselves about the stated position of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) concerning welfare payments in Australia. Even though my colleague has mentioned some of these statements I think I should quote them again. A report in the Australian Financial Review of 3 March 1982 states: The former Cabinet Minister, Mr Andrew Peacock, has spoken publicly about the need to direct welfare to those in need. Addressing the National Press Club in Canberra he said that social welfare spending had to be cut. The report of the address states: The way to cut it, he said, was to ensure that it goes to those in genuine human need. This meant, Mr Peacock explained, some form of income or means testing. Again, in addressing the Melbourne Press Club on 11 September 1981, the honourable member said: So, in future, I would like to see a Budget framed on the basis of its being as economically and socially productive as possible . . . By socially productive I mean a budget which caters for carefully identified areas of genuine human need and avoids the situation where those who don't need government assistance are given help at the expense of those who do. In other words if you see a Budget in national housekeeping terms, there is no inherent virtue in coming out even at the end of the period if, in the meantime, some members of the family have been allowed to be gluttons at the expense of those who have been undernourished. The Labor Government recognises that pensioners are a highly vulnerable section of our society. Obviously, the Opposition knows this too or it would not have chosen the issue of pensions as the main target to vent its spleen on the Government and get rid of some of its frustration at finding it had been thrown out of power. I can assure the Opposition that its cynical exercise of stirring up confusion about the assets test has been recognised by the people of Australia as just one more example of its philosophy of confrontation and conflict. Madam Deputy Speaker, much mention has been made recently of this Government's total commitment to returning the age pension to, and maintaining it at, 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. We are also aware that pensioners are exploited by banks, property trusts and investment sharks. Because of this we are seriously considering proposals to finance pension advisory services, to help people make the crucial decisions about how to arrange their financial affairs. What has concerned me most about the assets test debate is the extent to which some of this Government's political opponents will go in their effort to score points and win votes. We are not denying that confusion has been created by the proposal to introduce an assets test. What I can say with certainty is that the cause of the confusion stems in large part from the sensational, headline grabbing statements made by members of the Opposition. I turn now to the positive actions that the Government is taking to make sure that legislation on an assets test is as fair as possible. The panel of people who will be asked to advise the Government about the test will consist of men and women who are experienced in the field of retirement incomes and pensions. To suggest, as the Opposition is doing, that this will create further confusion is surely an insult to the intelligence of Australian pensioners. Let me finish by looking at just what the Government is proposing in the assets test which has so excited the Opposition. Under the proposed legislation a single pensioner could have $17,100 in savings and still receive the maximum pension. Married pensioner couples could have $28,500 on top of their home, car and personal effects. Single pensioners could have personal property and assets of up to $106,434 without losing the pension, and so it goes on. I conclude my remarks by restating this Government's absolute commitment to the principle that pensions are paid to those who need assistance. No responsible person could believe in the fairness of any other proposition. In taking this position, the Government has the overwhelming support of the Australian people, who have seen through the transparent and desperate attempts by the Opposition to make political capital at the expense of the elderly. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The debate is concluded. Mr MORRISON(St George) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I present the Committee's report entitled 'The Provision of Development Assistance and Humanitarian Aid to the Horn of Africa', and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr MORRISON —I thank the House. This report was tabled in the Senate on 15 December, after this House went into recess. The purpose in making it available through the Senate was so that it would be, as soon as possible, in the hands of the Jackson committee, which was at that stage conducting a review of Australian aid. As the report deals particularly with the conduct of Australian aid and some of the broader questions of Australian aid to a particular part of the world, we of the Committee thought it important that the Jackson committee should be aware of and familiar with the report. I do not intend to repeat the tabling statement made by my colleague, the chairman of the sub-committee of the Joint Committee, Senator Sibraa. For the information of honourable members, it is to be found in the Senate Hansard of 15 December at pages 3852 and 3853. What I would like to do is point up some of the issues, particularly in relation to the question of food aid. The report points out at page 114: Australia's food aid contributions have increased significantly over the years. It is necessary on humanitarian grounds in view of the recent droughts and continuing refugee problem that relief aid be provided. Relief aid is justified where there is an urgent problem requiring attention, but its usefulness is only short-term. I stress that. The report continues: There is a danger in the long-term provision of food aid only. Once established , unless there is potential or incentive for recipients of aid to produce their own food, aid becomes self-perpetuating and is very difficult to cut off. The report is saying that unfortunately a relief mentality develops, which in itself can be counterproductive. The Joint Committee report also states: The Committee recommends that, because of Australia's expertise in dry-land farming and other agricultural techniques, and the growing problem of the lack of self-sufficiency in food production in the Horn of Africa, ADAB- the Australian Development Assistance Bureau- should continue to support the concept of self-sufficiency in its future aid program. Early in February I had the honour of leading the Australian Government delegation to the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference, which was held in Lusaka, in Zambia. Food aid was one of the main issues discussed. One reason was that the food problem had been accentuated by the drought of the last two years in the Southern African area. I was very impressed by a paper, presented by the Nordic countries, entitled 'Policies in Agriculture and Rural Development'. Having discussed the particular problems of agriculture and the impact of drought, the paper went on to say: These problems are of a long term nature. While drought and also in some instances armed aggression by South Africa has caused the acute difficulties, declining agricultural production appears to be part of a wider pattern. Food output per capita has fallen in Africa since the beginning of the 1970s, and the trend appears to have accelerated in the 1980s. FAOs projections of demand and supply of food in Africa by the year 2000 do not give cause for optimism. For the benefit of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) who seeks to interject, the report stresses the role that small farmers can play in increasing agricultural production. Also-and I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will be interested in this comment-it argued for the recognition of the role of women and pointed out that: In some countries women constitute between 60 and 80 per cent of the rural labour force. Yet it would hardly be an exaggeration to say that women are fairly consistently excluded partially or wholly from access to the benefits of agricultural policy. I believe that that statement certainly can be endorsed by the Government, although the National Party may have difficulty in doing so. The report of the Nordic countries went on to raise the very interesting question of pricing policy. It pointed out: Here the record of many governments is rather dismal with a persistent urban bias favouring low prices to the vocal and politically potent minority of urban consumers. I suppose as politicians we can all well understand the pressure on any government to attract political support by keeping the prices of basic food items low. Such policies can operate to the detriment of the agricultural producer, reduce incentive to produce and result in food shortages. However, there is also-and this was perhaps the elaboration that I made of the Nordic paper at the conference-a significant impact not only on domestic pricing but also on international pricing. As we all know-and I am sure that again members of the National Party will agree with me-commodity prices have reached their lowest level for 50 years and have contributed to a serious decline in terms of trade not only of developing countries but also countries such as Australia. The international terms of trade have worked against countries like Australia and the developing countries and have diminished, particularly for developing countries, the incentive to produce. I should also point out that the access of the less developed countries to markets, despite various preference schemes, has been drastically reduced. A report in the UNCTAD Review in 1981 noted that the loss of market share through the European Common Market's Common Agricultural Policy between 1962 and 1979 cost the developing countries about $9,000m. I would suspect that the amount of official development assistance coming from the European communities would not add up to that loss through trade that the less developed countries suffered. The operation of the Common Agricultural Policy through the export of artificially created agricultural surpluses has also created a devastating impact on the less developed countries. I would like to refer to a 1981 House of Lords report which concluded: European Community surplus exports serve to depress world prices and make food imports cheaper. But in the long run European Community activities reduce the less developed countries' incentive to improve their own food production capabilities. So the dumping of subsidised surpluses and, indeed, food aid itself, as distinct from emergency relief, has the effect of depressing prices, which in turn reduces local production and compels continuing reliance on imports. It is obvious that food aid is a complex subject. It has the potential and, indeed, the reality of being counter-productive. Our longer term objective should not be food aid but aid in the growing of food. Australia, with its experience of dry land farming and animal husbandry, along with a very well developed resource capacity and also an agricultural extension service, can play a useful role. It is to this area that I believe we should direct our attention. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —by leave-The report entitled 'The Provision of Development Assistance and Humanitarian Aid to the Horn of Africa' is one of the three reports which a Sub-Committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence has prepared or is preparing. The first report, entitled 'Some Observations on Australia's Diplomatic Representation in Africa and Adjacent Indian Ocean Island States', was presented late last year. The second is the report now before the House and the third will be a more political report dealing with the geo-political situation in the Horn of Africa. The Committee decided to prepare this report more rapidly, as the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison) has pointed out, and it was tabled in the Senate last year so that its research and recommendations would be available to the Jackson committee on foreign aid before that committee prepared its report. That was achieved. Obviously Australian foreign aid is concentrated on the south-west Pacific. However, there are trouble spots in the world which make demands on Australia's humanitarianism. I refer to such trouble spots as Central America or the Middle East. The Horn of Africa is a particular case. It is three quarters of a million square miles in area, much of it desert, comprising Ethiopia, Somalia and Djibuti-countries in which some 40 million to 50 million people live and for most of whom life is nasty, brutish and short. They have produced some 10 million refugees, which represents half of the world's total. In recent years some 200,000 have died of famine in the region. So it is no wonder that Australia's aid to the Horn has been increased in those same terrible years from 2 per cent of our total foreign aid to some 10 per cent of our total foreign aid , or, in dollar terms, to some $56m. It will, I assume, be a region to which the Jackson committee will also be giving attention. The Committee reached a number of conclusions. It noted that the people of the region suffer from few diseases which require high technology to control. Such things as improved water supply and sanitation, nutrition, health education, vaccinations, immunisations and simple curative measures are needed. Consequently, the Committee noted the self-help primary health care program in Somalia, begun a little over a year ago by Community Aid Abroad, which aims to teach Somalis to take responsibility for their own basic health care. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government continue its support to Community Aid Abroad for this work. In the same spirit, the Committee noted that relief aid, however essential in the short term, brings its own dangers. Not only is there a risk of the relief mentality being established but also there is the danger of the population increasing as a result of the reduction in mortality that relief brings and the increase in population making the longer term situation worse. It is important that relief aid be supplemented by programs to help the recipients produce their own food. For this reason the Committee makes some recommendations in relation to the fishing industry and dry-land farming in which Australians have developed expertise and in which Australians are already helping in Somalia. The Committee also makes recommendations on more controversial matters. The matters which I have just mentioned are important but they could hardly be regarded as controversial. For example, the Committee examined the difficulties in delivering aid to Eritreans who are in revolt against the governing regime in Ethiopia. The Committee reached the opinion that Australian aid channelled through Sudan to the Eritrean Relief Association is an effective way of ensuring that aid reaches those in pressing need in Eritrea. Such aid can be channelled through non-government organisations based in Australia which have close association with the Australian Eritrean Relief Committee. I say this is controversial because it will obviously not have the support of the Mengistu regime in Ethiopia. The Committee also examined the various allegations that the aid program to the Horn had been misapplied and was subject to corruption of one kind or another and should therefore be terminated. Allegations include the claims that aid is being or has been syphoned off to the armies, sold on the black market or used to finance Soviet arms bills. The Committee was satisfied that the evidence for these allegations is unsatisfactory. The Committee was not satisfied that there has never been any misapplication of aid but it could not obtain reliable evidence that corruption is on a significant scale. Mistakes of judgment in this area are easily made. For example, visitors to the Horn observe Australian food aid containers in the marketplaces and conclude that they contain Australian foodstuff which is being sold there and misapplied. In fact, these containers are valuable in themselves in these countries and will be used many times, long after the food aid once in them has been used up. Again, observers note what is plainly Australian food aid being sold in the market and ask why. The explanation is given that sometimes inappropriate aid is delivered-for example, cooking oil is given when there is little or nothing to cook-and that it is normal and accepted procedure to exchange such donations for more appropriate food aid. Nevertheless, while not satisfied by the evidence of misuse or corruption, the Committee noted that Australia is too dependent for monitoring on international agencies in which Australia is not represented-there are some signs of change- and lacks the capacity for on the spot scrutiny. Our closest diplomatic post to the Horn is in Nairobi. This is a problem that must be addressed. In this respect I refer to the first report of this Committee, 'Some Observations on Australia's Diplomatic Representation in Africa'. The Committee recommended that consideration be given to the establishment of a mission resident in Addis Ababa . Australia's Ambassador to Ethopia is in Nairobi. The Committee recommended this because, among other things, it would meet the need to monitor the effectiveness of Australian development assistance and humanitarian aid to Ethiopia. The Committee also considered the possibility of representation in Somalia but concluded that the opening of a post in Mogadishu could not be justified given Australia's other priorities and the scarcity of financial resources. Still, close attention should be paid by the Department of Foreign Affairs to developments in Somalia. The Committee noted that Australia does not have resident representation in Djibouti and in any case lacks the capacity for independent assessments in the whole of Francophone Africa, including Djibouti. It recommends that consideration be given to opening a post in one former French colony, such a post being then able to service other Francophone countries, such as Djibouti. I hope and believe the report will be useful to the House and to the Jackson Committee. In conclusion, I support the Chairman in thanking Mr Ron Wiber and Justine Francis for their very valuable services to the Sub-Committee. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 217th report of the Committee, relating to the Finance minute on report 186-Advance to the Minister for Finance (Appropriation Acts 1979-80), and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report . Leave granted. Mr CADMAN —The 217th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts contains the Department of Finance minute on the Committee's earlier report-No. 186-on expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance under the Appropriation Acts 1979-80. The Department of Finance minute is the formal mechanism used by the Government for responding to the Committee's recommendations. The Committee's 186th report, which examined departments' expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance, was tabled in Parliament on 17 April 1981. In accordance with normal practice the Committee obtained from departments 128 explanations relating to items from the Advance to the Minister for Finance in 1979-80. Four departments-the Departments of Finance, Social Security, Transport and Veterans' Affairs-were selected for public examination and additional written information was requested from a further 11 departments. The only amounts which should remain a charge to the appropriations for the Advance to the Minister for Finance at the end of the financial year are urgent and unforeseen expenditures which arise between the time of preparation of the additional Appropriation Bills-Nos. 3 and 4-and the close of financial year. In its examination, the Committee seeks to ascertain whether or not expenditure from the Advance has been confined to urgent and unforeseeable requirements for which provision could not have been made in the original or additional estimates . The Committee concluded that in most cases expenditure was used according to the accepted guideline. In other cases, and in particular in relation to the Department of Transport, the Committee wrote to the Secretary to the Department of Finance and requested additional information on and clarification of the departmental responses to recommendations. The Committee considered the departmental responses did not adequately address the questions asked of it and failed to answer the more detailed questions concerning a number of deficiencies in the Department's estimating of financial control procedures. In the response from the Department of Transport there was evidence of clerical errors, inefficient estimating procedures and delays which caused expenditure to be charged to the Advance when provision should properly have been made in the Additional Estimates. The Committee is now satisfied with the response by the Department of Finance to report 186. I commend the report to honourable members. Mr FRY(Fraser) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present the Committee's report on the parliamentary zone development plan, together with extracts of the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr FRY —by leave-The report I have just tabled concerns a draft development plan for the parliamentary zone. Last October, the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory along with the Joint Committee on the New Parliament House received a briefing from the National Capital Development Commission on proposals for the future development of the parliamentary zone. Until recently the major planning priority has concentrated on the location, design and servicing of the site of the new Parliament House. This included the road access to the new House which the Committee has previously reported on. With the finalisation of major planning decisions concerning the Capital Hill area, attention then focused on the remainder of the parliamentary zone. During the briefing by the Commission, it was pointed out that the quality of landscaping in the central northern part of the zone was poor. The landscaping had always been a temporary measure until the site for the permanent Parliament House was decided. Consequently it was minimal and poorly defined. The NCDC put before the Committee plans for correcting these deficiencies by creating a more coherent plan for the northern part of the zone-that is, for the area between the present House and the lake. The design reinforces the Burley Griffin land and water axis, provides a framework within which future public buildings can be located, and encourages increased tourist and pedestrian use of the lake edge. The parliamentary zone is the focal point of the national capital and it should now be developed as such. The completion of the new House and the major design elements of the remainder of the parliamentary zone by 1988 will be a fitting way to mark the bicentenary in the national capital. The designs presented to the Committee are still evolving and the final designs may differ in some aspects. However, to work within a tight timetable and in keeping with good planning practice of allowing comment on planning at an early stage, the Commission has sought an early in principle approval of the plan. Several elements will require gazettal action and detailed scrutiny at a later date. A major concern of the Committee was the lack of provision in the proposal for consultation with all senators and members or for that matter with the community . Parliament's role in the planning of the parliamentary zone was made clear in the Parliament Act 1974. The Act establishes Parliament's control over major works in the parliamentary zone. Therefore the Committee believes that all members and senators should have an opportunity to examine the proposals in detail and comment on them before final decisions are made. We have requested the NCDC to follow this procedure. Despite its concern about the lack of consultation the Committee believes the development plan to be a good one because it provides an overall framework within which road proposals, landscape proposals and long term development can be resolved in a way that will complement the new Parliament House; the plan will complete Griffin's land axis between the new Parliament House and the lake; and the plan is sufficiently in keeping with Burley Griffin's plans given the structure and location of existing buildings and the need for the zone to cope with modern day traffic problems including tourist and commuter traffic. The 1983 plan provides a much clearer road system and an improved pedestrian environment in the Parliamentary Triangle. In general, the layout is now more suitable for tourists. I strongly recommend that all honourable members and senators read the report and, more importantly, examine the proposals for themselves when they become available. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —by leave-Madam Deputy Speaker, I speak on this matter as a member of Parliament concerned about the way in which the Parliament has been treated in this case. The Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on the Australian Capital Territory has exhorted all honourable members to inform themselves about this very important matter of the development of the Parliamentary Zone and the particular plans that have been produced for that purpose, and has asked that honourable members inform themselves by reading the report. The fact of the matter is that most honourable members will not be able to inform themselves adequately by reading the report. They will be able to inform themselves adequately only if they have access to the very comprehensive material prepared by the National Capital Development Commission, outlining the plan about which the Committee has reported to the Parliament. The Chairman mentioned that the Committee was of the view that the draft development plan it had under consideration ought to have been circulated by the National Capital Development Commission to all members of Parliament so that the Committee would be in a position adequately to seek the view of other members of Parliament about the proposals. In many respects the National Capital Development Commission is a very competent and professional body. Anybody who has had any dealings with that body would know of the way in which it presents itself to the Committee. Very often it makes other organisations that appear before the Committee somewhat embarrassed about the way in which it is able to come forward with magnificent presentations. One could almost say-I am sorry I say it in the presence of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins)-that no expense is spared in presenting matters to the Committee and ensuring that information is put before it. It is done in a very professional way. Of course in this case it did so again. Back in 1982 it produced its first draft plan, a very glossy production containing rather attractive pictures. One can see the comprehensive way in which the planning for the parliamentary precinct is to be undertaken. A further plan was prepared in September 1983. This is the document that we believe ought to have been circulated to all honourable members so they could be adequately informed about what is to be done in this region. The fact of the matter is that the Commission is asking for expedition of consideration of and parliamentary approval for the road variations intended in the plan and it wanted to ensure that members of the Committee were aware of them well beforehand so that its recommendations would have an easy passage. I know, and other members will know, that time and time again we are asked in this Parliament to approve a whole lot of variations to the plan for the Parliamentary Zone. Those variations include police boxes-a very important matter, I am sure-and road barriers, of equal importance. People, sometimes at great difficulty to themselves, ensure attention to detail and ensure that the Parliament is informed on these matters. Yet, when it comes to informing honourable members at a stage when they can adequately consider variations within the Parliamentary Zone, we find that the Commission is unwilling to make information available to the Committee. The Committee, when it deliberated on this matter and made its comments, had before it a letter from the National Capital Development Commission. The Chairman wrote to the Commission and asked that all members of the Committee be given copies of this document so that they could discuss it with their collegues. On 24 February, Mr Browning, on behalf of the Commission, responded without commenting on that specific matter of the Commission's willingness to make this information available to other members. I see that a number of honourable members are in the House at the moment. Some of them, such as the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) and the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry), already know about this matter but I hope that those who have heard the discussion will note the way in which the National Capital Development Commission is treating the Parliament in this instance and will feel as distressed as I do about the way in which this particular presentation has proceeded, and will not only take careful note of the Committee 's report but also seek from Committee members copies of the draft Parliamentary Zone development plan and make known their personal dissatisfaction that in this important area, at a time when planning is taking place, the Commission seems so unwilling to inform members adequately. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.06) —I move: Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 1 to 4 (1984) and Excise Tariff Proposals No. 1 ( 1984). The Customs proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. The proposals formally place before Parliament, as required by law, tariff alterations made by Australian Government Gazette notice during the recent recess. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 1 (1984), operative on and from 21 December 1983, amends the wording of tariff sub-item 22.09.1 in Schedule 3 to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. This amendment removes the possibility of goods being incorrectly entered under the sub-item. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 2 (1984), operative on and from 13 January 1984, contains changes arising from the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission report on lawnmowers, certain engines and parts. Following consideration of that report, the Government decided that the general tariff rate of duty on lawnmowers will remain unchanged at 25 per cent while the duty on spark ignition engines up to 4.5 kilowatts will be reduced from 35 per cent to 25 per cent. Other engines under reference now enter at minimum rates of duty . The duties on filters under reference in the IAC's report will remain basically unchanged for the time being but will be reviewed in the context of the Government's consideration of the IAC's forthcoming report on heavy commercial motor vehicles, parts and accessories. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 2 (1984) also contain the following three changes: First, an amendment to the description used in the rates of duty applicable to canned tomatoes of paragraph 20.02.69 in Schedule 3 to the Customs Tariff Act. This change enables the duty intended for these goods to be correctly applied; Secondly, an amendment to restore the margin of preference to certain plastic laminates of Canadian origin; and Finally, an administrative change to align certain item numbers in Schedule 5 with the corresponding item numbers shown in the table in sub-section 26A (3) of the Customs Tariff Act 1982. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 3 (1984), operative on and from 27 January 1984, contains a change arising from the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission report on copper and certain copper products, including removal of export control. The Government accepted the IAC's recommendations that imports of copper semi-fabrications remain dutiable at 10 per cent and that mimimum rates of duty apply to all imports of copper matter, unwrought copper, whether refined or not, and copper waste and scrap. