Monday, 2 April 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) deplores the leaking of the defence strategy paper which now publicly brands currently friendly nations as potential threats to Australia's security; (2) demands that the Prime Minister clarify his Government's decision to move towards a nuclear weapons capacity; (3) condemns the Government for its cavalier attitude to national security as instanced by- (a) the reappointment of the Special Minister of State, and (b) the criminally careless handling of the nation's highest security documents , and (4) calls upon the Prime Minister to make a full statement to the House in regard to the leaking of the Government's strategic defence paper. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Prime Minister for apparent double-standards and hypocrisy, in that in 1983 he publicly swore an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, in the presence of the Governor -General and while being televised throughout the nation, yet now is supporting government legislation to remove references to the Queen from the oath of allegiance in all future Australian citizenship ceremonies. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House expresses its regret and concern that the Australian media has failed to- (1) warn innocent Australian first home buyers of the grave financial responsibility they face in entering home purchase contracts which rely on the Government's promise of a prompt approval for first home owners scheme grants, which approvals are now delayed for 10 weeks, and (2) demand a refund for Australian taxpayers of that part of the one per cent Medicare levy by which the Government presently profits through its failure to deliver the full Medicare package to Australian taxpayers. Mr NEWMAN(Bass) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House: (1) draws attention to the appalling conditions imposed on soldiers living in Barracks at Ingleburn Army Camp, New South Wales, by the Government; (2) notes that their sub-standard barracks include- (a) condemned, cockroach-infested kitchens, (b) decaying outside lavatory and shower blocks, and (c) primitive rooms furnished with battered and dilapidated furniture and floor coverings; (3) draws attention to the excellent empty Commonwealth accommodation which is available at the East Hills Migrant Centre and which has not been occupied since October 1983; (4) calls on the Government to recognise the wretched living conditions it is imposing on its troops at Ingleburn, and (5) demands that the Government take urgent steps to rehouse the troops at East Hills Hostel. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the significant recovery in housing resulting from the First Home Owners Scheme, and (2) regrets that uncertainty and anxiety is being caused to prospective homebuyers by intemperate remarks from the Opposition. Mr BURR(Wilmot) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Australian Labor Party for displaying the Australian flag on its party symbol while at the same time working vigorously to change the design of the flag. Mr NEWMAN(Bass) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House: (1) Notes with grave concern the Government's shocking neglect in allowing a critical rundown in a wide range of Army ammunition stocks; (2) Notes that acute shortages of stocks include training ammunition, tank ammunition, armoured support vehicle ammunition, infantry mortar ammunition, infantry anti-tank ammunition, night illumination ammunition, rifle ammunition, anti-personnel mines; (3) Recognises that these shortages jeopardise the ability of the Army to effectively train and to mount sustained combat operations, and (4) Calls on the Government to take urgent steps to provide the money to buy or to produce ammunition for the Australian Army. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. If the document 'Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy' leaked to the National Times does not represent the policy of the Government, why did Cabinet neither alter nor reject it in Perth on 19 September last? Indeed, why did it endorse it? If Cabinet has changed its policy, will the Minister advise what portions of the document do not represent Government policy? Mr SCHOLES —The honourable gentleman does not have the date right, but I do not suppose that is terribly important. The strategic basis document has never been adopted by any Cabinet as policy. Policy statements are made by the Government and by Ministers and are publicly announced where it is appropriate to do so. The document, as has happened on each occasion when the document has gone before Cabinet in the past, is endorsed as guidance for the preparation of recommendations on defence policy. Mr Peacock —That actually is not correct. There have been occasions when it has been returned for further consideration. Mr SCHOLES —I am not aware of the practice of past governments. But I am aware that when strategic guidance papers have been presented to Cabinet-they are first presented to the Minister for Defence and then, I expect, are considered by other Ministers before they go to Cabinet-they have been ultimately endorsed as guidance for the development of policy. Mr Peacock —You rubber stamped it. That means you endorsed it without question. Mr SCHOLES —I do not know whether the honourable gentleman is just making cheap political capital. I make one other point on this. The honourable gentleman has assumed incorrectly that a document published in a newspaper represents the actual text of a document which is dealt with by Cabinet. That is an assumption he is entitled to make. If that is the manner in which he treats important matters such as this, that is his business. We have neither denied nor confirmed its accuracy. Mr HAND —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the Government taken any decision to develop a nuclear capability as claimed in an article published in the National Times on 30 March 1984? Mr HAWKE —I can state categorically that the Government has never made any decision to acquire or develop a nuclear capability and has no intention of doing so; nor has the Cabinet or any Cabinet committee discussed the possible development of a nuclear capability by Australia. On 22 November 1983, Cabinet made decisions on arms control and disarmament, which have been announced, and I remind the House of them: (i) to promote measures to halt and reverse the nuclear arms race; (ii) to uphold the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty; (iii) to promote a comprehensive and verifiable ban on nuclear testing; (iv) to develop the concept of a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific; (v) to support the achievement of an agreement