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 3 (1984) also inserts new sub-item 90.28.5 in Schedule 3 to the Customs Tariff Act. The new sub-item applies to certain temperature control units and restores the levels of assistance which were removed from such goods by an Administrative Appeals Tribunal judgement. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 4 (1984), operative on and from 24 February 1984, contain changes arising from the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission report on fatty acids and certain aliphatic acids, their salts and esters; glycerol and tall oil. The Government has accepted the Commission's recommendations with the exception of those applying to crude glycerol, glycerol lyes and lead stabiliser lubricants. The new general tariff rates which now apply are: 10 per cent in respect of oleic, stearic and other fatty acids, including tall oil fatty acids. Acid oils from refining and refined glycerol, and 20 per cent in respect of lead stabiliser lubricants. No changes in general tariff rates are involved for the remainder of the goods under reference in this report. Crude glycerol and glycerollyes remain dutiable at minimum rates. The Government has decided that a 10 per cent duty on such imports as proposed by the IAC would have no protective value and would impose a tarriff induced cost only on Australian refined glycerol manfacture. A summary of alterations contained in these proposals has been circulated for the information of honourable members. The excise proposals I have just tabled relate to a proposed alteration to the Excise Tariff Act 1921. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 1 (1984) formally place before Parliament, as required by law, a tariff alteration introduced during the summer recess by Excise Gazette Notice No. 8 (1983) under the authority of section 160B of the Excise Act. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 1 (1984) increases the excise duty on naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas from $48.57 to $ 49.23 per kilometre operating on and from 1 January 1984. This change was announced by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) on 19 December 1983. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Macphee) adjourned. Debate resumed from 28 February, on motion by Mr Young: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(5.12) —Madam Deputy Speaker, may I first congratulate you upon your appointment as Deputy Speaker. It is a most significant appointment for this House. Also I congratulate the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) who apparently competed with you very closely in your Party's ballot for the position. That again is significant. It is very nice that each of you will be presiding over this debate. Both the Liberal Party of Australia and National Party of Australia are committed to the removal of discrimination against individuals on whatever basis . Both are committed to equality of opportunity for individuals and in government took action in many fields to eliminate discrimination and enable genuine equality of opportunity to be achieved. An objective analysis of the previous coalition Government's record in immigration and ethnic affairs, the status of women, human rights, Aboriginals, disabled and otherwise disadvantaged persons shows this to be true. The previous Government established the National Women's Advisory Council which the present Government has arrogantly and foolishly abolished. The previous Government established the Human Rights Commission with the object of handling a wide range of matters relating to alleged discrimination and equality of opportunity. The administration of the proposals now before us will be by that Commission. The previous Government was committed to introducing legislation aimed at eliminating discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy. In fact at the time the election was announced, my friend and colleague Tom McVeigh, the honourable member for Darling Downs, was about to bring to Cabinet- in his capacity as Minister for Home Affairs and Environment-a draft Bill for that purpose. That draft formed the basis for the Bill of which the new honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) has given notice. The procedures of this House may not enable that Bill to be discussed, but it is to the credit of a new member that he has introduced a measure of this character. I am informed that all members of the National Party support that Bill, and that fact ought to lay to rest the absurd view emanating from certain quarters that legislation of this character in some way weakens the family by facilitating the entry of more married women into the paid work force. I do not doubt that some people genuinely hold that view, but it is an incorrect one nonetheless. If families or children were to suffer because of anti-discrimination legislation, no member or senator of this Parliament would even contemplate initiating let alone supporting such a measure. There are differences between the legislation now under debate and that proposed by the honourable member for Gippsland, but it is significant that they both cover the same areas of activity in which discrimination occurs. The honourable member for Gippsland has concentrated his attention on discrimination in the Australian Capital Territory and in Commonwealth employment throughout Australia. If legislation of this character were remotely to threaten the wellbeing of families and the children within them the honourable member for Gippsland would not have given notice of this Bill. He would hardly take the view that it was reasonable to harm the families of the Australian Capital Territory or Commonwealth employees and not other families. On the contrary, what the honourable member has done is to act pursuant to long-standing policies of the Liberal and National Parties. There will always be room for disagreement on detail but the Opposition parties are united in principle. If any honourable members opposite doubt that let me refer them to the first policy statement made jointly by the two parties when they contested the 1974 elections as a coalition opposition. The detailed statement on women in the community reveals a sound understanding of social and economic influences, the aspirations of women and the attitudinal barriers which they face in having genuine equality of opportunity with men. Despite the considerable progress made by the last coalition Government, the fact that there has been sustained and vocal opposition to this legislation demonstrates how deeply ingrained are the notions about the role of men and women in our society. There is distinct improvement in the outlook of those under 40 years but even though many males under 40 are now doing more of the parenting and domestic chores and are encouraging their wives to resume their careers outside the home, generally men are still not taking women's career aspirations seriously. I believe it to be important that I quote at length from page 51 of 'The Way Ahead', which was the coalition document in 1974 as its comment and commitment are as valid today as they were 10 years ago. Page 51 states: The Liberal and Country Parties are dedicated to the pursuit of social freedom and the maximisation of equality of opportunity and status for men and women in the Australia community. Any form of arbitrary discrimination of social, economic, legal and educational nature is inconsistent with the philosophy of the Liberal and Country Parties. Where such discrimination is seen to exist, it is the policy of the Parties to strive concertedly for its elimination. Certain differences in status continue to exist between the roles of men and women in the Australian society. These exist in both institutional and attitudinal terms. Were these differences are seen to arise from unfair discrimination or inequality of opportunity, a Liberal and Country Party Government is pledged to work actively for their elimination. A Liberal and Country Party Government will promote, as a basic responsibility, those conditions in society that will enable all individuals to acheive their full potential. One of the most important developments in the latter half of the twentieth century has been the major reassessment of the role of women. The advancement of technology, the greater availability of education and the continuing decline in the number of children per family has greatly reduced the demands on women to fill a totally domestic role. Therefore the options and opportunities available to women today exceed those of her counterpart in past generations. Throughout the twentieth century women in western society have been granted greater legal, political, and social status. There still remain areas in community life, however, where women have not yet achieved full equality with men. It is towards the eradication of these pockets of discrimination that the main thrust of a Liberal and Country Party Government's policy for women will be directed. Governments, employers, trade union and education institutions are not fully attuned to the changing social attitudes and relationships in modern society. The Liberal and Country Parties believe it is not sufficient to rely on slow evolutionary change to achieve full social justice for women. Rather the Parties are committed to the active advancement of women's rights in the context of a broad and integrated women's policy. The first step towards the achievement of equal rights must abviously be to create and develop in the minds of all Australians a consciousness of the degree to which sexual discrimination continues to exist, the reasons why it continues to exist, and the means necessary to accelerate its eradication. The 1974 policy statement of the coalition parties then went on to commit the coalition to action in education, child care, employment, training, taxation and family planning. It promised a national inquiry into the role of women, and out of that inquiry the previous Government established the National Women's Advisory Council which did much to break down the attitudinal barriers against women. Extensive efforts were made to identify women who were as qualified as men to serve on Government bodies. As a result, a range of government advisory and statutory bodies which would formerly have contained only men of Anglo- Celtic origin now contains people of ability regardless of sex, race, religion, or country of origin. As a logical extension of that policy the coalition promised in 1980 to legislate to render unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex. Had the Government completed its three-year term that legislation would have been enacted in 1983 and much of the controversy surrounding the present Bill would not have occurred. It is now a matter of record that this Bill was very badly drafted. So many amendments were necessary that the Bill had to be withdrawn and redrafted in a major way. There are still many changes which individual members of the Opposition would feel should be made and amendments will be moved in the Committee stage in order to remove certain defects. In government we would examine the operation of the legislation and amend it in whatever way then seemed appropriate. One factor of great relevance then would be the attitudes of State governments towards legislation of this character. It is important to remember that the first such legislation was introduced by Liberal governments in Victoria and South Australia and the present Labor Government in New South Wales. Those Governments recognised the importance of such legislation and identified a desire for it. I cannot say, but it is quite possible that there is not the same desire for such legislation in the other three States. There presumably is in the Northern Territory because the Chief Minister there has criticised the Bill now before us as not going far enough. Mr Everingham has observed that the Bill does not deal with particular forms of discrimination against women in rural areas or that suffered by Aboriginal women still subject to discriminating tribal laws. Moreover, he is critical of the Bill for not dealing with prostitution. Mr Everingham bases his criticism on the fact that these problems are addressed particularly in the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. That Convention was signed by the previous Government and the ratification process begun by it was completed by the present Government. This Bill gives effect to certain of the provisions of that Convention, and not others. In the Senate the opposition expressed its concern about the use of the external affairs power. I will speak in more detail on this matter when the House is in Committee examining individual clauses. It is sufficient to observe at this stage that it is difficult to say precisely how much of the Bill in practice will rest on the external affairs power. For example, most non- government schools are incorporated and for them the validity of the Bill rests on the corporations power. Non-incorporated schools can, it seems, be reached only by use of the external affairs power. In practice the actual reliance on the external affairs power to legislate in areas not otherwise valid under Commonwealth power might prove to be slight or even marginal. Nevertheless the Opposition would not have relied on the external affairs power in government and will move in the Committee stage of this debate to have reliance on that power deleted from the Bill. The Government refused to accept that amendment in the Senate but I ask it to reconsider the matter as it is not essential to the overall effect of the Bill and represents a serious threat to the spirit of federalism underlying the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. For these reasons the Opposition will move an amendment to the motion for the second reading clarifying its position regarding the implementation of certain parts of the UN Convention and the use of the external affairs power. It will not oppose the second reading of the Bill. Depending on the outcome of the Government's response to the Committee stage amendments some members of the Opposition may feel obliged to oppose the third reading of the Bill. In the remaining time available to me and prior to moving the second reading amendment I wish to place this legislation in a social and economic perspective. In the coalition policy document of 1974 many pages were devoted to a thoughtful analysis of, and policy commitments regarding, women in various facets of Australian life. I have time to quote only one paragraph, from page 52, which states: The provision of more adequate child-care facilities, greater and more flexible work opportunities are essential in our modern industrial and urban society if the family unit is to continue its role as the basis of our society. The precise proposals of the Liberal and Country Parties on these issues are outlined in the Education and Government Administration policy sections. For too long now, governments in framing their policies, and individuals in forming their attitudes have adhered to an over-rigid definition of the family. Both have failed to recognise that the family structure is changing. We recognise the increasing number of women who survive as widows to support a family on a widow' s pensions. We recognise and make accommodation for the growing number of single parents in the community. We recognise the fact that an increasing number of unmarried mothers are now keeping their children in preference to having them adopted. The previous Government tried to deal with the problems disclosed in that and other parts of that document. It introduced the concept of family allowances to begin the process of lifting the status of women otherwise totally dependent on another person's income. That Government also greatly increased various forms of child care-including assisting the formation of occasional, holiday and after- school care facilities. But the demand outstripped the capacity to supply. The present Government is finding the same problem. The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, outbid Mr Fraser in his election promise for child care but both the May mini- Budget and the August Budget disappointed those who wanted that promise fulfilled. At the same time some State governments have cut back on child care and pre-school assistance. I warn the Government now that if it does not use its influence with the State governments and, through the States, local government to meet the needs of local communities for child care it will be betraying the trust of many who voted for it and will receive and deserve serious admonition from the electorate and the Opposition. For again, it remains even more true than in 1974 that child care and early childhood development are essential facilities which must be fostered and partly supported by the three arms of Government. The Coalition's 1974 policy stated: 'We believe that pre-school education is of fundamental importance to the development of each child and its later achievements. It is important therefore to provide children with the opportunity for access to pre- school education'. In the great education debates of the nineteenth century there were arguments about those whose responsibility it was to educate children-the parents or the state. The answer was, and remains, both. The arbitrarily chosen starting age of five years has long been seen to be inappropriate in terms of the child's learning capacity. Early childhood development on a federalist approach is, therefore, most important for the child. But its relevance to this debate lies in the ability of child care to enable parents to pursue for some hours each week things which they deem vital or important for themselves and other members of their family. Extended families once provided occasional care facilities but now the main source of this assistance is from child care centres. So ultimately the ready availability of quality, cost-effective child care is crucial to the ability of parents to exercise their rights as individuals to equality of opportunity. I stress the word 'parents' because early childhood development and child care are the responsibility of parents, not simply mothers as is commonly supposed. Child care, including work-based facilities, ought to be open to the children of male and female members of the community. Child care is not solely the responsibility of women but, while it is thought to be, the absence of child care facilities discriminates against women as well as the children who would otherwise benefit from the additional development which quality child care centres provide. Children are a nation's most important resource and its greatest responsibility . The responsibility is primarily that of parents but the community must aid those parents and their children variously. The debate over early childhood development belongs in a broader community debate and, when that is generally accepted, the question of equal opportunity for women will be viewed in a more rational light and more progress will be made. At the heart of that debate, also , is the explanation for the fact that while most women are not dependent on welfare, the vast majority of people who have to exist on welfare are women. The conduct of men towards women and the rights of women as equal individuals has huge implications for a range of government policies. To talk, for example, of cutting the welfare bill without examining social change is utterly futile. Thus, this Bill is a symbol of the commitment of this Parliament to remove barriers of law and practice to the exercise of equality of opportunity regardless of sex, marital status or pregnancy. It is an important part-but only a part-of helping to change discriminatory attitudes. Sadly, these attitudes are deeply entrenched-as is evidenced by the reports of the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity in Victoria and the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales. Discrimination is probably not increasing but it does not seem to be diminishing either. The increased number of complaints indicates that people are exercising newly created rights rather than leaving jobs or suffering discrimination. It is disturbing to see how extensive has been the discrimination and sexual harrassment at the work place and we may only yet see the tip of the iceberg. It is even more disturbing to read of the rise in the incidence of indirect discrimination. And it is appalling to find that some practices intended to be eliminated by State laws are continuing and may even be increasing. Thus, it is disturbing to read in the Victorian report of 1983 that women continue to suffer disadvantages with credit, finance, banking services and insurance. Discrimination against women seeking accommodation also remains a greater problem than one would have hoped after six years of operation of the Victorian Act. Those six years have revealed examples of indirect discrimination which are prohibited by this Bill. I will refer more fully to reports on State legislation and to the incidence of discrimination when the debate reaches the Committee stage. Anyone who doubts the need for this legislation or legislation of this character ought to read those reports. Public education is essential to change these unthinking biases and the operation of this and similar legislation will assist this process but of course it will not complete it. The importance of this education lies not only in the rights of individuals to equality of opportunity, but also in Australia's making the maximum use of her human resources. How stupid we would be to squander over 50 per cent of our human resources on the grounds of sex. Yet that is what we are in danger of doing. The experience of the three States which have equal opportunity legislation reveals what the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity in Victoria calls: The persistently greater potential for discrimination against women in all aspects of employment; the fact that women are especially vulnerable to discriminatory treatment in termination of their employment; and the pervasive sexual harassment which continues to destroy women's enjoyment of work, hamper their effective performance, and threaten them with loss of their jobs. On the broader matter of the contribution of women in the paid work force I wish to refer to a recent survey by the Centre for Government Studies of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology entitled 'Women who work in Local Government'. That report showed that in local government in Victoria, within the next five years, 50 per cent of the women now employed expect to remain in local government, most with the same council; 21 per cent of those now employed do not expect to be in the paid work force in five years; and 26 per cent would be out of local government but still in the paid work force. The sad and stupid situation regarding the 26 per cent is, to quote the report: This is a critical group. Not only are they primarily professionals, other than social workers, but they are in the 26-35 age group which is, workwise, a productive period following training, and the group from which future managers will emerge. Most importantly, they are leaving because they are dissatisfied with their current work and conditions, especially the lack of promotion prospects. This finding emerges consistently throughout the results. That finding would be bad enough if it were confined to local government but I have no doubt that it is equally true of all areas of the public sector employment and nearly all areas of the private sector in Australia. As a result, we are wasting the creativity, training, experience and energy of half of those who are or wish to be in our paid work force. If we want to lift our national productivity that would be a good place to start. To quote the report again: Statistics indicate high levels of participation in the work force by women, together with an increasing trend for women to return to work after child bearing. They now more closely than ever approximate male rates of participation in the work force . . . in Victoria in 1982, women made up 45.7 per cent of the work force (ABS time series). 63 per cent of working women were married while 41 per cent of married women were in the work force, as compared with 13 per cent in 1954 and 25 per cent in 1964. This trend is supported by American data. The report records further what has been revealed elsewhere: In 1978, in Australia women comprised 45.5 per cent of professional, technical and related fields and 12.5 per cent of administrative, executive and managerial categories. Despite their greater participation in the work force where they are almost on the same participation rate as males, less than 1 per cent of women hold managerial and executive jobs. Even with jobs requiring special skills, such as teaching, women are clustered at lower levels in spite of comparable qualifications with men. Moreover, not only are women disproportionately represented in certain occupational groupings but also they receive lower monetary rewards. Evidence of this may be found in various Australian Bureau of Statistics publications, reports of the Women's Bureau of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, the Australian Quarterly, summer issue 1983 , papers produced for the 1983 Australian National University conference on social justice for women in Australia and documents issued for the National Economic Summit. Moreover, that research shows that women account for many of those who want to work but are so discouraged by their failure to obtain work that they do not even register with the Commonwealth Employment Service for jobs unless they are entitled to unemployment benefits. Thus, many married women who are searching for jobs are among the 'hidden unemployed' and do not appear in the monthly statistics. In 1981 it was estimated that there were as many hidden unemployed as recorded unemployed. In March 1983 the ABS found that there were 113,000 discouraged job seekers, of whom 84.8 per cent were women. The ABS data also showed that there were 559,000 women who wanted a job but were not actively seeking paid work. The number of women recorded as unemployed represented only 35 per cent of the total number of women who wanted a job. It should be obvious to all that many women already wish to participate in the paid work force as much as do married men. When they seek to exercise their rights they ought not to be discriminated against in any way. The Bill, when enacted, will not persuade more people to enter the paid work force, but it will ensure that those who do will not suffer discrimination without rights of redress. It is in the enlightened self-interest of employers and for the benefit of individuals and Australia that this discrimination be exposed and eradicated. As foreshadowed earlier, on behalf of the Opposition I now move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst welcoming the intention of the Bill to remove discrimination against the people on the basis of sex, marital status or pregnancy, the House is of the opinion that: (1) the Bill should not rely on the external affairs power as a head of power; (2) Australia's signature to the United Nations Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women should not be used to extend the powers of the Commonwealth; (3) the removal of discrimination against people on the basis of sex should be recognised as not obliging anyone to enter the paid work force or alter their views of their responsibilities towards their spouses or children; (4) no decision or action by any educational or child care or other body established for the education of students or the care of children in accordance with the doctrines of a religion or creed or in accordance with stated principles should be affected where that decision or action has been taken in good faith to enable the body to conform with those doctrines or principles; (5) nothing in the Bill should be taken as approving those articles of the Convention which are not implemented by the Bill, and (6) the clauses of the Bill should be re-drafted accordingly.' Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -Is the amendment seconded? Mr Connolly —I second the amendment. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(5.38) —It gives me very great pleasure to speak at long last on the Sex Discrimination Bill. It is a most significant promise of the Australian Labor Party, to which I belong, and has been implemented as quickly as possible. I thank the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) for his very learned and extended support for most of the principles of this Bill. I would like to correct one or two things. While we appreciate the very great value of the work of the National Women's Advisory Council, our policy is-and it is in the process of being implemented-to replace that body with a much wider group of women who can consult with the Government and who can give us the benefit of their wide base of experience. That is under way and that will continue to be under way. That work is being backed up by the status of women committee of this Government which meets every week to care for the concerns that have come up during that week. The Office of the Status of Women has been transferred, as honourable members know, to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and upgraded to the rank of Division. That is evidence of our seriousness about the status of women. I was very glad to hear the honourable member talk about the need for child care, including work-based facilities, because one of the things that I do in this place is work on the Joint Committee on the New Parliament House. To my astonishment, I found at the beginning of last year when I joined the Committee that in that enormous building with its upwards of 4,000 people who will be working there no child care facility had been provided. I am very proud to be the the chairman of the sub-committee looking at providing child care facilities for the new Parliament House. I am glad to say that it is not too late to look at child care facilities for the new Parliament House. The important question is whether this legislation is necessary. I believe the honourable member for Balaclava has demonstrated extremely clearly its necessity . If this is so, will it change the fabric of our society in a way which could have undesirable consequences? It is a matter of demonstrable and demonstrated fact that women have not been fairly treated in many aspects of life. Perhaps it is enough for us to contemplate for a moment the balance in this House. That question really answers itself. Of the 123 members, six are women. They are all from the party with an affirmative action policy and a commitment to removing discrimination. I do not believe that the Liberal and National Parties have no women capable of bringing, or desiring to bring, to the legislative process the necessary skills. Nevertheless, here we are. There are no women on the Opposition side and six on this side. It is not an enormously good record, is it ? Listing the evidence of clear discrimination in employment, in education, in clubs, in businesses, and in other areas of public life would take the rest of this debate, and it is well documented for anyone who wishes to take the trouble to examine it. If a group of the population is being discriminated against, no fair-minded government responsible to its constituents can or should ignore that fact. It is fairly common that those who are discriminatory, and who always have been, do not understand their action and attitudes to be so, and that those who have always been discriminated against can accept that position-some of them at any rate. That is not, however, a sufficient reason for a government to draw back from legislating against customary or deliberate discriminatory actions within the public arena. This Bill does not attempt to legislate against attitudes, but against actions. It forbids the kinds of behaviour which would, on the basis of gender, or factors such as pregnancy arising from that gender, lead to the exclusion of women from opportunities or services which would otherwise be available. Apart from the pregnancy provisions, the Sex Discrimination Bill applies to men as well. We ought not to forget that. However , it is more important to women because they are the people within our society who have been discriminated against. This has been distorted to mean an attack on family life, an attempt to force women into the work place against their will , and an attack on the freedom of the Australian people. I will deal with the last issue first. I have received a rather curious letter from a Mrs Jackie Butler, Chairman of the Council for a Free Australia, which closes with the statement that '. . . free Australians will never accept these savage restrictions on their choices'. Just exactly who are the free Australians for whom Mrs Butler takes up the cudgels? Are they, for example, the people who wish to be free to continue to practice sexual harassment in the work place or in educational institutions, or are they those who perhaps wish to be sexually harassed? That is their choice. They may invite it if they will, but they may not impose it. Thousands of Australian women will be glad of this 'savage restriction' on the liberties taken with their persons. In this House there are people who would do well to remember that. Or are they the people who wish to be free to exclude women from promotion to senior positions, to exclude them from employment, from admission to clubs using public facilities, from admission to partnerships and who wish to take for themselves alone the privileges which should, in a just society, be properly shared? I reject those freedoms because they depend on discrimination against more than half the population. Clause 6 forbids discrimination on the grounds of marital status. Unless one is prepared to defend the notion that marriage, per se, removes skills and decreases intellectual ability, one must admit that discriminating on the grounds of marital status should be either abandoned or applied to all married people. Clause 7 defines discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy, and clause 31 provides an exemption for the rights and privileges granted in connection with pregnancy or childbirth. Either one accepts that pregnancy and childbirth are normal physical functions, impairing skills and expertise not at all, or one is faced with the proposition that there is something not quite right about these functions. I am sure that none of the fecund fathers in this House would want to take that on. However, it is unreasonable to expect that one can totally ignore pregnancy and childbirth and therefore the conditions which are necessary protections are exempt. Let us consider further the issues involved in the women in the home question as opposed to the women in the work force question as this is at the heart of the real concern expressed about legislation such as this. When equal opportunities provisions or sex discrimination legislation are discussed, the discussion tends to centre around the problems encountered by women in the work force. Those women whose work is in the home feel somewhat devalued by this emphasis. Their work is in any case devalued by the whole of society. Their feeling of devaluation because of the emphasis on the problems of women in the work force is a serious problem to anyone wishing to discuss sex discrimination. This Bill, although it is certainly concerned with employment factors, is by no means wholly concerned with them. It very largely deals with discriminatory practices in the provision of goods and services and in the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. This makes sure that women are not discriminated against in their financial and business affairs, in their requirement for accommodation, in education, and in a wide range of other matters not connected with employment, but extremely important to all women. We have endless evidence to suggest that women are discriminated against in accommodation, particularly if they have children. They are discriminated against in financial and business affairs because it is considered by those people who do not understand the difference between being equipped to deal with something and being of one sex or another that they are not equipped to deal with such affairs. Those people who would draw the simplistic dichotomy between mothering and homemaking as good and proper for all women and maternity and career as bad are doing an enormous disservice to all women in their opposition to the correction of the wrong treatment of women because they are women. Women's traditional work is very restricted in scope. It may not use a woman's full abilities and women quite rightly resent a restriction upon the use of their abilities imposed by custom or allowed by law. However, it is this perception of women either as mother and homemaker or contributor to the restricted work which has had some influence on the position in which women as a group find themselves-passed over, pushed aside, not short-listed, not promoted, not treated as seriously able to deal with business matters, not able to run their affairs properly, not desirable tenants, not acceptable club members, and altogether not quite real people who can use a screwdriver, fix a fuse and efficiently and effectively do a whole range of things which are considered to be within the normal almost innate capacity of men. None of the proposals in this Bill will have the effect of forcing women out of the home if that is where they want to be, but if they wish to do something else they will not meet the kinds of discrimination which have previously been lawful . In talking about the policies and practices of the previous Government, discriminatory factors which allow women to be discriminated against in a range of employment are lawful and will remain lawful until this Bill is passed. It is the experience of every member of this House in talking to large groups of senior or important people, whether in education, some society or other, or simply to people who are running various aspects of society, that women are heavily under-represented. The group may well pretend to be a group based on merit, capacity, interest, or simply based on its members wanting to be there. One will find that the same thing is true in voluntary societies all over the country. The people who do the work tend to be the women and the ones who make the decisions tend to be the men. It has been one of my interests to keep saying to women: 'You see that you are president and leave the men to be secretaries and coffee-makers'. Sexual harassment in education has been a very serious problem for a long time because it has been covered up. There has been no redress for young women and girls-unless they are under the age of consent-who are sexually harassed by people who should be concerned only with their educational progress. There have been many instances of sexual blackmail of young women students in universities and tertiary institutions. It is a disgraceful part of our society that that could ever be covered up or could be seen to be something which had to be put up with. This Bill forbids that and gives redress to those young women should they be harassed. One of the things in regard to educational institutions is the provision in this Bill which exempts: . . . an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed, if the first-mentioned person so discriminates in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherence of that religion or creed. The Bill has been written very carefully all the way through to exempt those groups of people, those parts of society and those elements of employment which do not discriminate on the grounds that they just do not think women can do it, but which discriminate on the basis of some other properly held ground. I believe that the amendments which have been made to the Bill are, in some cases, fair enough. I do not like the amendment which the Opposition has now moved, because that certainly has nothing to do with the guts of this Bill, which is about removing the possibility of people in the public arena making decisions disadvantageous to women generally and to society as a whole. Redress will be available when this Bill becomes law and that redress has to do with fair and proper hearings of complaints and cases. It has to do with the fact that one simply cannot make laws and hope that people will obey them; one has to put a few teeth in them somewhere. As I said before, we are not legislating against attitudes. We do not pretend to be able to do that. One would hope that attitudes will change as the legislation takes hold and people discover that attitudes they have held have in fact militated against the better progress of their businesses or of the society in which they live. One thing is certain: We can wait no longer to legislate against discrimination, because all the exhortation, all the advisory councils and all the publicity in the world have not made any difference at all to the practices which we now would forbid. Because those practices are so ingrained in our society and in our thinking we would have to wait for generations before we could change them. I know that there have been changes in attitudes to women, but those changes have to be translated into action. The attitudes which will not be changed will not be able to be translated into the kind of action against which we would legislate. I know that many honourable members want to speak on this Bill, so I will cut short my speech. I will simply say that I think this is one of the most important pieces of legislation that this Government has introduced. I am glad that the Opposition will not oppose the second reading. I hope that it will see that its amendment is not appropriate to this Bill, and I commend the Bill to the House. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest)(5.55) —I wish to compliment all honourable members who have been involved in the debate on the Sex Discrimination Bill, particularly the last speaker, the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer). I wish to compliment the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), who is the Opposition spokesman on this issue. I have been to every meeting which he has conducted on this subject. Many of us have put a lot of time into this matter. I feel though that for the Bill to be acceptable to me, the Government will need to accept our amendment. I know that it has treated this amendment with the seriousness that it deserves and I trust that it will accept it. I have some fears that it may not. Therefore, at this early stage in the debate I need to put down the reasons why I think the Government should accept our amendment. There are three major areas of concern regarding this Bill. It compromises the sovereignty of the Federal and State parliaments of Australia through unnecessary reference to an external United Nations convention; it employs State coercion in seeking desirable social goals; and it gives new regulatory powers to commissioners separate from our courts of law. As an Australian and as a federalist I deplore the passing of any legislation that purports to effect an external convention. The United Nations has some value in providing an international talking-shop, a safety valve, and some useful mechanisms and agencies. However, I believe the people of Australia would be horrified to think of it as some kind of incipient world government, whose decrees and conventions are morally superior to the laws of this country-far from it. Most of its member nations are not democracies and many are ruled by Marxist tyrannies. Hypocrisy and humbug are their stock in trade. At times there may be no harm in Australia's subscribing to those UN conventions which set forth desirable principles or innocuous sentiments however much we may doubt the sincerity of our fellow signatories. It is quite another matter to give such a convention any kind of legal standing that would interfere with the lives of Australians. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women makes perfectly good sense if it relates to the removal of social and legal repression of women as it exists in many Third World countries. Its application to Western democracies is more doubtful. Either it is irrelevant or it becomes the vehicle for the imposition of unspecified and limitless demands, creating rights that connote burdensome duties for our society. The point remains that it is too vague to be applied to Federal and State law. Therein lies the danger. Determined, selective interpretation of this alien contract could bring forward changes in the future that this Government would not dare to introduce in this Parliament. We already have an example of how a foreign convention has been used to subvert State authority and trample the rights of some individual Australians. I refer of course to the World Heritage Listing that led to the Franklin Dam decision. I do not particularly want to canvass that issue because many advocates in this Parliament could do it far better than I. Parts of Mr Justice Murphy's judgment have a wider bearing. He said: Increasing use of the external affairs power will not be exceptional or extraordinary but a regular way in which Australia will harmonise its internal order with the world order. Some world! Some order! Mr Justice Murphy further asserted: Parliament has the authority to take Australia into the 'one world', sharing its responsibilities. With all due respect to His Honour, this is a sentiment which, quite frankly, would disgust the great majority of Australians, particularly my people in Western Australia. We want to be governed by laws passed through Australian parliaments by members responsible to the people through the ballot box. Neither this Government nor any other was elected to subordinate Australians to some dubious supra-national authority. We do not want Iran, Libya or the Soviet Union having the most indirect of inputs into our national life. At the same time we stand warned that there are people in high places who appear to view such a development with positive approval. It is all too clear that some vague foreign convention can be, and has been, to overrule the decision of an elected Australian Parliament in Tasmania. Still unresolved are compensation and other matters that have been raised by Tasmanians in this place in the last two days. To write into this or any other Bill a reference to the United Nations anti-discrimination convention provides a sinister catch-all clause extending the matter a lot further than is spelt out in front of us today. Selective interpreters of this marvellously opaque convention, whether they be of the judiciary, Cabinet, or bureaucracy, will have a field day. Despite current assurances that some aspects of the Convention will not be implemented, any reference to the United Nations Convention could be a means by which the unacceptable face of the program of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) would one day be imposed upon the people of this country. External conventions are a useful means of breaking down the authority of elected State parliaments over areas that, by established tradition and practice , have been left to them. I believe that the people of Forrest, and of Western Australia generally, want those things that most affect their daily lives to remain with the State parliament, a sphere of government that is closer to them. While this Parliament has proper authority over such areas as defence, foreign affairs, overseas trade and general economic management, the States have looked after law and order, and have regulated social relationships, to the extent that that is necessary in a free society. Not only do we have a federal government buying into this area with a vengeance but, to back that up we have a catch-all clause which refers to a United Nations convention. What I fear is so-called affirmative action. Although this Bill does not mention it, the matter is highly relevant when we have in Cabinet a Minister who makes no secret of her desire to inflict this upon us. Affirmative action can mean only one thing-the rejection of qualified applicants because they do not belong to the sex, race or group judged worthy of assistance. There is all the difference in the world between removing legislative and administrative impediments to human potential-the proper role of parliament-and trying to foster the social advancement of any group of Australians, which can so easily degenerate into that great twentieth century evil, social engineering. Even now affirmative action causes damage in the United States where students are denied entry to some tertiary faculties because they are not black. That is a long way from John Kennedy's struggle to enable blacks to go to the university. The example is quoted of the American who said, 'In the twenties I couldn't get into Harvard Law School because I was Jewish; now my grandson cannot get in because he is white'. I have too great a concern for the advancement of women in Australia ever to see created a situation in which a man would have grounds to say to a female colleague: 'I got here because of my ability and hard work; you got here through affirmative action'. Once we cease merely to remove injustice and seek rather to promote advancement of groups or sexes in place of qualified individual men and women, we do harm to the very people whose interests we seek to promote. I turn now to the general reservations that I have towards a Bill that regulates social conduct. Whenever it is proposed to instil morality by legislation we should ask whether the application of law and bureaucracy will really diminish social evils and increase the sum of human happiness. Will wrong social conduct really be curbed by law? I often call to mind these words of Professor Lachlan Chipman in 1979 when discussing the principle of all anti- discrimination legislation: It has long been known that the bad man was never made good, only cunning, by laws rendering his immorality illegal. People who have a deep prejudice on racial or sexual grounds will find a way around legislation, while innocent employers may find themselves coerced into accepting unsuitable staff for fear of an ill-defined law. I believe that has happened in Victoria to quite a large degree. Again, it would seem far more suitable for the States, rather than the Commonwealth, to have responsibility for detailed anti-discrimination legislation in this and similar categories. Essentially, this Bill will deal in areas traditionally governed by State law. I refer to labour relations, working conditions, education and public decorum. The people of Australia should be left to charge their State parliamentary representatives with implementing any laws appropriate to sex discrimination. If they feel that their State governments are not responding to their wishes, the mechanism of the ballot box will continue to be effective. The constant intrusion of this Parliament in the activities of States is hailed by some as a positive development, a national coming of age. I rather fear that it betokens a subtle national decline, a retreat into sterile centralism, a hardening of the national arteries. Government becomes less responsive rather than more so. Government supporters will say that opposition to the Bill will mean that I as an individual am unconcerned or hostile to the advancement of women. On the contrary, I believe that the Federal Government has a duty to ensure that barriers against the employment of qualified women are swept away in all areas under its jurisdiction. This should be a constant process, not one requiring blanket legislation. There will be occasion for specific reforms to allow more women to achieve their full potential. On the one hand we need to introduce income splitting, so that some women now working of necessity can choose to become full-time homemakers, while on the other hand child minding expenses for single mothers should be fully rebatable. In that way some women might have the option of returning to the work force rather than depending on the State. I believe that anomalies that disadvantage women can be weeded out swiftly and simply if there is a will on the part of government. The overall thrust of this ill-drafted Bill is to create suspicion between the sexes. At a time when the law is being withdrawn from the field of sexual relationships, a development that in the main is healthy, we are confronted with a new principle-that the manner of acting towards someone of the opposite sex has become a matter of public concern and public law. I have yet to be convinced that legal coercion is the proper means of overcoming negative social attitudes. One cannot instil morality through law. Recognising this, Australian society has moved to a de facto if not de jure toleration of homosexuality. Now, through this Bill, we are moving in the opposite direction. Libertarians as well as social conservatives should be concerned. Central to the Bill is the elimination of discrimination in employment. I do not dissent from that objective, although I consider that changes in employer attitudes, which have already taken place, have removed a great deal of unfairness. After all, the employer is the loser if he or she allows sexist prejudice to deprive the firm or institution or individual of a better qualified employee. This Bill makes the unwarranted assumption that when the sole apparent difference between two applicants for a job is their sex, the person making the choice must have chosen on the grounds of sex. No recognition is given to the likelihood that more appealing personal qualities and the ability to work in harmony with existing staff could have influenced the decision. For this reason, I am entitled to have a valid concern that such a law could result in unsuitable applicants forcing themselves upon employers, using the threat of the coercive machinery of the Act, as much as by actual decision of the Commission. A person could force his or her way into an employer institution with whose principles that person was not conscientiously in agreement. I make no apology for affirming the right of a school or like institution to insist on standards of sexual behaviour on the part of its employees or students . Indeed, parents have a right to expect that the school environment will foster the moral development of their children. To maintain such an environment may require the setting and enforcing of standards of private behaviour. After all, staff are not compelled to work in independent schools, nor parents to send their children there. The new clause 38 goes some way to protect the integrity of independent schools , but I am unconvinced that it goes far enough. True, a teacher forming a sexual relationship with a senior pupil will be unable to claim the protection of the Sex Discrimination Act. Yet, a school has to admit that it discriminated. It has to prove that it did so in good faith and in accord with religious precepts. A malicious and determined litigant may ask the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and ultimately the judiciary precisely what aspect of religious doctrine was being upheld. Clause 38, therefore, might not protect the school unattached to any specific denomination but run on broad, conservative ethical principles. Parents remain entitled to the assurance that their children will be educated in this particular ethical environment, yet the school will not be able to claim that it upholds behavioural standards to accord with religious ideals. Turning to Division 3 of the Bill, I fully agree that sexual harassment is an evil. Yet I fear that this Bill will do more for lawyers than for the genuine victims of harassment. Words and phrases such as 'unwelcome', 'disadvantage', ' reasonable grounds for believing', 'in any way', 'possible', and 'statement of a sexual nature' are delightfully vague and give enormous grounds for litigation. I am greatly concerned that a person so accused would have the job in front of him or her to prove his or her innocence and fight his or her way out of the legal thicket. Far more thought should have been given to this section of the Bill. Threatening to accuse someone of sexual harassment could become a subtle means of blackmail. Sexual advances, once welcomed and reciprocated, could be retrospectively brought forward in quite a new light. Equally, what most of us would sensibly regard as friendly, outgoing behaviour between the sexes in the workplace could be subject to a new interpretation in a court of law or some bureaucratic star chamber. It would be rather sad if this zealous regulation of social behaviour made us all that more withdrawn into ourselves. Again I remind the House that the employer who harasses staff in a sexual manner will create his own punishment when able staff choose to work elsewhere. I appreciate that the enforcement procedures of the Bill have been modified in the Senate. Thanks to the efforts of the Senate Opposition and the Government, to which I gave an accolade at the beginning of my speech, no longer do the rules of evidence disappear in inquiries by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission. Nor will people be denied the right of legal representation before the Commission. The onus of proof before the Federal Court will not now be reversed. Nevertheless, there is no reason for us to be filled with gratitude. It is an old political trick to drop the most outrageous features of a proposal in order to secure 80 per cent of one's objective in a wave of popular relief. An example of this is the assets test. This Government has quite a talent for it. Still, we are entitled to question the sincerity and morality of an Attorney-General and a government that would allow such unjust, dictatorial proposals to go before Parliament in the first place. We can only assume that the original Bill contained exactly what the Government would like to inflict on us, if it could get away with it. It is a grim warning of what the Hawke Government would do if it controlled both Houses of Parliament. Ms FATIN(Canning)(6.14) —I look forward to the Committee stage of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1984 when I will then join with my colleagues in answering many of the claims made by members such as the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond). This is both an historic and a proud day for me and for many women throughout Australia. For the past 14 years many of us have argued about the need for sex discrimination legislation and now years of hard work are about to be fulfilled. In a matter of days this Government will enact that legislation. I am proud to be standing here taking part in this debate, proud of my Party, of the Government, and of the many women who will rejoice with me when this Bill becomes law. Madam Deputy Speaker, before I address myself to the Bill itself, I want to acknowledge my Caucus colleagues in this Parliament, and congratulate them on their attitude towards the elimination of sex discrimination. When I first became a member of this place I did not expect to see the level of commitment from my male colleagues towards the advancement of women. That commitment is there and I acknowledge it. I wish also to acknowledge the many women who have spent years striving for this result. There are thousands of them but I am able to mention just a few. First I mention those who at the turn of the century fought for women's rights. Among them were Marion Phillips, Alice Henry, Jean Beadle, Muriel Matters, Irene Driver, later Irene Greenwood who is still fighting for women's rights, Jessie Street and Muriel Heagney. May I also mention a few women who today are known to me and who have fought for women's rights over the years. They include Edna Ryan, Elizabeth Reid, Sara Dowse, Eva Cox, Gail Radford, Nancy Refeld, Debra McCulloch, Senators Susan Ryan and Patricia Giles, Rosa Walden, Mary Owen, Dot Goodrich and Carmel Niland. There are two problems which arise whenever a human rights issue is opened up for debate. The first is that people who have not been the victims of some form of discrimination find it very hard to grasp the essence of what it feels like to be treated as a person outside the mainstream of social, economic and political life. That this problem has arisen during the sex discrimination debate has been graphically illustrated by the contributions made by some members of the Opposition in the other place. Tribute must be paid, however, to the many insightful and sensitive comments from men and women on both sides of that chamber which have given great encouragement to those of us who have long been committed to introducing sex discrimination legislation. The other problem is that wherever one finds grossly unfair discrimination or inequality, one will also find a group or section of society profiting in some way from the situation. And, of course, it will be these people who will shout the loudest when a proposal is put forward to eliminate those forms of discrimination. Thus we are finding in the sex discrimination debate at typical 'roads to ruin' outcry: The very structure of society is under threat it is claimed, that totalitarian state is taking over, and individual freedom and liberty are about to be denied. Those honourable members who know something of the history of political, legal and social reform will recognise this as the very same argument which was flung at the people who first suggested abolising slavery in the Deep South of America or who campaigned in favour of laws to stop small children being sent up chimneys or down coal mines. Like every politician in Australia, I have received a certain amount of correspondence during the last 12 months about both the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Sex Discrimination Bill. With only one or two exceptions, the Opposition to the Convention and the Bill has not been based on the factual content of implications of either document. I have supplied all my correspondents with detailed information, and I am happy to report that as the information was disseminated through the community, so opposition to the Convention and the Bill has been overcome. I pay tribute to the staff of the Office of the Status of Women for the excellent quality of the explanatory leaflets and guides which they have produced during the last year. Let us just look at some of the other groups and individuals who have indicated their support for the Bill as it now stands before the House. Mention has already been made in the other place of the Women's Electoral Lobby, the Australian Federation of Business and Professional Women, the National Council of Women of Australia, the United Nations Association of Australia, the Union of Australian Women, the Women and Development network and the Young Women's Christian Association of Australia. To this list my colleague Senator Crowley has added the Catholic Church, the Young Liberal Movement and Judith Roberts, the former South Australian chairperson of the Liberal Party. Dame Beryl Beaurepaire made a notable contribution to the debate last year when she indicated her support for sex discrimination legislation. Perhaps the most significant sign of the groundswell of support for the Bill is the statement signed by nine of our most prestigious Opposition senators at the conclusion of the Senate debate. This statement clearly sets out the positive factors which guided the senators in reaching their decision to vote in support of the Bill. For the sake of those inside and outside this House who have not had the time, the opportunity or perhaps the inclination to inform themselves about this Bill and the types of discrimination it seeks to counter, it is worth considering some of the facts with which Australian women of all ages are confronted today. We now make up 37 per cent of the work force, as compared with 30.6 per cent in 1966. The female labour force increased by 68.1 per cent between 1966 and 1982 while the male labour force increased by 25.9 per cent. Between 1966 and 1982 the number of married females in the labour force increased as a proportion of the total female labour force from 52.2 per cent to 59.8 per cent. In 1981, 45 per cent of women with dependent children were in the labour force and women with dependent children comprised 37.6 per cent of the female labour force. Research has indicated that only 26 per cent of families in Australia fit the nuclear model and that about 15 per cent are single parent families. In 41.2 per cent of married couple families both husband and wife are in the labour force. Of these 58.9 per cent have dependent children. More than 90 per cent of single parent households are headed by women. The number of single parent families increased by 57 per cent between 1976 and 1981. I ask the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) to take note of those figures. In 1981, 13 per cent of children aged less than 15 and 11 per cent of those 15 to 19 years of age lived in single parent households. A submission to the National Economic Summit Conference in 1983 stated that women's earnings are a major factor in keeping families out of poverty. Obviously the expectations of young women today are, by choice and necessity, vastly different from those held by their mothers and grandmothers at a similar age. The majority of women in Australia can now assume that they will be employed, or seek employment by choice or necessity, for a much greater proportion of their lives than women have before. Yet employment is the area in which discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy is most rife. The 1982 figures released by the Women's Bureau of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations show that a women's choice of occupation is still very limited. Only 38.3 per cent of women have post-school qualifications compared with 42.4 per cent of men. This figure drops to 2 per cent in the area of trade qualifications compared with 22.2 per cent of men. Unemployment rates for women are consistently higher than for men, and women account for 78.4 per cent of part time workers and 87.6 per cent of discouraged job seekers. The ratio of female to male earnings of all adult full time workers stood at 0.8 per cent in 1981 and 0.78 per cent in 1982. Theoretically, of course, equal pay principles have applied in Australia since 1975. Obviously however, the equalisation of award rates has not resulted in an equalisation of average wages. In a paper subtitled 'The Cost of being a Woman' F. L. Jones identified the problem still being faced by both men and women in the area of employment discrimination. He says: Because economic inequality in the sense of simple discrimination has now been effectively eliminated, what remains must result from complex discrimination, amounting to all those social forces which produced sex segregation in the division of labour in the first place and have sustained it largely unchanged in the present century as well as those social forces which define women's participation as peripheral and secondary to their role as homemakers, childbearers, and supports for another's career. The fact is, as Chapman points out in the survey 'Australian women and wages', men and women are not treated the same by employers. Chapman says that employers overstate the difficulties and costs of hiring and promoting women, and concludes that there is a need for governments to provide information and guidance and even legislation to counter inequalities in the labour market. I know that in the light of comments of this kind and more particularly because of their own experiences and observations, the Government's Green Paper on affirmative action will give rise to as much informed comment and be just as widely supported and welcomed as the Bill which is before the House today. It has been very noticeable during the passage of the Sex Discrimination Bill so far that none of the opponents of the legislation have dared to question the basic principles of equality on which the Bill is based, but I cannot help feeling that many of the critical comments made during previous debates have a very hollow ring to them. One wonders just how deep a commitment to equality goes when every ludicrous, far-fetched and exaggerated example imaginable is dredged up to support an argument against legislation designed to eliminate discrimination. The Government is determined that the Sex Discrimination Bill will become law because it is the most important way of showing that our promise to the people of Australia is being fulfilled. The Australian Labor Party has reason to be proud of its record in the area of women's affairs. Under both this Government and the previous Labor Administration, the status of women has become an issue of real significance and progressive thinking. Unlike some members of the Opposition, we are prepared to pay more than lip service to the principles of equality between men and women, we are willing to confront the issues, to research the areas where Government intervention is appropriate, and to undertake wide-ranging consultation about how unfairness and injustice can best be overcome. Let me talk in more detail for a moment about exactly what it is that I and thousands of others who support the Bill hope will change once the Bill becomes law. Let me tell honourable members about some of the real life experiences that can happen to me, not because I am uneducated or criminally inclined or mentally deficient, because I am none of these, but simply because I am female. I can be denied finance by banks and lending authorities unless I produce a man who will take ultimate responsibility for my financial dealings. I can be the most experienced applicant for a job yet be passed over because higher positions traditionally go to men. I can be transferred out of a highly visible position if I become pregnant because of the supposition that pregnant women are unattractive and distracting. I can be ruled ineligible for a job because I am under six feet tall even when there is no reason for such a requirement to be made. Mr Goodluck —I have had that trouble, too. Ms FATIN —I am about to recognise that. It is vital to remember that men are also disadvantaged by discrimination related to their sex and marital status. Certainly the indirect discrimination over matters such as height affects men just as much as women. Even more common is the situation where a single man is passed over for promotion in favour of a married person simply because married people are supposed to be more reliable and stable. The Sex Discrimination Bill deals with all these forms of prejudice and can truly be said to be of major significance to both women and men. One of the questions which have been raised by both the supporters and the opponents of the Sex Discrimination Bill is whether a matter which is as firmly entrenched into our economic, political and social thinking as sexism is in Australia can ever be resolved by Government intervention. Let us look first at exactly what we mean by sexism. According to Elizabeth Reid, one of the most influential and significant figures to emerge from the political realm of women' s affairs in Australia, sexism is: . . . The artificial ascription of roles, behaviour and even personality to people on the basis of their sex alone. This does not simply create differences, but inequalities. For a similar definition from a quite different source we can turn to the Commonwealth Schools Commission report entitled 'Girls, School and Society'. The commissioners say: Sexism is a process through which females and males not only progressively learn that different things are required and expected of them because of their sex, but learn these things in an unexamined way. Obviously sexism, like all other forms of prejudice, depends on deeply socialised attitudes towards oneself and the rest of the world. Even so, a responsible government which recognises the unfairness and individual hurt which results from sexual discrimination has a duty to act in such a way that the results of discrimination will not be rewarded. It is also important that the way should be made as clear as possible for attitudes to change as and when they surely will. As Joan Bielski of the Women's Electoral Lobby has argued, legislation is society's way of expressing disapproval of anti-social behaviour as well as providing women, who experience discrimination in isolation and are powerless to do anything about it, with a means of redress. The Bill also makes provision for eliminating as far as possible discrimination involving sexual harassment in the work place. I know that to many men and some women sexual harassment is something of a joke. However, those of us who have been the victims of sexual harassment know that it is one of the most degrading, humiliating and frightening situations to be faced with. In some cases, the man in question obviously doesn't even realise that his actions are so grossly offensive and intimidating. Most of the time the man's attitude betrays a common assumption about women and women's place in society-women are inferior to men, second class citizens, objects to be used as playthings. I have already referred to the number of letters I and most of my colleagues have received about the Sex Discrimination Bill and the Convention. The theme which seems to be common to all the complaints about this Government's attitude to women is that people will be forced to do certain things like go out to work or place their children in child care. As those honourable members who have studied the Bill and the associated literature will know, this assumption is absolutely false. The motives of certain members of the community who have perpetrated this myth are beneath contempt. The effect of the Bill will be to loosen the stranglehold of the stereotypes which are robbing people of both sexes of the chance to fulfil themselves as human beings. Let me quote Senator Missen's words: This Bill does not take away rights of women. It gives greater rights to women. It means that those who want to go out into the work force, those who want to have education, those who want to join clubs, those who want to be active in different ways, can do so. It does not take away from anybody the rights which they already have. The idea is that in a fair society no one is forced into any course of action because of inbuilt social prejudices. We do not want to force people to go out to work any more than we want to force them to become full time housekeepers or parents. At the moment, however, many people are being denied these choices not because of their natural inclinations or their inherent capabilities but because of the purely arbitrary stereotyped assumptions about how males and females, husbands and wives or pregnant women behave. The effect of the Bill will be to open up the areas of choice. Because choice is one of the fundamental prerequisites for any meaningful kind of freedom or liberation, the Bill will take a significant place in the annals of human rights legislation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Sitting suspended from 6.35 to 8 p.m. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(8.00) — Over the years society changes in its emphasis and in its outlook. Parliaments which are of the people and for the people need to reflect those changes. History has taught us that whilst the goals of society are purported to be enshrined in the hearts and minds of its citizens people will be abused, used and discriminated against unless they have the protection of the law and the right to pursue that protection. Out of this real experience of human behaviour there grew the great common law of England. Over the centuries it has developed, and the judiciary's rulings, made and recorded, were added to by statute. The cord between the two was bound by the knowledge that no matter how we try to educate people as to what is right and what is wrong people will transgress these ideals and norms. In order to protect the weak from the strong and the strong from the weak there is a need for legislation and appeal to the courts. People, when discussing matters relative to the role of women in society, tend- one can understand why-to become emotional sometimes due to beliefs based neither on fact nor on logic. The history books of civilisation's development are interspersed with pages of women's struggles-and a struggle it has been-to obtain recognition as equals. It is not long since women were given the right to vote. However, it seems to me that we men always insisted that they had the right to work, and work they did. The art galleries of the world contain great sculptures and paintings which depict women at work and even the heaviest of manual work. They were drawers of water and hewers of wood. Society seems to have accepted that they could do these jobs without pay in order to support the family. One suffers somewhat, therefore, when today's people say that it is wrong for a woman to wield a hammer or paint brush or drive a truck to earn some money in order to provide for family or self. I have some difficulty-might I suggest even great difficulty-in understanding how it was right three or four decades ago for a farmer's wife to milk cows and drive the horse teams without pay in order to save paying wages to a man so that the money saved could be used to buy food and clothing for the family and it is now wrong for a woman, with the aid of labour saving devices at home, to enter the work force and take a job to obtain money to buy food and clothing for the family to assist her husband or, in many instances, to be the breadwinner. Surely there is no difference. It is disappointing that those who oppose for opposition's sake do not acknowledge the facts. Women now comprise a significant percentage of the work force in Australia. There are 2,576,000 Australian women in the work force. Mr Goodluck —Too many. Mr McVEIGH —The honourable member for Franklin can make his own speech. I have strong views and I am entitled to express them. There are 1,475,900 women employed full time. Forty-four per cent of Australian women over 15 years are in the work force and 42 per cent of these are married. Several of the States in Australia have legislated to ensure that women are not discriminated against. They, quite rightly, have the protection of the law. South Australia pioneered this type of legislation in 1975. Incidently, because some opponents of the legislation drew attention to the fact that the United Kingdom has not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women-but it has signed it-it should be recorded that the United Kingdom legislated, as we are legislating today, this week and next week, in the same year as South Australia. The United Kingdom, like us in this national Parliament , was sensitive to the needs of the society in which we live. I submit that that is what government is about; that is what this Parliament is for. There has been a great deal of confusion about the Sex Discrimination Bill, its aims and its objectives. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) and the Government need to recognise that they are largely to blame for this. The product of the Bill is the result of an original private member's Bill by Senator Susan Ryan which was, in its concept, lacking in detail and preciseness of expression without any deep appreciation of its effects on Australian society. In effect it was the product of one person's mind. The Bill we are debating today is the product of many hours of discussion and is an expression of a plurality of views with a common thread. It is good that the Bill we are now debating has been drastically changed from its predecessor following detailed discussions and suggestions from all facets of Australian society. For those who may be confused, I want to say a few simple truths. It has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality, nor does it seek to make all women enter the work force or put the Australian Government under the authority of the United Nations. Fortunately, we in Australia are bound by the decisions of this Government and not by the decisions of a foreign power. It appears to me that the people who did not know the true ambits of the Bill, who sought to deliberately misrepresent the position, are not cognisant of the discrimination shown against Australian women in many spheres. I will not tolerate that discrimination. For my part I state clearly and unequivocally that I support wholeheartedly this type of legislation. I have some reservations about certain clauses and I, like others, will be advancing these doubts at the appropriate stage in Committee. As a former Minister for Home Affairs and Environment-I am most grateful for the kind personal remarks expressed towards me by my colleague the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), who on many occasions has been misreported and misunderstood-I had Cabinet approval to issue guidelines for legislation for Commonwealth employees in all States of Australia and, I ask honourable members to note, for all people in the Australian Capital Territory. Our legislation would have applied to both men and women beacause we poor unfortunate men are sometimes discriminated against also. The private member's Bill presented by my colleague the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) basically follows that legislation. I want to be quite specific: I was proud to be associated with the Fraser-Anthony coalition legislation. I had the carriage of it. I am proud to be associated with the private member's Bill of the honourable member for Gippsland. Equally, I am proud to be associated with this legislation. It has been said by some critics that this legislation seeks to take over the power of the States using the external affairs power. My colleague the honourable member for Balaclava, Mr Macphee, laid these fears to rest. There is only very minimum reliance on this power. It needs to be pointed out, however, that governments in Australia make the laws but the High Court interprets them. It is all right for someone to disagree with a proposition but it is not legal nor fair, I submit that it may not be honourable, for people to continue to use arguments based on supposition and emotion when the High Court rules otherwise. The High Court is the supreme and lasting interpreter of the Constitution and the High Court has ruled that it is a legitimate operation of the Federal Government to introduce laws based on the external affairs power. It needs to be pointed out that the possession of power does not necessarily mean that the central government has to use it. I instance in passing that the Fraser-Anthony Government did not use that power in the Tasmanian dam situation. I want to rebut some views held in the community that this legislation will tend to break down family life. I do not accept this argument. No force is used to pressure women to enter the work force. In fact, child care, which is almost necessary to allow women to enter the work force, is not even mentioned in this Bill. No extra benefits are provided in this Bill for women, married or otherwise, who enter the work force and no woman who chooses not to be in the work force is affected. The existing law regarding maternity leave and equal pay is largely unchanged and no employer will be forced to employ women. An employer is only required to employ the best person for the job, and in many instances the best person is a woman. To those critics who have used this argument, which I believe is wrong in law and baseless in fact, I want to say that it behoves all of us to do what we can to allow all women the absolute right of choice as to whether they enter the work force or not. For those many splendid women who prefer to stay at home-and there are equally many splendid women who choose to work-we need to develop an income welfare system which allows people to have a lifestyle which suits their position, moral obligation and conscience. I want to indicate that the original concerns of people in education and accommodation are no longer valid because of the changes made to the legislation . There will be no offence created by religious bodies which provide accommodation, nor where accommodation is provided by charitable or non profit making bodies, and where the employer lives on the premises and no more than three other persons reside with him on a commercial basis. Contrary to what many people originally thought-and unfortunately many still do-it is possible to have single sex schools and clubs. I can understand, as a parent whose children attend religious schools, the concern of principals and people associated with those schools as to the original intention of the legislation in these matters of teacher employment and pupil admission. This no longer applies as the Government has agreed to amend the legislation whereby people can be employed at the discretion of the school concerned. I would be happier if the scope were widened a little and enabled schools such as grammar schools, which are neither state nor religious schools, to have the same rights as the religious schools in the employment of teachers and in granting admittance to students. I will be raising this matter at the appropriate committee stage. There were, too, many grave fears that the legislation would allow abortion basically on demand. In the Senate debates this matter has been clarified and I am satisfied, and this has been confirmed by discussions with many people, that the legislation does not apply at all to abortion and it is wrong for people opposed to the legislation to use this as an argument against it. The Bill is about discrimination and, as I understand it, abortions are able to be performed only on women, so how can this be discrimination against them on a sex basis, just as a prostate gland operation can only be performed on a man and this is not discrimination on a sex basis. However, I do support the remarks of Senator Brian Harradine concerning the law as it relates to chemists who may be proceeded against if they refuse to provide contraceptives to unmarried young persons of school age. In later stages of the debate I will be passing some comments on conscientious beliefs strongly held. One realises that it can be argued that a chemist need not stock these contraceptives, but there are some who believe it to be appropriate to do so, but who believe it is inappropriate to supply them to the above-mentioned people. I am totally opposed to discrimination against any person. I believe that the most singular way of determining the culture and strength of a nation is to observe how its people are treated and whether the same law and rules apply to the richest and poorest, to the strongest and weakest, to the most able and the most handicapped. We need to overcome discrimination. Unfortunately there are many instances of discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status and pregnancy and this can happen through both direct and indirect methods. Indirect discrimination can occur when stereotype images influence the way a person is treated. For example, a woman who is not appointed to a position because women have high absentee rates is discriminated against if her own employment attendance record is satisfactory. Far too often we read where the best person does not get a job for no other reason than that she is a woman. It needs to be pointed out too that discrimination on the grounds of sex or marital status in the Bill is defined as having occurred if the aggrieved person is treated less favourably by reason of that person's sex or marital status or a characteristic appertaining to or generally imputed to persons of that sex or marital status, or if the aggrieved person is required to comply with a requirement or condition with which a substantially higher proportion of persons of the opposite sex or different marital status are able to comply which is not reasonable having regard to the circumstances of the case and with which the aggrieved person does not or is not able to comply. There are now safeguards in the Bill which should satisfy persons who believe in the right of the individual and that all are free before the law. Even in matters such as superannuation, time is allowed to see what problems might develop. The Fraser-Anthony Government formed the National Women's Advisory Council, which is indicative of its belief that the woman's role in society needed to be discussed and given its right and proper place. The Government had excellent advice from that Council, which had two great leaders in the persons of Dame Beryl Beaurepaire and Mrs Quentin Bryce. Both these leaders were able to form government consideration policies based not only on the rights of women but also on rights formed after due consideration of concern for all people in society and the best way that women could help mould a truly great future society. The bill can be no better described than by my using the words of the Hon. Bob Ellicott in signing the convention on behalf of the Australian Government some years ago and I quote from his statement: It is a question of treating each woman as an individual with her own dignity and self respect of the power to make decisions about her own destiny. I would like to add the words 'her destiny is one of equality with all and each of her fellow citizens'. This legitimate aim does not conflict with the laws of God. It is up to us to make sure that the laws of man do not conflict with these noble ideals. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(8.19) —I stand in this House very proud to be speaking in support of this legislation, the Sex Discrimination Bill, but particularly proud to be speaking after the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh). That is one of the finest speeches I have heard him deliver in this House and I must congratulate him on the sentiments of that speech. I may not agree with every point, but it was a fine speech. If all the members of the Australian community, both men and women, had the same thoughts and sentiments as the honourable member for Darling Downs there would be no need for this legislation to be before us tonight. The honourable member for Darling Downs pointed out so much of the misunderstanding in our community that has surrounded this Bill. He blamed the Government to some degree for that misunderstanding. I disagree with that. There have been a few mischief makers in our community who have deliberately distorted the significance of this Bill and the role it will have of changing the Australian community. This Bill has been accused of destroying the family, of forcing women into the work force and even of spreading homosexuality. To give one example of the distortions that have occurred, I will read to this House extracts from a letter that I received today from a constituent of mine asking me not to support this legislation because, the letter states, it would: . . . allow homosexuality to gain a foothold in our schools and institutions because it: (a) spreads AIDS (b) stunts the maturity of young boys when they should be persevering in development as well-rounded, happy heterosexuals. The letter goes on to state that it forces people 'to violence to their own and other bodies, e.g. King's Cross brutal and sadistic murder of taxi drivers'. That is the sort of nonsense that has been talked about this legislation. The aim of this Bill is not about any of those things. The aim is quite simply to remove discrimination against women in society. Can any honourable member of this House, even the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), say that discrimination does not exist? We have only to look around this chamber to see that it clearly does exist. If honourable members spend one day with a woman in their electorates they will know that there are clubs that they cannot enter and jobs that are not available for them. This legislation is not to force women out of the home. It is not to force them to do anything that they do not want to do. It is to provide opportunities and offer greater opportunities to women to make choices. That is simply what this legislation is all about. Discrimination is entrenched in this society and it is experienced by both women and men. But it is most strongly experienced by women, especially in their public lives, such as in paid employment and when seeking credit. Mr Ian Cameron —How did you get into Parliament? It cannot be that bad. Mrs KELLY —I got into Parliament, like every other woman in this Parliament, because I worked hard. Mr Ian Cameron —You were treated as an equal. Mrs KELLY —We are treated as equals now we are here but women generally in society are not treated equally. If they were, there would be more women in this Parliament. Fifty-one per cent of the Australian population are women and in this Parliament there are six women out of 125 members. They are all on the side of the Govenment. That speaks for itself and shows that there is discrimination in our society. Commonwealth and State experience has shown that most discrimination occurs in the employment area. Women make up 40 per cent of the total labour force but it is estimted that some 88 per cent of discouraged workers, that is, potential workers who do not constitute part of the total counted unemployed, are female. In addition, two-thirds of women who are employed are confined to four main industries-28.3 per cent in community services, 22.9 per cent in the wholesale and retail trades, 12.6 per cent in manufacturing and 11.5 per cent in finance, insurance, real estate and business services. Of all female full time employees, 38.3 per cent are in the clerical field. Even within occupations where women predominate, they are seldom found in any key decision making roles. Examples of this phenomenon exist everywhere. One area that I am particulary conscious of is in the Commonwealth Public Service. The Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration in 1975 was informed: For decades the Public Service Act and Regulations explicitly discriminated against women. From 1915 to 1949 women were excluded from selection tests to the Third Division. Until 1966 the Public Service Act prohibited permanent employment of married women. These prohibitions were reinforced by differential rates of pay and conditions of employment. We are still seeing the effects of that discrimination today. By 1981 the situation among senior staff in the Australian Public Service was that 96.93 per cent were men and 3.07 per cent were women. That refers to the Second Division of the senior executive service. That is what we are talking about. We are still living with that discrimination. Can we as a society afford to let that situation continue? Can we waste so much of our talent? The situation today is little different. Some senior women have been appointed. There is one in the chamber tonight. But with a Second Division in which only 2. 3 per cent of permanent officers are women, it is not surprising that we have so few women at the top of the Public Service. Predominantly women have been in the Third and Fourth Divisions doing clerical work. One can follow the careers of women through the Public Service. For example, we took one class of graduates from 1975. We examined them after three years in the Public Service. From that intake, three male officers had progressed to Class 11 level and to the Second Division three years after entry while no woman from the same graduate intake had progressed to that level in the same three year period. It is true that that is old information but that situation continues to exist today. Women do not progress in public service and industry in spite of identical qualifications with male counterparts. The reason is that people on selection committees tend to select clones of themselves. That is why women of Australia at all levels of employment need role models-women on selection committees. This legislation is set up to ensure that women are treated equally with their male counterparts. The problem is not specific to the Public Service. Women in industry have the same problem; those who select for promotion select people just like themselves. Men, and some women too, just cannot visualise women in positions of authority. Women have been expected to manage the private sphere, perform amazing feats with tiny budgets and large overheads and meet extraordinary demands by those they manage, while men tend to the public sphere. But when it comes to promoting women as managers in the realm of business, women are told that they do not qualify because they are not management material. Of course, women are not told this directly; it is much more subtle. Mr Ian Cameron —That is garbage. Mrs KELLY —The figures speak for themselves. How can it be garbage? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will have his opportunity to speak later in the debate. I call the honourable member for Canberra. Mrs KELLY —The discrimination in this area is very subtle. Women are simply not noticed when it comes to selecting a new generation of businessmen's own kind. What a waste of talent that is for Australia. How many honourable members have encountered a male typist or a woman bank manager? How many of the representatives of industry and the trade unions who attended the National Economic Summit Conference were women? The recent review by the Business Review Weekly of 500 top executive salaries included only one woman. If we look at the area of wages, in 1972 the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission set a new principle of equal pay for work of equal value. This meant that award rates for all work was to be considered without regard to the sex of the employee. The new principle was to be phased in by 1975, meaning that equal pay principles have applied in Australia since 1975. What is the reality today? Equalisation of award wages has not meant equalisation of average wages. In 1972 the ratio of female rates of pay to male rates was 0.65:1, in 1976, 0.76:1, in 1979, 0.79:1 and in 1982, 0.78:1. This information clearly reinforces the contention that women in Australia still earn considerably less than men. Subtle forces of discrimination operate in society. Values in society determine a stereotyped role for women, that is, that women's participation in the work force is peripheral and secondary to their role as homemakers and childbearers. That is not to denigrate their roles as homemakers and childbearers. It is simply to point out that it is those forces in society which seek to keep women in non-paid service roles. The legislation before us tonight will provide the legal possibility for those women who want to participate in the work force on a more equal basis to do so. I emphasise again that this Bill will not force women into the work force. It will not erode the concept of the family. It will work to remove discrimination against those women who want to enter the work force and it will ensure equality of opportunity for men and women by the elimination of unjust discrimination. The Bill also makes unlawful discrimination in the provision of goods and services, including services relating to banking, insurance, the provision of loans, credit and finance. Complaints of discrimination in the provision of goods and services represent the second largest area of complaints, although they fall a long way behind complaints in the area of employment. Getting a loan depends on one's predictable ability to repay the money, but in spite of evidence to the contrary, there are still money lenders who believe women will be distracted from their debts by motherhood or some other exclusively female peculiarity. Let us take the case of a young, married working couple. The woman was told by a bank loans officer that he hoped she was not going to have a family for five years because the couple could only just afford the loan based on their two incomes. The couple went elsewhere. In another case, a couple were asked to sign a statutory declaration to the same effect. The New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board documented the case of a couple with a joint bank account who separated. They took out separate accounts, both overdrew. The man overdrew his account by $1,500 and the woman overdrew her account by $300. His cheques were honoured, hers were bounced. Some retail stores are known to be key offenders. A divorcee in a country town sought a $50 budget account with a clothing store but was told that she needed a married male over the age of 21 to act as guarantor. She was perplexed as to why a male young enough to be her son would be considered more responsible than herself. While financial institutions state that they do not discriminate against women, there are stories which illustrate that they do. One such example is that of an unemployed young man receiving a Bankcard while the pensioner mother on whom the boy was dependent was unable to get a Bankcard. That the pensioner mother had satisfactorily managed the family's finances for many years was simply not taken into account. Credit scoring systems are based on the past performance of applicants and on the past performance of the credit provider. Credit providers who have systematically excluded women in the past have enshrined a principle of no credit for women unless they can get a man to go guarantor. It is for this reason that we urgently need legislation to redress this inbuilt inequality in the realm of credit. As a final example of discrimination against women in financial institutions, I relate the case of a couple who had a policy of putting her name first on official forms. With only one exception the bank would always write to the husband. When challenged, bank officials said it was not their policy to deal with a wife without the husband's agreement. Mr Coleman —And vice versa very often. Mrs KELLY —Not very often. The cases are well documented. I found the same thing happening to me. If discrimination is to be prohibited in the Commonwealth and its instrumentalities, especially by trading, banking and financial corporations , it is appropriate that the heads of Commonwealth constitutional powers be relied upon. In addition, certain provisions of the Bill will give effect to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. I am particulary pleased that this Bill will apply to the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory, and those States without legislation of their own. It gives me particular pleasure that we in Canberra will now have our own anti-discrimination legislation. We have waited some time for that. As the honourable member for Darling Downs said, he attempted to initiate some legislation in this area that would affect Canberra. I appreciate the work he put into that. Once this legislation is through, we will have anti- discrimination legislation of our own. I hope that it will have some impact, particularly on the Commonwealth Public Service. No legislation can eliminate all forms of sex discrimination, just as the equal pay provision could never assume that women would have equity in wages. The Bill is a beginning on the long road towards the provision of equality of opportunity for women and men in Australia. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(8.37) —One approach to the Sex Discrimination Bill, an approach held by many reasonable people such as the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), who has just spoken, is that it will simply advance the cause of equality of women, especially at work, but also in such areas as education, accommodation, club membership and the like. Further, according to this approach, the Bill allows for the usual sensible exemptions, including charities, religious and voluntary bodies, military service in combat areas and genuine occupational qualifications. Finally, according to this approach, the Bill does not require affirmative action, that is, the use of unfair and discriminatory techniques of promoting equality. The Bill therefore is legislation in the spirit and tradition of John Stuart Mill's The Subjection of Women. The other position is that while the Bill may seem moderate in some of its terms, it should be seen in the context of the wider movement against individual rights and against the traditional family, which for most people is still their great citadel of freedom and independence in the face of the ever expanding state. They certainly see in the Bill a further erosion of freedom of contract and of choice, and at least a step towards affirmative action. These critics generally see the Schedule to the Bill, the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, as giving us the hidden agenda of the Bill. They see the Convention as reactionary. I support the objects of the Bill. Indeed, I gave a notice of motion in November last year of a private member's Bill to achieve these objects in a different way. Because I support these stated objects I find myself in sympathy with some of the critics of this Bill. I believe that it approaches the problem in the wrong way. In matters of human relations such as this, there are two kinds of legislation. One, the wrong kind I believe, is to establish defined offences with sanctions and penalties for the offender. That is what this Bill does. The other is to avoid legal definitions and penalties and to seek progress by conciliation, negotiation and education. That is the approach taken in my private member's Bill which, strange to say, the Government has not brought on for debate. An example of what I consider to be the right approach is that taken in New South Wales. The New South Wales Privacy Committee Act established a privacy committee to examine threats to privacy in New South Wales, to make recommendations, and to solve disputes by negotiation. The legislation was derived from a report by Professor W. L. Morison, who advised against establishing a tort, or offence, of invasion of privacy with associated penalties, and urged the establishment of a conciliatory committee without sanctions. I served on this Committee in the mid-1970s and this experience has had a lasting influence on me in the consideration of matters of this kind. The Privacy Committee was extremely effective in a range of matters from consumer credit, criminal records, medical records, personal data systems, unsolicited mail, unsolicited phone calls and so on. It operated under guidelines but without defined offences and penalties, and it operated well. When there was a change of State government in 1976, the new Labor Government, which in opposition had argued for the legalistic approach and put much emphasis on the need to introduce penalties for offences against privacy, asked the Privacy Committee what teeth it wanted. The Privacy Committee said that it did not want any; that it was working well without them. This is one model. It is the model I had in mind when I gave my notice of motion. Another model-in the Commonwealth area and one relating to sex discrimination- is the National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation. This was set up after the former Government ratified an International Labour Organisation convention. This Committee reported to the previous Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. There were and are committees in each State and Territory as well as a national committee. These committees include representatives of government, employers and employees. No doubt the committees vary in standard from time to time and place to place, but all agree that they have had an excellent record of success in removing discrimination in employment. They operate by guidelines without rigid definitions and legal penalties and without a legislative basis. The only sanction that they have is to report to the Minister. They are charged with the responsibility to reduce discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, colour, political opinion, national extraction and social origin. In recent years they have extended the definition of 'sex discrimination' to include discrimination in superannuation schemes and discrimination by sexual harassment , without, need I say, the damaging legal techniques we have seen in New South Wales under its legalistic sex discrimination legislation. The point is that this new legislation is simply unnecessary. We have in place, and operating well at the Commonwealth level, a national committee, with State committees, which are achieving the object of removing discrimination and doing it by conciliation, without a cumbersome apparatus of legal definitions, court hearings, sanctions and penalties. All that is needed is to give the National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation a statutory basis and to extend its jurisdiction to the areas outside employment which are covered by this Bill. I refer to clubs, accommodation, education, the provision of services and so on. That is the simple approach, based on the existing operations of a Commonwealth committee. That the Government did not adopt this approach despite urgings from the National Committee on Discrimination is my basic objection to this Bill. Let us look at the Bill, which far from emphasising conciliation, in the extraordinary words of one member of the Human Rights Commission, will be ' vigorously implemented'. There is no reliance on the slow but effective methods of persuasion here. It will be vigorously implemented, and woe betide the poor man or woman who has other views or conscientious objections. The Bill, after scores of amendments to the first sloppy and authoritarian draft, has been improved. We must all agree with that. Some exemption is provided for church schools which, in their hiring or firing, will not now be committing an offence if they act in accordance with their religious faith. In hearings before the Human Rights Commission the defendant, as he or she may as well be called, will be allowed legal representation if the Human Rights Commission uses counsel. Formerly the defendant had to face, without assistance, a panel of vigorous enforcers aided by counsel. Now when a matter reaches the Federal Court the defendant will not have the onus of proving his innocence, and the finding of the vigorous enforcers will no longer be prima facie evidence of the truth of the finding. But let us note that these reluctantly made amendments do not go far enough. The Bill is still a legalistic, punitive and authoritarian measure, in my view. It is still the case that legal representation is permitted only if the Human Rights Commission has legal assistance. So the defendant can be heard without representation by a group of people who are not judges upholding established law but who are committed to the vigorous implementation of a change of community attitudes, and who are not bound by the laws of evidence. Is that what our idea of a fair hearing has come to? As Professor Lauchlan Chipman has pointed out, this is like a person charged with driving under the influence being judged by a group of militant abstainers. Further, although reverse discrimination is not mandatory in the Bill, it is permitted by clause 33. It is also to be noted that although there are four pages of definitions in the Bill and everything from 'accommodation' at one end to 'woman' at the other is defined, there is no definition of that equality which clause 3 (d) says is one of the objects of the Bill. This clearly leaves it open to the Human Rights Commission or the Sex Discrimination Commissioner to take 'equality' to mean not equality of opportunity but numerical equality; that is, there is inequality and discrimination until 50 per cent of all occupations are staffed by women and 50 per cent by men. That is one very obvious interpretation of equality and it is one which would make reverse discrimination quite mandatory. To be fair, clause 33 refers to 'equal opportunities', not numerical equality. But it is a defect still that no definition of equality is given in clause 4, especially in view of the well-known preference of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) for reverse discrimination and numerical equality. In voting for the Bill I have to make almost an act of faith that the conciliatory and not the punitive themes in the Bill will predominate when it become law, but it is only sensible to be cautious about a Bill based on this kind of approach. Fundamentally, we still have a Bill which is based on definitions of offences and ultimate sanctions. Of course there is talk of conciliation, and I hope that prevails, but still where is the spirit of conciliation when it is conducted by vigorous enforcers well aware of the power to refer a matter to the Federal Court? This is an area in which there are nuances and qualifications and special cases which should be covered by guidelines, flexibility, conciliation and education, not by legalistic rules and by courts. I now turn to the Schedule to the Bill, which is the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, to which the Bill gives partial expression, and which clearly indicates the way we are to read the Bill. It is the ideal of which the Bill is an imperfect expression, but at least it is a step towards full expression. We must assume it is included in the Bill because it helps in some way to understand the Government's intentions in introducing the Bill, otherwise why would it be there? We have to assume that because the Bill could stand by itself and be equally effective without the Schedule. Of course, consequently, without clause 3, which states that the object of the Act is to give effect to certain provisions of the United Nations Convention, and without other sections referring to the Convention the Bill could then stand on its own. In any case Australia has signed the Convention, so what light does it cast on our understanding the Government's intentions with this Bill? The Schedule has many worthy articles which few would object to, ranging from the right of women to vote to the right to retain nationality. These and others like them are the articles which encourage some people with whom I have discussed the Schedule, especially members of the Liberal Party, to see it as advancing enlightenment in a world where women in some countries are still oppressed by such customs as suttee, or the traditional self-immolation of a widow, and female circumcision. It is noteworthy, and a point in favour of those supporting the Convention, that the countries supporting such practices-or most of them in Asia and Africa have not even signed, let alone ratified the Convention. They obviously see the Convention as directed at these infamous practices. It may turn out that the Convention through the influence of some of its better articles will advance the cause of enlightenment. However, one must have serious reservations about several of the Articles. The one about which I have most reservation is Article 5 (a), I have reservations about others associated with it, such as 11 (2) (c) and 10 (c). Article 5 (a) calls for: . . . Appropriate measures . . . to modify the social and cultural patterns of men and women with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based . . . on stereotyped roles of men and women. Taken with 10 (c), which calls for the revision of text-books, school programs and teaching methods, and 11 (2) (c), which calls for 'a network of child-care centres', Article 5 (a) can only be taken to be aimed at one 'stereotype'-to use that word-which I believe is at the basis of a free society; that is, the sterotype of the man as bread-winner and the woman as home-maker, in other words , the traditional family. The traditional family must be a so-called 'stereotype ', in the terms of the Convention and the Convention is against all stereotypes and therefore is against the traditional family. I can find no other meaning for those Articles and therefore I am against them. The traditional family is, in the words of the British writer Ferdinand Mount, the permanently subversive institution-using the word 'subversive' in a good sense-that always resists the reach of the state and government, and even of the churches. It is the nursery of individuality, the spirit of independence and social values. It is the only institution capable of generating upward mobility and is crucial to overcoming poverty. It will continue to resist the drive of governments to flush women out of untaxed work at home and into the public work force so that the state can tax them to advance the power of the state. Anything that weakens this wonderful subversive institution, as I believe the United Nations Convention tries to do, should be opposed. There may indeed be, as we are always being told, other forms of the family emerging in our time-the so- called single parent family and so on-but none can be a real substitute for the traditional family. Having said that, I of course recognise the problems involved-for example, those of the talented house-bound mother of the traditional family who wants to earn an income of her own and develop her talents other than for mothering and running a home. I am thinking of a constituent of mine who wrote that she was sick of listening to the debate between liberated women who wanted to be PhDs and what she called hard-line full time mothers. She wrote that there ought to be a place for ordinary women who do not want to be PhDs and who want to stay at home with the children but also want to earn some income and develop other interests. She asked why the Government and the political parties did not give more attention to the possibilities of earning income in the home, in the so- called electronic or computerised cottage. There is of course a good deal of controversy in America about these possible developments and a Bill before the United States Congress, the Family Opportunity Act, would use tax measures to encourage families that want to purchase home computers for the purpose of establishing a business, using them in the home. I think that it is an interesting piece of legislation and an interesting development. Be that as it may, in pointing to the crucial role of the traditional family in a free and independent society, I am not wanting to reject anyone's freedom of choice. I am simply stating that we weaken the traditional family at our peril. There are other articles of the Schedule or Convention which cause concern. Article 10 (b) gives the Commonwealth, under the Convention, control of the textbooks, school programs and teaching methods in government and non-government schools. One would have thought that people would have been more cautious about international treaties after the High Court's decision in the Gordon-below- Franklin Dam case which, relying on an international treaty, has destroyed self- government in Tasmania. Indeed, Tasmania is now Van Diemen's Land again but this time under a Colonial Office which is in Canberra, not London. The new Convention that is now under debate could have comparable consequences. One has only to consult the proclaimed ideas of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) to see that she would welcome this further weapon for use in the control of government and non-government schools. We have already seen in Tasmania the sort of conduct that ratifying this Convention has encouraged-the school in north-east Tasmania where they burnt hundreds of books, such as Snow White and Born Free, because they were regarded as sexist. I also distrust Article 4-the special measures article-which is the call for affirmative action to accelerate de facto equality by appointing people to positions not on the basis of merit but on the basis that they are women. One might applaud the stated objective of helping women but the means chosen could cause injustice and widespread bitterness and be counter-productive. It is not mandatory in the Bill yet-it is only permitted-but it is in the Convention and one therefore assumes that it is only a matter of time before we get appropriate legislation. I also find Article 17 objectionable in practice. This sets up a committee of 23 to monitor Australia's conformity with the Convention. Of course, Australia has nothing to fear from international monitoring but, as it happens, the monitoring committee is chaired by someone from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and is made up of representatives from such model liberal and enlightened democracies as Cuba, Bulgaria, East Germany, and so on, whose idea of eliminating discrimination is to treat women as well as men abominably. To have Australia submit its social arrangements to such a monitoring committee seems to me offensive and a retrograde step. I repeat, there is much in the Schedule or Convention which is unobjectionable and which may even do some good, but there is also much to cause concern. What these sections do is raise further doubts about the moderate or reasonable interpretation of the Government's intentions with this Bill. In summary, the Bill's stated objects should be supported, but the measure is an ill-advised way of achieving them. One could have a Bill based on conciliation, such as I proposed in my notice of motion, or one modelled on the New South Wales privacy committee legislation, or one which gives a statutory basis to the National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation and broadens its jurisdiction. Instead, we have a cumbersome, legalistic measure which may well be counter-productive, one based on the idea of offences and enforcements in an area of human relations that is unsuitable for that treatment . I cannot welcome, without these basic qualifications, a Bill with this kind of approach. I will vote for it but I can only look forward to a future Liberal Government's removing its objectionable features. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(8.55) —This is a very important debate. I would like to begin by making a comment about the people who have spoken in it. I think it appropriate that on this side we have heard from the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer), the honourable member for Canning (Ms Fatin) and the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly). That is very important because it says something about what is happening in Australian society and what is happening in the Australian Labor Party. Obviously our Party does not have a monopoly of good ideas. The Opposition, including you, Mr Deputy Speaker, has made major contributions. I was particularly impressed by the remarks of the honourable member for Balaclava, Mr Ian Macphee, and the honourable member for Darling Downs, Mr Tom McVeigh. The general spirit of the debate has been most worthy. One or two points need to be picked up at the outset. The last speaker, the honourable member for Wentworth, (Mr Coleman), spoke about the traditional family. We need to clarify that the traditional family was only one of the outgrowths of economic life in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; that the more narrowly defined role that women have played has been determined by factory and industrial life. If we look at the more extended family and the circumstances that preceded industrialisation, it is true to say that women played a rather broad role in economic life. The more narrowly defined economic life that many women have experienced in the last 200 years has been an outgrowth of industrialisation. It is important to emphasise that because when one speaks in a rather nostalgic sense about the traditional family one can refer back to the really traditional role of women as substantial economic providers during earlier times. It is important to understand that because in the community there is somehow a perception that what preceded was always better . I am not so sure about that. If we look at the role of women we see the more narrowly defined role of recent times and the fact that certainly a long time ago they enjoyed a much more extended role. That is not to say that there should be only one role but it is important to clarify that the traditional family of which the honourable member has been speaking has been of only recent growth and has been related to industrialisation. We know about that development. In a sense it is important to cut through the whole debate and say that what we are talking about is establishing as a Federal Government a set of benchmark propositions concerning the role of women. It is not a case of saying that there are not other areas of jurisdiction that operate. We recognise that there are but as a Federal Government we have a responsibility to establish a framework, a structure, within which people can operate most effectively and fully. It is in that light that the Sex Discrimination Bill represents an important part of our overall approach to the management of the economy and of the society. It is also of course a Bill about rights, and a Bill that is about rights is also one about duties. I will say more about that shortly. I wanted to clarify those matters, but the general spirit of the debate is such that the listening community must feel very pleased about it. People on both sides of the chamber are trying to make a positive contribution on this significant issue, which is dealt with in a Bill that was introduced in the Senate in June of last year. On 20 October last Senator Gareth Evans modified the Bill. Some 53 amendments were incorporated. I need to make a point about that. That was significant. A substantial process of consultation with and involvement of the community had occurred. The amendments incorporated are not those of a government that is wishy-washy about its intentions but of one that has been willing to put forward a series of propositions about a social process and react to the community in an intelligent and responsible way. That was the genesis of the Bill. There are other matters to which I want to refer shortly. However, when we do have legislation of this nature that is important-it is benchmark legislation and it tends to establish a series of important propositions that we as a government and, hopefully, we as a community would want to pursue-it is very important to follow a process in which we are involving people and in which we are listening to people. So the sort of process we are going through now in respect of 53 amendments that have been brought in is not one in respect of which we on this side would want to claim that the system is all cast in concrete and that truth has been laid down at some form of internal wisdom. It is not like that at all. I want to talk about three aspects of the Bill. I would like to talk about the process of education institutions and their involvement. I would like also to talk about the role of women in the work place. Finally, I would like to talk about the issue of social change and what this Bill means in terms of social change. I suppose the fundamental principle we are addressing ourselves to in this debate is in fact the elimination of discrimination based on sex, marital status and pregnancy and discrimination involving sexual harassment, and I will say more about that shortly. We are saying as a government that that kind of sexual harassment in the work place cannot be tolerated in an intelligent and sensible community. That is why we would want to identify it as part of our process of legislation and our process of saying to members of the community that this is one of the ways we believe they should conduct themselves. So this matter is very much about establishing a series of propositions which are important. Let me turn now to educational institutions. This is probably the area that has provoked the most controversial responses. It was felt by many in the community that in fact this Bill would invade the rights of non-government schools in particular, and somehow try to transform them as part of a total process of enforced social change. In fact, that is not the case. Clause 38 (1) of the Bill provides an exemption for institutions in relation to discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy for the hiring or dismissal of staff , for employment at an educational institution conducted in accordance-and this is the important part-with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a religion or creed where the discrimination is done in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed. Clause 38 (3) provides a similar exemption in relation to discrimination on the grounds of marital status or pregnancy for educational institutions with regard to their educational practices. These clauses were amongst the most controversial of this Bill. Originally the intention had been for the Human Rights Commission to look at this exemption area for two years. I have indicated what we have now done. In fact those educational institutions will be exempted from this Bill with respect to that area. Might I say that the kinds of comments that I have just made and the sort of position we have come to are the result of consultation with the community. In my own electorate of Stirling I had very satisfactory consultation with educational institutions. I found that there was a very sensible level of debate in two schools in particular; namely, Servite College and Newman College. I was very impressed with the intelligent contribution and questioning from parents and staff at those institutions. As a result we were able to deal with what really were their fears. In circumstances in which people sense that something is going to be imposed in some way from outside it is legitimate for those people to feel concerned. I felt particularly that the contributions of Father Nestor and Mr Michael Beech of the Catholic Education Commission and Brother Valerian of Newman College and Mr Grenville Murray of Servite College were very intelligent. I would like to thank them for what they did because they provided the capacity to proceed in an educational debate in an intelligent and reasonable way. That is the position we have reached tonight. We are proceeding on the basis of consultation and involvement and not saying that this is a system which is cast in concrete. Might I say, before leaving the area of educational institutions, that it is very important to say that these institutions are foundational in establishing what I would call the issue of consciousness of women about their role. Not only are educational institutions important in terms of their practices; they are also important in terms of their curriculum. One of the important contributions that educational institutions make is the intelligent development of both young men and women in their educational life. It is important, if we are to proceed in a sensible way in this legislation, that we begin by dealing with the administrators of those institutions in the way that we would like those administrators to deal with their pupils, and that is openly, intelligently and without compulsion. So I believe the process we are talking about in this debate of involvement and discussion with administrators is one that proceeds down to the level of the children in the institutions. I would hope that the sorts of issues we are dealing with here are dealt with openly and fairly in the curriculum. I want to make that point because I believe that one of the major issues we have to confront in this society is that both young women and young men must look to developing their potentials to the fullest. It is very unfortunate that in recent times young women have not seen that as their right, that in fact they define their life more narrowly. That is unfortunate. It will add something more about that in a moment. I turn to the question of the work place. I suppose that when one is talking about a Bill of this kind ultimately one comes down to talking about the work place. In fact, people's economic lives tend to be foundational in the way that so much of the rest of their lives is conducted. However, I should begin by saying that it would be quite wrong to cast this Bill in the role of being a piece of legislation designed to get women to go out of the home into work. That is not intended. However, it is about ensuring that if women choose to do that they would have equal opportunities to men to pursue those involvements in the work place. That is what this legislation is all about. It is not saying that we have a sterotype ideal of what the woman should be. I must say that in the debate in the wider community some people have presented it as that. But this Bill is about saying that we believe women, if they choose to go into the work place, should have rights and those rights should be the same rights as those held by men. They should be able to pursue those rights and those rights also bring with them duties. That is really what the legislation is about. It is about establishing those rights. We believe that, as a national government, we have a responsibility to do that. Let us look at another issue that arose today. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) released in this place some figures concerning apprenticeship. It is rather damaging to talk about apprenticeship generally because in fact the figures show a very low level of involvement of young women in the apprenticeship area. In fact, outside the hairdressing trades only 2 per cent of apprentices are female. Again, that is because there has been a very narrow definition of their role and their work life. Let me talk for a moment about what might be called one of the modern diseases resulting from that narrow definition. That modern disease is repetitive strain injury. Tenosynovitis is another term by which it is known. We have received some figures from Ministers showing what has happened between 1978 and 1983. The figures indicate that there has been a substantial growth in repetitive strain injury or tenosynovitis. What is very revealing in terms of this discussion and in terms of the debate we are having in the wider community is that this disease affects women four times more than it does men. Why is that? It is because women are more narrowly confined to certain occupational categories. There is something wrong if that is the case. But that is the case-look at the figures. To give some approximate totals between 1978 and 1983, 1,695 women and 477 men in the Federal Public Service had compensation claims for this new industrial disease of tenosynovitis. I use the word 'new' because it is in a sense an old disease which has affected people in the clothing industry and the food processing industry for quite some time. But right at the moment it is one that is certainly affecting keyboard operators in the Federal Public Service. Of course, it does not require too much imagination to recognise that most of the keyboard operators are women. So this strikes right at the heart of what we are talking about in this debate and that is a sense in which opportunities can be seen in a broader way by women. That is foundational in this debate. I would like to say something else about the work place. Prior to coming to this place I performed the role of a consultant in business as well as working in an academic environment. One of the things about working in a business environment was that I had the opportunity to visit many different work places and certainly factories. I spent a lot of time in one large corporation. One of the most dramatic experiences was that by and large, despite the good intentions of management, industrial life was very boring, dangerous, dirty, repetitive, monotonous, tedious and uncertain. Mr Goodluck —Are you talking about politics? Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Yes, it is almost like politics. However, when one came down to it, if one looked at the very serious situation one found that on all counts of work being boring, repetitive, tedious and dangerous women were always in more danger in terms of their work place in a more repetitive, boring and tedious environment in all of those semi-skilled and unskilled areas. This Bill is not just about women in senior positions. It is about women in lowly positions. The sad thing about this research is that it showed that women in those very lowly positions had very low esteem. They did not really believe that they deserved to do anything more than be part of the industrial cannon fodder. What a sad circumstance that is. They were very angry because at the same time they felt that they were trapped in that circumstance. They were indeed, because economic necessity kept them trapped in that circumstance. The other interesting aspect which I think is important for us and the wider community to recognise is that they also tended to be less unionised and less concerned about their rights. In almost every work place there was substantial evidence of sexual harassment that was never taken up with management and never taken up in the context of unions. At first thought one may not have understood why they were not more unionised. The reality was that they tended to look upon their job as being only temporary. By temporary, I mean it tended to last for about 10 years whereas their male counterparts looked upon their jobs as being long term jobs. Therefore, one of the first things they did was to get organised in the work place and demand their rights. So the capacity for that sort of harassment and intimidation was not there. For his female counterpart for whom the income was just as necessary, the capacity for harassment and the capacity for oppression was there. We could see the very sad part of it when we looked at who got to work overtime, what they had to do to work overtime and the sort of indulgences that foremen might have engaged in. The tragic part about it was that there were women who were willing to be exploited out of economic necessity and that was completely ignored in the whole work place. This Bill deals with that circumstance. This Bill says that, if that were to occur, we as an intelligent 1980 society cannot tolerate it. It is as fundamental as that. I believe that honourable members sitting opposite equally share our concern with respect to that issue. It is a substantial issue. It is not something one can brush away. When we are talking about the work place we talk about something very substantial. In terms of looking at social change which I think is foundational, in terms of the whole process that we are engaged in here-I would like to make some concluding remarks about that-this legislation is not about stereotypes. This legislation is about choices. I believe that honourable members opposite who, from time to time, are very concerned about choices should recognise that what we are saying as a government is that we are about establishing choices for women as well as men in the way they might choose to lead their lives. This legislation is not saying that there is only one way that a woman should lead her life. It recognises that women should lead lives as complex as men in this society. It says that if women choose to be at home they have a right to be at home. That is a very productive activity and one that the latest research shows is worth probably about $16,000 a year. If they choose to enter the work place they have rights in the work place; if they choose to have other sorts of careers that are interspersed between the work place and home that is their right. It is not about setting a stereotype; it is about creating rights. It is also about creating duties and those duties are very important. The sad part for women is that they have tended always to be burdened with duties and have had very few of the rights. This Bill establishes some of those rights. I believe that honourable members opposite recognise that. In conclusion, I think that when we look at the whole passage of this legislation and we look at the debate which is going on-this debate does not confine itself to this chamber; it includes the wider community-what we ought to be saying to the people outside is: Let us proceed in an intelligent way. I heard the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) refer to those other societies which are somewhat in the dark ages by comparison with our society. Certainly in our society this debate is equally about having the discussion and having the sense in which the fresh air of debate proceeds. We all have a collective responsibility in this place to make sure that the debate proceeds in an intelligent and sensible way. I am confident, from the contributions that I have heard from honourable members opposite and from honourable members on this side of the chamber, that that debate can proceed. What we need to do in this legislation, in this place and in this community is to say, at a certain point of time, that we, as intelligent people, recognise that we have to ensure that half of our society has the rights that the other half has enjoyed for a long time. It is not misinformation; it is not about compulsion. It is about creating choices and making people recognise that they have a right to those choices. An intelligent society such as ours should establish that in this Parliament. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(9.15) —As a new member of this Parliament I have been, in my innocence, amazed. I have been amazed, principally, at the arrogance of the Parliament and amazed at the immodest assessment that we, as parliamentarians, have of our role as a Federal Parliament. It seems that we see that every obstacle and every difficulty that exists in Australian society exists for us and us alone to rub out. It seems that we think we have a great palliative that we can use by legislative action to relieve all pain. The Sex Discrimination Bill, which we are considering tonight, has been hailed by honourable members on both sides of the House as a healing and constructive step in relieving discrimination in the community. In reality I am concerned because I see it as an unnecessary interference in human affairs. The dilemma that exists from my point of view as a member of this chamber is that while no one, least of all myself, has denied that discrimination exists and while all of us have said that we abhor discrimination in any form and while I am prepared to support justice for all regardless of colour, race, creed or sex, if I choose to oppose this legislation I will be labelled, not only in this House, but also outside it as a discriminator. The injustice of it is that this is black and white legislation. Opposition to it means simply that I am labelled as a discriminator and sexist and running with it means that what I am doing will be approved. There has been no room for middle ground or consensus in this debate. Indeed, when I spoke to the Women's Electoral Lobby about what my attitude to this legislation ought to be they said : 'Mr Andrew, there will be two columns. You will be in one or the other'. I said: 'But I am opposed to discrimination'. They said: 'We are sorry, there is no grey ground.' I reiterate that there should be equal pay for equal work, equal opportunity in education and for promotion and free choice in employment. I reiterate that I am opposed to discrimination and that blatant acts of discrimination appal me. But I must say that I cannot support this Bill in its present form. Principally I cannot support the Bill because it is unnecessary. The advantages that this legislation purports to give to the Commonwealth of Australia already exist in South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria. If citizens in Western Australia, Queensland, Tasmania or even the Northern Territory for that matter, wish to have this sort of legislation, they will elect the State governments that will give it to them. It is as simple as that. How can I stand in this House and support further erosion of States rights. The profile-- Mr Brumby —Because you are elected as a Federal member of parliament, not a State member of parliament. What do you think you were elected for? Mr ANDREW —I was elected because I have a task as a Federal member of Parliament . The whole problem that we face in this Parliament is that we had the audacity, in the last session, to agree that this Parliament ought to be larger and so further deprive individual States of the rights they have as State parliaments. We have given a greater profile to the Federal parliament than is healthy in the Federal system. When we ought to be returning responsibility for legislative action to the States, including the responsibility in this sphere, we are choosing instead to take it unto ourselves. The honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) and the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) have pointed out the dependence that this legislation has on external conventions for its head of power. I have further difficulty with that because that means that, in order for the Commonwealth to exercise its power, it must take these external conventions into every State, into every family and, if honourable members wish, into every bedroom. The far more satisfactory result would be for the States to introduce legislation that is modelled on the South Australian legislation. I say that proudly as a South Australian. That is not the statement of one who would give responsibility for this action where it belongs, with the State parliaments. The honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) said that in this House we have an illustration of just what is wrong with discrimination in Australia, because all of the female members are located on one side. She then went on to give an illustration that included the phrase 'them and us'-probably the most discriminatory statement one can make. I suggest to honourable members opposite that before they come into this House preening themselves about the number of female members they have, they should look at the Australian Council of Trade Unions and see what sort of representation it has on its governing bodies. To date in this House we have had a purely statistical view of equality-the sort of dilemma we face when we consider one vote one value legislation. Nobody disagrees with it, but the reality is that the electors in my electorate are discriminated against much more in terms of voting legislation than are those in an inner suburban electorate. Their access to me, or to any country member, is much more difficult than would be their access to a member who can walk around his electorate before breakfast. That is another case of statistical equality being confused with real equality. True equality has nothing to do with legislation but a great deal to do with the regard we have for each other regardless of sex. True equality is not a matter of having equal regard for each other-all I have heard in this debate to date-it is about being prepared to concede that everyone other than myself is of a higher status than I am. True equality has a great deal to do with having a higher regard for other people rather than an equal regard. It is totally unfair to suggest that women raise families and men raise incomes , but it is just as unfair to measure one's contribution to the community in purely employment terms. Having half the work force made up of women is no guide to the contribution women, or anyone else, make to society. It is a purely statistical analysis of equality and has nothing to do with reality. The problem with Senator Ryan's foreshadowed affirmative action is that it refers to statistical equality and has nothing to say about real contribution. It is a futile attempt to correct by numbers discrimination which is fostered by attitudes. No thinking person can tolerate withholding employment, all things being equal, from a woman who is just as well qualified as a man; no thinking person can tolerate denying girls access to the same educational opportunities as boys; and no thinking person can tolerate blatant discrimination on the grounds of sex, marriage or pregnancy. This Bill does not give equality. It is likely that employers will be reluctant to advertise permanent jobs lest they be obliged to employ women. This will not aid equality. The Bill serves only to muddy the waters. It does nothing to relieve real inequalities. It is true, as was said earlier, that inequalities will persist in some families no matter what we do. There will still be single income families for whom the non-taxable wage level will be $4,000, while in two-income families the non-taxable wage level will be $8,000. This Bill does nothing to relieve that situation. The Bill supposes that we can legislate against discrimination, but does it make it possible for me, as a male chauvinist Liberal, to get a job with Senator Ryan? Does it address the individual indefensible inequality we perpetuate by ensuring that prostitutes are prosecuted while customers escape? Does it address the problem we all face as members of parliament? If I might digress, my wife was never as discriminated against as she was the day I became a member of this chamber. Ms Fatin —What about my husband? Mr ANDREW —That is absolutely right, and this Bill does nothing to relieve that situation. Why not? Because now the responsibility for raising the family is no longer shared, as once it was able to be. The geographic reality of being here makes it more difficult for our spouses to be as free as once they were. A further simple dilemma we face when looking at this Bill is that women are the only members of the human race capable of bearing children. Pregnancy happens to be a state exclusive to women, and much of this legislation is designed to ensure that the pregnant state does not disadvantage women. It is implied in what has been said by honourable members opposite that pregnancy is a burden. As a male, I would not challenge that statement. Mr Drummond —You don't want to get pregnant, either. Mr ANDREW —No, precisely. The honourable member for Chisholm said she did not want to hear, to use her words, 'the simplistic dichotomy that suggested that mothering was right and a career was wrong'. She will not hear that from me because it is not what I believe. However, I do want to reinforce what was said by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman). The role of raising a family is a unique role in society. The parenting role will not be relieved for either males or females by the establishment of the child-minding centres that have been espoused by those opposite. The simple truth is that every child has a fundamental right to be parented, preferably by both parents and definitely by one or the other. In leading for the Opposition in this debate the honourable member for Balaclava acknowledged that the barriers that existed and much of what had promoted discrimination in the past had largely broken down. I am pleased that in 15 years we have seen a tremendous change in the attitude of society to women and in the attitudes of men and women to each other. I want to say not that legislation is wrong but that it is unnecessary. The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) said that the legislation is not about getting more women out of the home. I remind the honourable member that the Bill is seen as encouraging women out of the home. The opportunity the honourable member for Stirling referred to was the opportunity for women to play a broader role in society. I have no problem with that, but it must not be at the expense of the essential role of parenting that we all have. I say again that I stand here as a member opposed to discrimination. I am equally opposed to the insinuation that the work force is more productive than the family. I am opposing this Bill simply because it is unnecessary. I am opposing it because South Australians, New South Welshmen and Victorians already have this protection and all other States can avail themselves of it by electing State governments that give it to them. I am opposing the Bill because, quite frankly, it takes from States what is a reasonable States' right and hands it to the Commonwealth. I suggest to the House that time has done a great deal to relieve the discrimination that once existed. Time has meant that through the process of evolution discrimination is being perpetually reduced. Some States already have this legislation, and I suspect we would be much wiser if we left it to the other States to implement it. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(9.29) —Madam Deputy Speaker, the world is full of people who will not face facts, people who, like my friend the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), bang their heads against brick walls. In 1955, before people were able to get far enough away from the earth to take photos of it, some people preached that the earth was flat. Their spiritual descendants are today preaching that a woman's place is in the home. The obvious inference from that is that a man's place is out of the home, except, I suppose, before and after hours of employment. The only conclusion that can be reached about these people, the people who want women to stay in the home, is that they, like the flat earth proponents, have failed to see that release of people from stereotyped roles is part of a human response to their conditions. I suppose one could say that it is evolutionary. They have failed to see that a complex web of inextricably woven events has led to the need for women and men to review their roles. True, it is happening to some extent without legislation. Until I became a member of this House most of the previous 13 years had been spent job sharing with my spouse. Two men acquaintances of mine have decided to stay at home full time-they have done so for a few years-while their spouses have taken a job. This sort of thing is happening to some extent. But at the same time, with other changes occurring in the community, for some women and men pressures are creating areas of discrimination which are far more a problem than they once were. The opponents of the Sex Discrimination Bill cannot see that it is part of what is already happening. Nor can they see the need for a Bill to release people from discrimination which has been occurring for a long time. Sexual harassment, discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy and jobs which are unreasonably reserved for one sex, such as air pilot, search and rescue worker or builder's labourer, are examples. In the 1950s a woman gained a job in Australia's great Snowy Mountains scheme as an engineer. She had graduated in another country. She rightly says that she would never have got the job if Australia had not been so desperately short of people at that time. She spoke about the difficulties which she had at that time. Men too are often the victims of discrimination. Some men would like to stay at home. This strange mob called Women Who Want to be Women, which really means 'women who want other women to be full time housewives', is trying to stop men from staying at home. I observed many years ago that women live longer, on average, than men. What the four Ws want to do is deny men the right to choose to stay at home and live longer. In the long struggle which Roslyn Snow and I have had-she was a candidate for parliament a good six years before I thought of nominating-we had a turn each at being home all the time and then an agreement to job share. We have been lucky enough, in having a common profession, to do what other couples are not lucky enough to do. Single parents and most two-parent families cannot do that. For women, the poorest section of the community, the range of choice of jobs is not nearly as large as that for men. This Bill goes a long way to rectifying that. Many of the letters which have come to me have dwelt on biblical precepts. These letters are, theologically, absolute rubbish. I hestitated about saying this, but so many people have contacted me about what they say is God's law; they quote Paul-or St Paul, for the conformists-ad lib, but they neglect his remarks that some of what he said were his words, not God's. They talk of woman as a helper, omitting the fact that the term was used in the same words as God is helper, if anything, showing superiority. Above all this, they use Christianity to back their beliefs, forgetting that this faith, like many others , puts love and justice well and truly ahead of the law. The church has not been able to stop the march of women to power in its own institutions. May I say that that is a rather refreshing event. The church has not been able to stop some of the things that honourable members who have opposed this legislation have been talking about, that is, the breakdown of the rather short lived nuclear family-short-lived compared with the extended family. Yet these people are asking the Government to do what the church has not been able to do. This is more human enhancement Bill than a sex discrimination Bill. Neither women nor men should have to continue in roles just because they were developed in the Victorian era. The Bill is necessary. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(9.35) —I oppose the Sex Discrimination Bill. I do so because I believe it is an ineffective attempt to impose upon society values, standards and principles which are not acceptable to the community at large. It is precisely because those standards, values and principles are not acceptable that the Government has been forced to water down the legislation and include in it a range of qualifications, exemptions and exceptions which render it a valueless and meaningless exercise in tokenism. All that will be achieved is more red tape to bamboozle and confuse the community; more rules and regulations, more tribunals and, as a result, less freedom. Opponents of the Bill have been attacked and ridiculed for their opposition. They have been called bigots and fools. Yet already the Government has acknowledged the merits of many of the objections by supporting amendments to the Bill. The feelings against this Bill are very widespread. Thousands upon thousands of ordinary, decent, good living Australians have voiced their deep concern. Despite the many amendments, people are still worried that the Bill undermines fundamental community standards, especially family life. There is a grave danger in ignoring the common sense of ordinary people and preferring the advice of articulate pressure groups. The legislation is wrong in principle and its form is totally confusing. I wish to make some fundamental points. The responsibility of a democratic parliament is to respond to the wishes, desires and aspirations of the people it represents. The general body of Australian electors is not clamouring for this legislation. It was born out of the international feminist movement and seeks to satisfy its fancies. I say with confidence that those women have very little, if anything, in common with the vast majority of the women in my electorate to whom I owe a duty as their elected representative. The legislation seeks to eliminate some forms of discrimination. It is interesting to consider for a moment the word 'discrimination'. According to the Oxford Dictionary it means inter alia 'to distinguish between' or 'give due weight to differences'. Should we not give due recognition to differences which exist? The philosophy from which this Bill springs does not recognise any innate differences between male and female. New feminism displays a frustration because it believes women have not achieved the success and the power allegedly enjoyed by men. Dr Anne Summers, the senior Government adviser on women's affairs, in her book entitled Damned Whores and God's Police speaks of the oppression of Australian women and the need for their liberation. She speaks with feeling and understanding, of the 'setting up of all-women communes or embryonic rural communities which are intended to provide a haven where women can live and do as they like unhampered by the interference of men'. Dr Summers displays in her book an elitist radicalism and an attitude to men which surely must be now dissipating since she has achieved a position of power. Like other radical feminists, but unlike most women, Dr Summers fails to see that the sexes are not in competition but, according to the rules of nature, complement each other. She fails to recognise that in their complementary role men sometimes suffer, and why not? Is life not about giving as much as about taking? A total of 94,471 Australian men and 127 women have died in action defending this country. The life expectancy of men in Australia is now 71.2 years. The life expectancy of females is 78.1 years. The important but tough jobs in our mines are worked by men, as well as the dirty jobs at the sewerage works and in garbage collection. Is this discrimination against men? No, it is merely the complementary role they play in society. But the radical feminists want women to share equally in those jobs. The shadow Minister concerned with women's affairs referred in his speech to the policy statement of the coalition parties produced in 1974 in a booklet entitled 'The Way Ahead'. It is interesting to see that in that policy statement the term 'arbitrary discrimination' was used. The word 'arbitrary' is very relevant. It is inevitable that people will discriminate. It is wrong for anyone to decide in an arbitrary fashion, without any other reason, that he will not employ someone because of that person's sex or colour. That is sexism or racism in its purest form. But surely, beyond that point one should be free to choose. A black man or a white may have quite different abilities, as may a man or a woman. It is inverted racism or sexism to force a choice upon people. Ms Fatin —Who does that? Mr GROOM —Do not get excited; listen to this. These are fundamental points and I hope the honourable member will read my speech tomorrow. This point was succinctly expressed by Dame Leonie Kramer, Professor of Australian Literature at the Sydney University and, of course, the former Chairman of the then Australian Broadcasting Commission. Ms Fatin —Before she was sacked. Mr Groom —That is right, before she was sacked by this Government. A magazine called Mulberry Leaves interviewed her and I quote the question: Finally, I wonder if we could hear your views on affirmative action. There is a lot of talk today about positive discrimination in favor of women, yet, you seem to have been very successful without the need for such a structure change. For women to succeed do you think that affirmative action policies are necessary? Dame Leonie Kramer answered: Not only do I think they are unnecessary, I think they can be positively harmful. And that has been clearly indicated in the U.S. where they have had some really bad experiences as the result of affirmative action policies. You should never appoint anyone to any position, except on merit. To say that somebody ought to have a job because he or she is male, female, black or whatever seems to me to be really no different from saying that they shouldn't have a job because they're a Jew or a Catholic or whatever. She continued: The other aspect of this is in a way more personal. If I were now starting on an academic career, I would be absolutely appalled if I thought that I were appointed to a position, not because I deserved to have it, but because I was a woman. I repeat what she said: . . . not because I deserved to have it but because I was a woman. And I would hope I had the courage and the ability to turn it down, until somebody appointed me for the right reason and not for the wrong one. I now turn to some particular aspects of the Bill. Clause 3 (a) states that one of its objects is: to give effect to certain provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; There are a couple of points I want to make about that Convention. Firstly, we should be very wary about signing and ratifying these conventions. In the past there has not been an opportunity for the community to have a debate about conventions of this kind. I think it is important in the future that we have machinery whereby the community at large can have a debate on important conventions such as this one before they are signed. It should not simply be an act of the Executive. The other point-I do not know whether honourable members in the corner opposite will understand this-is that the Convention has a sexist title. This Bill is to give effect to certain provisions on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. What could be more sexist than the title of that Convention? Is there not discrimination against men? Why should that not be mentioned as well? I will not go into the details of the Convention but I do want to refer to a couple of the Articles in it. The Convention is attached as a Schedule to the Bill. Article 10 of the Convention states: States Parties shall take all appropriate measures . . . I will leave out some words- to ensure, on basis of equality of men and women: . . . (c) The elimination of any stereotyped concept of the roles of men and women at all levels and in forms of education by encouraging coeducation and other types of education which will help to achieve this aim . . . It will help to eliminate the stereotype concept of men and women, in particular , by the revision of text books and school programs and the adaption of teaching methods. Over the page, Article 11 provides: States Parties shall take all appropriate measures. . . I will go down to paragraph 2 (c) which states: To encourage the provision of the necessary supporting social services to enable parents to combine family obligations with work responsibilities and participation in public life, in particular through promoting the establishment and development of a network of child-care facilities; So the Convention is suggesting that we should have throughout Australia a network of child care facilities. The problem with that Convention is that it does not try to achieve equality between men and women; it tries to achieve sameness between men and women. It plays down the traditional role of women at home and plainly seeks to encourage elimination of the differences between men and women. The Bill is full of the most incredible inconsistencies. It states that one cannot discriminate against a person of a particular sex by refusing employment on account of that person's sex, yet later we are told of numerous situations where one can do just that. It states that one cannot discriminate against a person of a particular sex by not admitting him or her to a school on account of sex yet the Bill approves all-male schools and all-female schools. It states that one cannot discriminate against a person in employment on the basis of strength and stamina of their sex, but one can do so in sport. It states that a person cannot be refused admission to membership of a club on account of sex, but it is all right to have all-male and all-female clubs. I want to mention one point that was raised in the Senate which I think has a great deal of merit, and that is the possibility of including in the Bill a conscientious objection clause. Senator Harradine, in the Senate, raised the question of the conscientious belief of a pharmacist who may wish not to sell contraceptives to a single person. I prefer the example of the person who does not wish to rent a house to a de facto couple. If I had a house to rent that would not particularly worry me. But there are people in the community, I have no doubt, who do hold very strong religious beliefs and, as a matter of conscience, may not wish to rent a house to a de facto couple. As I understand the Bill, it requires a person to decide between what his conscience tells him and what the law tells him. I think this is placing very unfair pressure upon individuals in the community. The honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) said on a number of occasions that there is discrimination. It has also been mentioned by the honourable member for Canning (Ms Fatin) in the House this evening. If honourable members look at the membership of this chamber they will see few female members, and this is evidence of discrimination. There were very few females at the National Economic Summit Conference, and that is evidence of discrimination. But those examples in themselves are not evidence of discrimination because one relevant factor is that many women in the community, as a matter of choice, exercise their own free wills and decide that they do not want to enter business or the profession of politics. They prefer to remain at home. This is where we get down to the nitty-gritty of it all. What Government supporters are not doing is giving enough encouragement and support to the woman who wants to remain at home and who chooses to remain at home and look after her family and children. All sorts of things are being done to encourage a woman to leave home. If we look at the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women, we see that almost every provision attempts to encourage women to leave home and go into the work force. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who is at the table, can shake his head all he wants. He is a decent chap. If he looks at the legislation and at that Convention he will see what I am talking about. I do not mind which government I blame. I am not making a political point. I will blame the previous Government or this Government. It is high time that we did more to give proper support to the woman who chooses to remain at home to look after her family. We should do something about it and stop carrying on with all this nonsense. This Bill means nothing at all. Let us take the case of an ordinary employee and look at what we do for that employee in the work force. Mr Saunderson —What about you? Mr GROOM —The honourable member can make those smart remarks. I am trying to make a serious point. For such employees we provide long service leave, annual holiday pay, workers compensation, boots to work in, safety gear of all sorts, warm clothing, good coats and things like that. Let us think about this seriously. What do we do for the woman who wants to remain at home and take on the fundamentally important responsibility of nurturing young children and bringing them up? Maybe she does not want to send her children off to a child centre. Maybe she would prefer to have the children in her own home and to remain home. Good points have been made every now and again but 90 per cent of the points that Government supporters have made ask: 'Why should we not give women every opportunity to get out and leave the home?' The Convention speaks of women entering public life. How many women want to enter public life? I think that is an elitist comment and an elitist clause. It is about time we gave proper recognition to those people. Arbitrary discrimination certainly does exist. I emphasise the word 'arbitrary' . We must encourage the community to eliminate that discrimination. We all have a sense of fairness. We must admit there is discrimination in the community. But do Government supporters think that the answer is to bring down this kind of draconian legislation? They say: 'This bit of paper with all these provisions in it is the great answer. It is all in black and white. Let us use the whip on people and get stuck into them and apply the penalties that are provided in this Bill. It is the answer'. The fact is that it is never the answer. One cannot legislate to impose community values unless the community at large will support that. This is where it comes back to basic politics. What does the community want? I am just a humble back bench member from the electorate of Braddon in north-west Tasmania and I am very proud to be the member. Perhaps other members represent different kinds of areas and their views should be expressed in this chamber, together with the views of the people that they represent. But I assure honourable members that the people whom I represent , men and women, decent people in the main-there are some exceptions-do not support this legislation. People in the electorate of Braddon are not rushing around and saying: 'We are concerned about sex discrimination'. They are more concerned about the bread and butter issues. They are more concerned about their jobs. We have not had a debate on unemployment since this Government came to office. I have given notice of a motion-it is about time the motion came on for debate-about jobs for young people. Here we are wasting time on this great load of nonsense. This legislation is the greatest load of nonsense of all time. Ms Fatin —Tell the women of Australia that. Mr GROOM —I will tell the women. I will be proud to tell the women that this is the greatest waste of time. We are not doing our job if we spend hours debating this kind of nonsense. It will do nothing for society and nothing for the community. It is about time we worked on the issues of real concern to the community. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GEAR(Tangney)(9.57) —What an act to follow! The closing statement of the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) was about what the Government should be doing about the economy and whether we should be talking about it. If he read the daily newspapers he would know what the economy has been doing. It has not looked back since we were elected. He has not even asked a question on it at Question Time. Mr Goodluck —We can't get one up. Mr GEAR —I ask the honourable member: Whose fault is that? In supporting the Sex Discrimination Bill, I am mindful that this is a significant step towards social equality by a government that cares about people. It is appropriate that I, as the member for Tangney, should be supporting this Bill because the seat was named after Dame Dorothy Tangney, the first woman to be elected to the Senate. She was a great woman of Australian politics and of the Australian Labor Party. Currently there are 13 women senators and six women members in the House of Representatives. In the latter case, they are all members of the Labor Party. On this side of the House we are all convinced that the effectiveness of Parliament will be enhanced as their numbers grow. Whenever we have legislation before the Parliament that deals with social issues, the fundamental differences between the conservative parties and the Labor Party are highlighted. The conservatives are generally happy to maintain the status quo even though there are inequalities such as those that this Bill addresses. The Labor Party has acted to correct discrimination, where it exists, in its first year of government. In my contribution tonight I wish to talk about the positive aspects of the Bill, using two examples where shortcomings are present, and to comment briefly on the hysterical campaign aimed at aborting the Bill. All of us here are the product of a society with discrimination between the sexes deeply entrenched. From the pink and blue baby rugs to manual arts and home economics, society has tended to predetermine the future direction of a person's life based on that person's sex. The deeply entrenched attitudes that gave rise to that situation will not be changed overnight, but a start has to be made somewhere and it is pleasing to see the Hawke Government taking the lead. Let us look at the objectives of the legislation. They are: To give effect to certain provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; to eliminate, so far as is possible discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status and pregnancy in certain areas; to eliminate, so far as is possible, discrimination involving sexual harassment in the work place and in educational institutions; to promote recognition and acceptance of the principle of the equality of men and women. I put it to the House that they are very noble objectives indeed. What we are talking about is the equality of opportunity, above all else-the right of a person to equal access to education, to jobs for which he or she is qualified, to promotional opportunities within those jobs and to access to loans for housing, to name a few. These are fundamental rights and a person's sex should not be a contributing factor. As I indicated before, change will be gradual but it is important not only to consider the personal disadvantage that women are suffering because they are women. I put it to the House that the economy of Australia is suffering as a result of not fully utilising half of the human talent of this nation. To illustrate this, I point out that those economies that are doing very much better than ours rely predominantly on products with a high intellectual input. Of all the arguments and propaganda generated by this Bill, I have not read anywhere that a woman's brain is inferior to a man's. To illustrate the economic benefits to this country of developing the intellectual level of 100 per cent of the people rather than 50 per cent, I present some statistics given to me by my colleague the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones). Countries such as Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark and France derive about 60 per cent of their export earnings from products that are intellectual in nature. Examples are inventions, patents, research and development, product adaptation and copyright. By comparison, Australia earns less than 5 per cent from this source. A graphic illustration is that of the Netherlands, which is second in the world only to the United States of America in agricultural earnings, excluding forestry and fishing, Australia, with its millions of tonnes of exports of agricultural products, cannot earn as much as the tiny Netherlands in agricultural exports because the Netherlands exports such things as vaccines, sera, seeds, bulbs and horticultural products. All of these require intellectual input and, as I have said before, women possess half of this talent. I turn now to an area where lack of empathy has resulted in an illness known as premenstrual syndrome being largely ignored as an area of medical research. The only reason I know of its existence is because my attention was drawn to it by a constituent. The reason for this neglect is simple. It is an illness that is confined to women and though its symptoms differ widely its frequency is linked to the menstrual cycle. The reason for the lack of knowledge is that most medical research is done by men. These two illustrations are important in themselves, but it is important to remember that the needs of the individual are the most important thrust of the Bill. Earlier today the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) said that we could not legislate to change community attitudes. That was reflected just a minute ago in the remarks made by the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom). He said effectively that we could not legislate to change community attitudes to current sexual discrimination. I just say on that point that legislation has been used to end slavery, to allow women to vote and to give the Aboriginal people of Australia equal rights. In each case there was strong community opposition at the time. Today not even those opposite would challenge any one of these principles. In each case legislation recognised a right that was being ignored and was an important step in correcting community attitudes. Today we are going down a similar path. I turn now to the hysterical campaign to stop this Bill going through the Parliament by a group called Women who Want to be Women. Every member in this House received copious amounts of roneoed material from that organisation. One did not have to look far to see how conservative this group was when it started to use the old fear tactics of communist influence. I refer to its claims of control of children by the state as one example. That shows the group's lack of credibility or imagination. To rely on tactics used in the 1950s to attempt to discredit legislation in the 1980s not only reflects the advanced age of those behind the campaign, but also indicates their tunnel vision in the views they hold on women related social issues. The group also claimed that international courts, under selected hostile figures-they were very selective about their selection; it included Colonel Gaddafi and a few others-would have jurisdiction over Australians. This was an outright lie and events will show this to be so. The kindest thing one can say about this campaign was that it was propaganda. By that I mean that it appealed to emotion and not to reason. Conservative parties always rely on these tactics and we have come to a stage of political history in this country where they cannot decipher the truth. When the division on this Bill comes, we will see a large number of National Party and Liberal Party members opposing it. In reality, they will have been influenced by the propaganda of the Women who Want to be Women. I put it to the House that some of the comments we have heard tonight reflect many of the things that group said. The passage of this Bill through the Senate has taken into account many of the community's concerns. These have been expressed by the Opposition, the Democrats and the Independent senator. Not only has this process had an input into the final form of the Bill; it has also led to consultation with many groups which have a concern and which will be influenced by the legislation. The Government will issue a Green Paper on affirmative action with a view to generating public discussion and an understanding of the concept. Many speakers tonight have given statistics showing the inequalities that exist. It is my hope that over time this legislation will be an important contribution towards the remedying of that situation. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.05) —It is difficult to imagine any piece of legislation before this House more likely to call into question so many fundamental tenets of our parliamentary democracy as the Sex Discrimination Bill . There are problems of jurisdiction in this legislation and the balance of rights between employers and individuals. There are drafting problems with the Bill and its effectiveness can be questioned. How effective can a piece of legislation of this type drawn in this form be? I have listened in the chamber or in my room to every speech made on the Bill this evening. A great many questions were raised of a moral and even a philosophical nature. Honourable members opposite have made criticisms of a great many good and decent religious people who hold very firm and sincere beliefs about this legislation. I do not believe it serves this Parliament well to denigrate associations or individuals who believe just as strongly as they do in matters concerning this legislation. As with all honourable members, the literature I have received amounts to a fair bundle. It is interesting that most of it expresses the frustrations and disappointments of women who remain at home and raise children. It seems that they are extremely disappointed and frustrated with the treatment that they get from government. Instead of abusing these women, this Government ought be to directing more attention to their problems and circumstances, particularly by changes to the taxation laws. Of course, women who choose to remain at home are no less intelligent, have no less dignity and work no less hard than women who choose to work in a professional field or in the work place. The Government ought to address itself to the problems of those women. This legislation seems to be mostly about the balancing of rights-the right of an individual compared with those of an employer or with those of an educational authority or a club. It disturbs me to some extent that this Parliament has gone so far down the path that it is, in a sense, playing a superior-being role in that it is choosing what is more right than something else. By that I mean that the legislation before us deems an individual right to be supreme in almost all circumstances, with some exceptions, over that of an employer. That concerns me to a large extent. I am not at all convinced that that ought to be the case. Perhaps it would assist the chamber if I stated clearly and unambiguously my position in regard to this legislation. I acknowledge and have often encountered , particularly in practising law before entering the House, discrimination in a number of different fields, particularly accommodation and the provision of services. The matter of loans, which has already been referred to, is of particular concern. But I will not under any circumstances vote for the Bill at its third reading. I acknowledge that discrimination exists, but I do not believe that this legislation will rectify or assist the position of those discriminated against. Instead, I believe that the cure put before the Parliament is worse than the cause. It is worse than the cause for a number of reasons. First and foremost is the matter of jurisdiction. The legislation to some extent incorporates and relies on the foreign affairs power of the Constitution as decided by the High Court recently in the Tasmanian dams case. It does that by way of incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women which has already been referred to. I do not accept that under our Federal system the Commonwealth has the right to impose legislation of a domestic nature by way of the foreign affairs power. To put it in the vernacular, I will not buy that at any price. To accept that proposition is to weaken if not set in motion the destruction of the Federal system and of States rights. My political philosophy sees the dissolution of power as the best means of providing checks and balances and of protecting and even strengthening our democracy. Another matter which concerns me about the legislation introduced by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) is the matter of common law rights. A whole range of common law problems in this legislation will be addressed in the Committee stage. They refer to the rules of evidence, the admissibility of certain types of evidence, the matter of legal representation, the matter of admissibility of evidence obtained from proceedings other than those before the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, the matters of self- incrimination, onus of proof, and damages. On careful study of the legislation one finds that to an unexpected degree it infringes our common law right, the right of every citizen to be heard, to be represented and to be acquitted without loss or damage if it is so decided. As most honourable members would know, in October I introduced two sex discrimination Bills as a private member. One related to Commonwealth employees, the other to the Australian Capital Territory. I did that to demonstrate two points, the first being that as a private member I acknowledge that discrimination exists but that jurisdictional problems outweigh the wrong we would be trying to right. It is very interesting to note that speakers on the Government side have had this legislation handed to them on a golden platter. I suggest that if they had embarked on the exercise of drafting legislation they would come quickly to the realisation, as I did, that one is playing God in some way. One has all the time to balance, to choose between the rights of individuals. It concerns me that this Parliament is embarking on such an exercise. I realise, of course, that the Parliament often passes laws on a whole range of philosophical or moral topics which affect the behaviour of society. That is our inescapable duty, but there is a limit to it. There are many aspects of this legislation which concern me. I am particularly concerned that the Bill refers to and incorporates the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. I reject the basis of that Convention as well as its practical aspects. The legislation I introduced into the Parliament seeks to eliminate discrimination so far as that is possible without trying to impose an ideology. The ideology of the United Nations Convention is one which I reject but which the Government has embraced with open arms. The legislation I introduced would protect to a far greater extent than does the Minister's legislation the rights of non-government schools , small businesses, and all religious orders and organisations. Furthermore, it clearly sets out an individual's rights and obligations and avoids ambiguities and unworkable complexities. Do members of the Government pretend that the document before us is not ambiguous in many aspects? Do they pretend that ambiguous law is not bad law? Quite simply, ambiguous law is dangerous law. For that reason I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) and I urge all members of the House to support it. The amendment states in part: (1) the Bill should not rely on the external affairs power as a head of power; (2) Australia's signature to the United Nations Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women should not be used to extend the powers of the Commonwealth; Looking more closely at the Minister's legislation, it pretends to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy in the areas of employment, education, accommodation, clubs and organisations. Regrettably, looking at the finer details, I regard many of the provisions as being not only complex, ambiguous and ultimately unworkable but also as being heavy handed and disregarding the traditional rights accepted by most members of our community. I certainly do not pretend that an employer can willy-nilly discriminate against women on the grounds of sex or marital status, but numerous circumstances have been referred to in another place, particularly by Senator Harradine, where the rights of the individual could be abused or where allowing an individual's right to supersede that of the employer would be wrong. That also applies to the area of education and especially to the area of accommodation. A great many moral questions are involved in this piece of legislation, particularly in regard to marital status. I suggest to members of the Government that many Australians would insist strongly on the right of the provider or seller of accommodation to make moral judgments about those who wish to rent or purchase accommodation from him. I certainly do not wish, nor does any honourable member on this side of the House, to embark on a moral crusade. That is certainly not the role of the Parliament. Nonetheless, I suggest that a person providing accommodation has an inalienable right to provide it on the terms and conditions he chooses. For that reason, discrimination against persons on the grounds of marital status causes me particular concern. Another area which causes me real concern is that of discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy. It must be obvious that at an advanced stage of pregnancy a woman is physically unable to comply with the requirements of some jobs. In the two Bills I presented to the House, which interestingly enough were never debated by the Government, there was no provision for discrimination on the ground of pregnancy. I consider that to be quite unenforceable, quite unworkable . The complexity and ambiguity of the Minister's legislation is of real concern to all honourable members. That is evidenced by the fact that some 70 amendments have been introduced since the first draft, and I believe that another 70 amendments could easily be made. One of the things that have disappointed me about this evening's debate has been the abuse heaped on those, whether in this chamber or outside, who wish to express strongly held views. Very fine people have been ridiculed and termed arch conservatives and narrow minded bigots. That is simply not the case. It is time that this Government recognised that at least half the population of Australia-soon there will be more-take a view different from its views on a whole range of issues. It is sheer arrogance, like the Mick Young method of using numbers, for the Government to disregard the strongly felt views of honourable members on this side of the chamber and of the people whom we represent, who believe in traditional values, not in legislation which is unworkable, which is dangerous in its content and which is quite unenforceable. I have, further, been disappointed not just by the abuse heaped by many speakers, not all, from the Government side of those who take a different view, but also the number of pious platitudes that so many of them heap on women. I am sick and tired, as are a great many women who have approached me on the matter, of women being treated like little paper puppets, being put up on show for the Australian Labor Party. They are sick and tired of being patted on the head and being told that they are good little representatives, good little women; that they have attained preselection and can sit in this House. I consider those pious platitudes the most extreme form of sexism and discrimination. It is quite phoney for many members of the Opposition to pretend that they are enlightened. It is disturbing that women should be treated by so many of the men of the Labor Party in such a patronising, toying sort of way. The final matter to which I wish to address myself is the fact that I concede that discrimination exists in our society. I concede that much of the criticism of the Bill has been uninformed and misleading. Statements that the Bill will interfere with religious practices, will dictate the size of families or will force people into the work force are patently wrong. No one on this side of the House has suggested that those criticisms are valid. What I am saying is that the legislation will not move us towards remedying the wrongs. I referred in my opening remarks to the many problems that a piece of legislation such as this creates. First and foremost must be the question whether or not the Bill will be effective in changing community attitudes. Suffice to say that the Victorian Parliament seven years ago introduced sex discrimination legislation. I have questioned in private a number of members of the Victorian Government as well as other members of the Victorian Parliament concerning whether the legislation has been successful. I have yet to find a member of the Government who will say that it has been remotely successful in eliminating discrimination. There are other forms, other tools, available to the Government, to the Parliament especially, to eliminate discrimination. They include moral example and leadership. For that reason I oppose this legislation. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(10.25) —The aim of the Sex Discrimination Bill is to ensure equality of opportunity for women and men through the elimination of unjust discrimination. The Bill interferes in no way at all with religious or family values and will not encourage or force women or men into roles that they do not wish to undertake. I hope that the arguments for this legislation are both understood and well accepted by most Australians. Throughout our country women and men experience discrimination on the basis of their sex and marital status. Having made those few brief introductory remarks, I believe it important to respond to comments by certain members of the Opposition that I have heard while sitting here during the debate. I have enjoyed the fairly forthright manner in which this debate had been conducted but I find certain of the assumptions on which contributions have been made by members of the Opposition to be somewhat lacking and in some ways quite offensive. In particular I would like to comment on certain points made by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman), who referred to the traditional family and suggested that the legislation would in some way weaken its role. Of course he was talking strictly of the family in which there is a male breadwinner, a dependent spouse and children. I would point out to him that the traditional family as he defines it now accounts for well under 25 per cent of all family households in Australia. I would add that I and I am sure my parliamentary colleagues on this side of the House have considerably more faith and confidence in the family structure, be it the traditional family or any other type, to know that it will remain a strong and basic unit within our society. There is certainly nothing in this legislation that is about to destroy or break up any type of family in our society. The honourable member for Wentworth also made the point that perhaps this legislation would push women into jobs that either they did not want or were unable to perform. I wish to make a few points concerning the type of concept that the honourable member for Wentworth represents concerning the jobs available in our community. It reflects a very narrow vision. Victorians know well that the State's transport system has many women who drive trams. It was only a matter of years ago that all trams were driven by men and all of the conductors were women. If one examines that proposition in terms of the traditional values that might be ascribed to those roles, as they were by the honourable member for Wentworth, one is reminded that it requires a great deal more physical strength to be a conductor than to be a tram driver. That situation had existed purely because of certain industrial relations over a period. It just was not seen that women ought to be performing the job of tram driver. There is clearly and absolutely no reason why women cannot or should not be able to perform a job of that type, yet it took until the 1980s, only a few years ago, before we actually saw women being allowed to participate in the job of driving a tram. Of course, they do an excellent job. Another comment that I would like to make about the notion of pushing women into jobs that perhaps they do not want is that very sterotyped notions exist in our society about types of jobs and responsibilities. Another example is provided by police work. We need not go back very many years to the time when the vast majority of police were male and the major requisites for employment were physical attributes. That is why certain dimensions and certain sizes were necessary. If again we take a traditional view of the attributes of men and women, as did the honourable member for Wentworth, the simple fact is that the job of being a policeman or policewoman does not rely solely on the attribute of physical strength. Most of the work that police do involves clerical duties, the driving of cars and the solving of domestic disputes. Even on the traditional view taken by the honourable member for Wentworth one would have to argue that police work might be ideally suited to women. It is indeed in my view a very positive change in our society that women are now filling more and more positions as either tram drivers or police. The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) suggested that as a result of this legislation there would be less freedom in our society. He was perhaps suggesting that because the legislation might be seen to be expanding the freedom available to women in our society it would necessarily be thought to be taking freedom away from another group. Of course that is not true. The sum total of freedom in our society is not fixed at all. That is an old, virtually economic mercantilist notion-that the total value of an economy is fixed. There is no limit on freedom in our society. To give more to women does not necessarily mean that any other group will have less. Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.30 p.m. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 1 March 1984: Navigation Act-Navigation (Orders) Regulations- 1983- No. 2-Marine Orders; Part 30. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 261) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: (1) How many (a) public broadcasting licences have been issued for radio stations (i) currently in operation and (ii) yet to commence operation, (b) types of public broadcasting licences are there, (c) applications for licences are outstanding, indicating the type of licence, and (d) additional licences are to be recommended for issue, indicating where and when, in each city and town in each State and Territory. (2) Which types of licences have been issued to the licensees referred to in part (1)(a). (3) Why have more licences not been issued in Melbourne and will more be issued there during the next two years. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Public Broadcasting Licences in Operation (i) and (b) Category C Stations Issued to community groups intending to provide programs serving a particular community e.g. Bathurst, Manly-Warringah. 2AAA Wagga Wagga 2ARM Armidale 2BBB Bellingen 2BBB Dorrigo (TLTR) 2BCR Bankstown/Auburn 2CHY Coffs Harbour 2GLF Liverpool/Green Valley/Fairfield 2MCE Bathurst 2MWM Manly-Warringah 2NBC Marrickville/Canterbury/Hurstville/ Kogarah/Rockdale 2NCR Lismore 2NSB Kuringai/Willoughby/Lane Cove/North Sydney/Mosman 2NUR Newcastle 2RDJ Ashfield/Burwood/Concord/Drummoyne/ Strathfield 2REM Albury/Wodonga 2RES Sydney/Botany/Randwick/Waverley/ Woollahra 2RSR Sydney/Leichhardt/Marrickville/Botany 2VTR Windsor/Colo 2XX Canberra 2YOU Tamworth 3CCC Bendigo/Castlemaine 3GCR Churchill 3MBR Murrayville 3RPC Portland 4DDB Toowoomba 4TTT Townsville 5GTR Mount Gambier 5PBA Salisbury 6NEW Newman 7RGY Geeveston 8CCC Alice Springs 8TOP Darwin Category E Stations Issue to educational bodies intending to provide programs of continuing and adult education, but including material designed to enrich the cultural life of the audience. 2SER Sydney 2WEB Bourke 3RRR Melbourne 5UV Adelaide Category S Stations Issued to groups intending to provide programs serving a particular interest or group of interests e.g. music/sport/religion. 2CBA Sydney 2MBS Sydney 3MBS Melbourne 3PBS Melbourne 4EB Brisbane 4MBS Brisbane 4ZZZ Brisbane 5EBI Adelaide 5MMM Adelaide 6NR Perth 6UVS Perth 7HFC Hobart 7THE Hobart (ii) Public Broadcasting Licences Issued Yet to Commence Operation 2RRR Ryde-Hunters Hill (Category C) (c) Applications for Licences Outstanding Public Broadcasting Licences Granted but not Yet Issued 4CRB Gold Coast (Category C) (d) Public Broadcasting Licences for which applications have recently been invited Cairns (Category C) Alice Springs (Category C) Hermansbury (Category C) Santa Teresa (Category C) Warrabri (Category C) Launceston (Categories C and S) Orange (Category C) Woomera (Category C) My Department is currently considering a planning program which will include proposals from groups wishing to establish public broadcasting services, and I will make a decision on this program in due course. 2. See answer to 1 (a) (1) and (b) above. 3. The Victorian Public Broadcasting Association, in conjunction with the Department of Communications, is currently co-ordinating a joint proposal for a series of low coverage Category C public broadcasting stations to serve particular parts of Melbourne. A recommendation on the joint proposal should be available for my consideration within the next few months. (Question No. 749) Mr Brumby asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: (1) How many males aged 64, 63, 62, 61 and 60, respectively, currently receive (a) unemployment benefits, (b) sickness or special benefits and (c) supporting parents' benefits. (2) What is the estimated (a) number involved and (b) cost of extending the aged pension to males aged 64, 63, 62, 61 and 60, respectively, under existing income and residency tests. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The following table shows male unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries as at 26 August 1983 and supporting parent beneficiaries as at 23 September 1983. Age (a) unemployment (b) sickness or (c) supporting (years) benefits special benefits parents' benefits 64 1,873 1,114 16 63 2,376 1,195 24 62 2,367 1,065 25 61 2,468 1,196 30 60 2,886 1,286 31 (2) It is not possible to accurately estimate the cost of providing an income tested pension to males aged 60 to 64 because of the lack of data on their income distribution. In addition it is not known what effect the lowering of the pensionable age would have on work force participation rates of men aged 60 to 64. The following table shows the estimated numbers of pensioners and beneficiaries at the end of December 1983 and the estimated numbers of non- pensioner or beneficiary males who would be residentially qualified for a pension if the pensionable age were lowered. The table also shows the additional cost of providing an income test free pension to males aged 60 to 64. Additional full year cost of Age Pensioners and Non-pensioners income test free (years) beneficiaries (a) or beneficiaries pension (b) ($m) 64 27,800 27,100 110 63 31,500 30,800 124 62 31,300 35,800 143 61 30,100 38,600 154 60 25,900 44,400 176 (a) Includes invalid and service pensioners, unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries and supporting parents' beneficiaries. (b) The additional cost represents the cost of bringing part-rate pensioners and beneficiaries to full rate and giving 'new pensioners' full pension at rates current from November 1983. (Question No. 793) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: (1) What are the official rules of his Department for the use of Government vehicles by departmental officers for personal purposes. (2) Is the expression of personal beliefs and political attitudes by way of stickers or slogans displayed by departmental employees on Government vehicles condoned or approved; if not, will he take steps to have a political slogan removed immediately from a Telecom Australia vehicle, licence No. ZGM 319. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The guidelines for use of Commonwealth vehicles issued by the Department of Administrative Services have been adopted as the official instructions for the use of such vehicles within the Department. (2) The instructions require written approval before any modifications, including the affixing of stickers of any type, can be made to vehicles. It is also Telecom policy that no stickers or slogans may be affixed to Telecom vehicles other than those for corporate identification and safety purposes. Exceptions to this policy must be approved by the Chief General Manager of Telecom Australia who, to date, has provided no such approval. Instructions to this effect are widely circulated and strictly enforced. The specific instance involving Telecom vehicle ZGM 319 has been investigated and it was established that a person unknown scrawled in crayon the words ' Manyana Republic' across the rear of the vehicle. The vehicle in question has been cleaned and the words removed. (Question No. 798) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, 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 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 provides assistance to industry principally though the administration of the customs tariff. The Department, through the Australian Industry Development Corporation, also provides direct financial assistance to industry and, under the small business program, counselling and information services to small business. Details of the types of assistance provided to industry, together with industry contact points and qualifying requirements, are outlined below. 1 (a) FINANCIAL Australian Industry Development Corporation AIDC provides specialised development finance (loans, equity, leasing) and project financing services to viable Australian companies, large and small. Proposals for such finance are assessed on a commercial basis. Qualifying Requirements The AIDC is required to act in accordance with sound financial principles. The AIDC Act has been amended to enable AIDC to invest in any industry but to require it to give priority to financing the manufacturing and service industries, industry reconstruction and the development of new or improved technology industries. AIDC makes its own individual lending decisions within these guidelines. Contact Point Applications for financial assistance should be made direct to the Corporation at 212 Northbourne Avenue, Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601, Tel: (062) 479411 (b) TECHNICAL In certain circumstances the Department of Industry and Commerce provides technical advice on questions of tariff classification and valuation. Qualifying Requirements None. Contact Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, Department of Industry and Commerce, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601 (c) OTHER Industry Assistance Measures The Department of Industry and Commerce examines requests from industry within its portfolio responsibilities, for changes in assistance and advises the Minister for Industry and Commerce on whether a reference should be forwarded to the Industries Assistance Commission-(IAC)-or Temporary Assistance Authority-( TAA). Qualifying Requirements There must be an industry-wide prima facie case for a change in the level of assistance before a reference will be sent to the IAC or evidence of damage or threat or damage in respect to a reference to the TAA. Contact The Secretary, Department of Industry and Commerce, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601 The Commercial Tariff Concession System Industry can obtain relief from duties normally payable on goods imported where it can be shown that goods serving similar functions are not produced in Australia or are not capable of being produced in Australia in the normal course of business. When this criterion has been met, a concession in terms of the commercial tariff concession system may be granted which reduces the rate of duty normally payable on the imported goods to two per cent. Qualifying Requirements and Contact Requirements to obtain a concession are set out in detail in a booklet which is available from the Assistant Secretary, Tariff Concession Branch, Department of Industry and Commerce, Canberra. Dumping The Department may be able to provide protection to Australian industries that believe they are suffering unfair competition from dumped imports. Relief is offered through provisional securities, dumping duties and, in some cases, the acceptance of undertakings from exporters to raise prices to non-injurious levels. Qualifying Requirements To initiate an investigation, the Department requires Australian industries first, to present evidence that export prices for goods are lower than the normal values in the country of export and, secondly, to show that imports at such prices are causing or threatening material injury to local manufacturers. Contact For information on dumping procedures contact in the first instance should be made with the Assistant Secretary, Dumping Branch, Department of Industry and Commerce, Canberra. Bounties A bounty is a payment of money by the Government to a manufacturer in respect to the production of certain goods. The Government provides assistance by way of bounty where it considers it to be preferable to protective duties on imports (e .g. where a good constitutes a major input to another industry). Qualifying Requirements Bounties are paid under the authority of an Act of Parliament. Payments may be made to manufacturers of the following goods: Automatic data processing equipment Agricultural tractors Bed sheeting Berry fruits Books Commercial motor vehicles Injection moulding equipment Nitrogenous fertilisers Paper Penicillin Phosphate fertilisers Printed fabrics Room air conditioners Ships Certain steel products Textile yarns Contact Claims for a bounty should be addressed to the Bounties Section of the Australian Customs Service in each capital city. Diesel Fuel Excise Rebate Scheme This scheme provides for an excise rebate of 7.155c per litre on diesel fuel used in off-road applications. Qualifying Requirements Available for use in primary production, mining operations, domestic use and nursing homes, hospitals and aged persons homes- expenditure in 1983-84 is expected to be about $140m. Contact Claims for a rebate of excise should be addressed to the Diesel Fuel Rebate Section of the Australian Customs Service in each capital city. Petroleum Products Freight Subsidy Scheme The petroleum products freight subsidy scheme subsidies the costs of tranporting motor spirit, automotive distillate, aviation fuels and power kerosene to non-metropolitan locations. For the 1983-84 financial year it is estimated that the subsidy for the States is $89.15m and for the Northern Territory it is $11.45m. Qualifying Requirements Distributors of certain petroleum can apply to the address below for registration. Registration is conditional upon the benefits being passed on to non-metropolitan users of these products. Contact Completed applications should be lodged with the Inland Services Section of the Collector of Customs in each capital city. Petroleum Retail Marketing Legislation The Petroleum retail Marketing Franchise Act 1980 and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980 together form a package of assistance measures for service station businesses which operate as lessees of oil companies. The Franchise Act provides rights for lessee dealers (franchisees) against their oil companies (franchisors), mainly in regard to security of tenure, disclosure of information and price discrimination amongst franchisees The Sites Act complements the Franchise Act by providing a limit on the number of service stations able to be operated directly by the major oil companies. Qualifying Requirements The Franchise Act is available for franchisees, with the advice of their trade associations, to seek private remedies through the court system. The Government has responsibility for ensuring that the major oil companies comply with the Sites Act. Contact Director, Petroleum Marketing Section, Department of Industry and Commerce, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 (Question No. 800) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, 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 Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: 1. (a) The Department provides financial assistance through the national industrial energy management scheme-NIEMS-to encourage energy conservation and grants for energy research, development and demonstration projects. Under NIEMS, the energy audit scheme offers a subsidy up to $300 or 50 per cent of the fee-whichever is less-for a first time energy audit conducted by an independent registered energy consultant. Also under NIEMS the energy management seminar and workshop program offers a reimbursement of up to $1,500 of net costs, to organisations conducting energy management seminars and workshops. Grants for energy research development and demonstration projects may be approved by the Minister on the advice of the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council-NERDDC. 1. (b) Under NIEMS various publications and audio-visual material are available . Under the national energy conservation program-NECP-a series of advisory booklets on energy management, designed particularly for the needs of small to medium sized commercial and industrial enterprises, is available. Information on historical energy demand and supply statistics and forecasts of Australian energy demand is available in regular publications and upon special request. The Department also provides technical reports relating to energy research projects under the national energy research development and demonstration program-(NERD&D). Technical branches of the Energy Research and Development Division also provide assistance in the form of replies to queries from the public on energy technologies. Geoscientific publications, data and information are available from the Bureau of Mineral Resources. The Division of National Mapping makes available copies of newly developed computer programs for technical survey applications and technical advice to users of reproduction material for maps and other products of the Division. 1. (c) Under the NIEMS scheme the national energy management awards are presented annually giving national recognition for outstanding achievement in energy management. Nominations, in June-July each year are invited from organisations in all areas of private and public enterprise, in up to six categories-buildings, energy management services, industry, public institutions, small business and transport. Nominations must be submitted on the official nomination form, usually by mid-September. 2. (a) The contact point for information on the national industrial energy management scheme, the national energy conservation program, energy statistics and forecasts and information on grants for energy research and development is: Public Relations Section Department of Resources and Energy GPO Box 858 Canberra, A.C.T. 2601 Telephone: 45 8211 For geoscientific publications from the Bureau of Mineral Resources the contact point is: The Information Sub-section Bureau of Mineral Resources P.O. Box 378 Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601 Telephone: 49 9111 For information and advice on the services provided by the Division of National Mapping contact: The Director Division of National Mapping P.O. Box 31 Belconnen, A.C.T. 2616 Telephone: 52 7911 2. (b) To be eligible for the subsidy under the energy audit scheme, clients must have the audit conducted by a consultant who has been registered with the scheme. Clients must submit a completed subsidy application form accompanied by proof of payment of the consultant's fee and a copy of the energy audit report. The organising body must first get the Department's agreement to the seminar or workshop. Reimbursement of costs (net of any income from registration fees) is made on presentation of an itemised claim for payment which must be accompanied by receipts or other acceptable proof of expenditure. There is no qualification on who may apply for grants for energy research, development and demonstration projects provided they relate to energy technologies or social, economic or environmental matters relating to energy supply or demand. Recommendations are based on the merit of the proposal and published priorities for energy research. There are no other requirements that have to be met to qualify for other forms of assistance provided by the Department. (Question No. 846) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Transport, 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 Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a)(i) The following is a list of inter-departmental committees in which my Department participates: Review of Atomic Energy Legislation (Standing) Telecommunications Advisory Council Ship Management and Manning Arrangements and Future of Surplus 'Cape' Class Vessels Development of Nuclear Codes of Practice (Standing) Motor Transport International Energy Agency Antitrust (Standing) United Nations Conference on Law of the Sea ASEAN (Standing) Antarctica (General) Australia/Indonesia delimitation negotiations (1) (a)(ii), (2) The following is a list of inter-departmental committees which my Department chairs. The subject matter of these committees' inquiries is set out in respect of each: Civil Coastal Surveillance (Standing): to keep under review civil coastal surveillance arrangements Senior Officials' Committee on Emissions and Energy Related Matters: to inquire into motor vehicle emissions and energy related matters. (1) (b) There are no inter-departmental committees participated in or chaired by instrumentalities under my control. (Question No. 887) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 1 December 1983 : Is he contemplating changes to the Australian Broadcasting and Television Act which would ensure that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal consults not only with the television industry, as it is currently required to do, but also with other groups involved in the production and development of television programs in Australia; if not, is he prepared to do so. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal-ABT-may consult with groups involved in the production and development of television programs when it considers it appropriate. I do not propose to consider, at this stage, placing a statutory obligation on the ABT to consult with these groups. (Question No. 928) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, 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 community employment program grants for employment creation in the electoral division of Murray; if not, why not. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: No. The applications for grants submitted to date by the Department of Social Security under the community employment program-CEP-have been of an overall national character and therefore are not specifically related to any particular electorate. (Question No. 955) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 7 December 1983 . Has he or the management of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, received any complaints about the screening of a segment on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation in a Four Corners program on 19 November 1983; if so, (a) did those criticisms indicate viewers' beliefs that the program was not a balanced presentation and (b) what action did he take, or is prepared to take, to ensure the program was an accurate, unbiased account. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is: One letter of complaint was received by the ABC. (a) The viewer felt that the program under-estimated the danger posed by the Communist Party in Australia. (b) The ABC legislation establishes the duty of the Board to ensure the accuracy and impartiality of the Corporation's news and information. I am advised that the ABC Board was satisfied that all appropriate checks were made in respect of this program. (Question No. 971) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 8 December 1983: (1) Is it a fact that, although three new offices of his Department have recently been opened in the Perth metropolitan area, the shire of Wanneroo, Western Australia, whose population of 108,000 residents is growing rapidly, does not have a Department of Social Security office; if so, why has an office not been established in the shire. (2) Has planning commenced for the establishment of an office; if so, when will it be opened. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) Yes. Three new offices of the Department of Social Security have recently been opened in the Perth metropolitan area. An office in the shire of Wanneroo has not been established because of the need to devote resources to areas of greater need. Planning for an office in the shire is in the early stages of development and attention is being given to the pattern of population growth and the transport routes within the shire. While firm decisions have not been taken it is unlikely that an office will open prior to 1985-86. (Question No. 984) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 December 1983 : (1) Is it a fact that scanning receivers are (a) able to be used to listen to private conversations on Telecom Australia radio networks such as radio telephones and police radios and (b) not required to be licensed under the radiocommunications legislation recently passed by the House. (2) Will he consider changes to the legislation to licence these receivers in light of their potential illegal use. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Yes. (b) The Radiocommunications Act 1983 does provide for the licensing of prescribed receivers. However, I made a firm commitment during my second reading speech on the Radiocommunications Bill that the Government has no intention of licensing scanning receivers, or any other similar consumer devices commonly available to the public. (2) Interception of the Telecom radiocommunication system is an offence under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. The Government is examining whether general radiocommunications privacy legislation could provide an effective solution to the problem based on engineering principles. However, it should be realised that, in today's technological society, the radio frequency spectrum is very much an area of public activity where conversations are liable to be overheard. (Question No. 986) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 December 1983 : Are public broadcast licences still available in Australia; if so, (a) in what categories and (b) in which cities or areas. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes, although it is not intended to proceed with further metropolitan wide services until additional FM frequencies become available through the clearance of some television services from Band II of the VHF frequency spectrum. (a) and (b) Low coverage Category C (community) licences in metropolitan areas; Category C (community), in presently unserved non-metropolitan areas; Category S (Special), in larger non-metropolitan centres currently served by a Category C station. (Question No. 988) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 December 1983 : (1) What progress is being made to overcome the problem of accommodating both radio and television signals on the one Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service dish, which casts doubt on the promise of a cheap receiving dish costing $1,000 or less for people in remote areas. (2) Have departmental officers solved the problem after consulting with the Hughes Aircraft Company in the United States of America. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service-(HACBSS)-to be provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation via the AUSSAT domestic satellite system, will provide one television service and at least two radio services to people in remote and underserved areas. Domestic reception of both the television and radio services has always been planned to be via a single receive-only earth station at each location. (2) Development of transponders for AUSSAT has reached the point at which officers of the Department of Communications and the ABC have been able to use the Hughes Aircraft Company's spacecraft assembly and test facility in Los Angeles to test the performance of the HACBSS systems and equipment. Prior to this, the Department's testing has had to be based on simulated satellite equipment. On-ground tests at Hughes have further confirmed that at least two radio services can be included without significant adverse effects on the television signal. My media release of 7 February 1984, titled 'Government Stays with PAL System for ABC Television', provides more details on HACBSS and the transmission technologies to be used.