to ban chemical weapons; (vi) to support the process of negotiation and the achievement of balanced and verifiable arms control agreements; (vii) to take an active role in pursuing arms control and disarmament measures wherever possible . . . (viii) to affirm Australia's readiness to join a consensus to hold an international conference on the Indian Ocean zone of peace question. The Government will neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of the purported extracts from the document 'Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy 1983', published in the National Times on 30 March this year. I say this: To the extent that a document of that title was considered by Cabinet last year it was, as the Attorney-General stated in another place on Friday, simply endorsed by way of guidance for the purposes of review of defence planning and for the development of Australian defence policies. As is well known, it is not a policy document, but to the extent that any policy prescriptions are contained in it, these were not specifically endorsed by the Cabinet. The strategic basis document from which the National Times claimed to be quoting contains the following key sentence on the nuclear question, and I ask the House to take notice of this sentence: Australia's interests continue to be served by adherence to, and support for wider acceptance of, the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and for strengthening nuclear safeguards measures generally. I note that that crucially important sentence does not appear in the extracts in the National Times. The fact that that highly relevant sentence was not quoted would come as no surprise to anyone who knows anything about the National Times. I conclude by saying this: I repeat that the commitment of this Government to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has been made clear in this place and in this country by me, and internationally in many forums by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, is complete and unequivocal. Mr Speaker, you will understand that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty creates a permanent and binding obligation on Australia not to acquire nuclear weapons. We will not only honour that obligation, but this Government, in this country and around the world in all relevant forums, will do all in its efforts not merely to support that but to widen its application. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. I say by way of introduction that it is absolute nonsense to say that a document may or may not exist and then to quote from the document and allege that the quotation does not match what is published in a newspaper. Therefore, the document exists. On that basis that document did recommend-I ask the question of the Minister-that should our neighbours acquire nuclear weapons, the Government ought to be prepared to give consideration to the acquisition of same. You endorsed that document. Could the Minister explain how the document could be so endorsed, albeit that it is only a guide, and yet stick to the principles of the Non- Proliferation Treaty? Mr SCHOLES —I think that the honourable gentleman fails to understand that the existence of a document does not automatically mean that the report in the National Times, from which he quotes, is accurate. Mr Sinclair —He has quoted from it. Didn't you hear the answer a minute ago? Mr SCHOLES —The Prime Minister has indicated to the House that the report in the National Times, which purports to contain a quote, is not in fact accurate. He has indicated quite clearly what the Government's policy on nuclear weapons is, and remains, and will remain. He has indicated quite clearly that the article in the National Times is mischievous in the extreme in that it seeks to present a situation relating to Australian Labor Party policy and Government policy which is neither valid nor accurate; nor can it be supported by any examination of the announcements of policy or decisions made by this Government. I am now aware that in the past recommended strategic basis papers have been sent back by former governments. They were sent back because they did not meet the short term political requirements of the Prime Minister of the day. He happened to be the same Prime Minister who had a resolution passed in this House declaring that we would be at war within two years. This resolution was designed for domestic political consumption and no more and was accompanied in the next Budget by a massive reduction in the defence vote. That is how significant and serious the Opposition is about forward planning and the need for a realistic and accurate appraisal of our strategic situation at any given time. I reiterate : The strategic basis document was prepared and presented to Cabinet by the Defence Committee and Cabinet endorsed it for guidance in the development of future defence policy. The Government will announce its defence policy, as it has already done absolutely and categorically on nuclear weapons, at such times as it is required and when reviews of decisions are desirable. Mr BALDWIN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Does the Government, in determining its policy on arms control and disarmament issues , take as a premise that the Soviet Union has achieved strategic nuclear superiority over the United States and that this superiority has led to, or could lead to, a dangerous lack of political will on the American side? Mr HAYDEN —There is no lack of political will on the part of the United States of America. I believe that that has been amply demonstrated by the way in which the Reagan Administration has committed itself to increased defence spending-it has done so successfully in the years of its administration-and in particular has invested money in the development of improved nuclear weaponry capability. But neither is there any lack of political will on the side of the other super-power , the Soviet Union. So lack of will is not the matter which influences us; rather it is the nuclear arms race escalation which disturbs us. It is against that, and in respect of all nuclear powers, that this Government has been working attentively in the areas of arms control, with the ultimate objective of nuclear disarmament being achieved. I must say, as a melancholy conclusion arrived at many years ago, as a consequence of nuclear arms being extensively evident in the world today and the nature of arms escalation, that it is most unlikely that we will achieve nuclear disarmament in our lifetime. That would require all nuclear powers, not just the two super-powers, to determine at a given point that they would disband all nuclear weapons. That, I repeat, is most unlikely. Accordingly, arms control and , in the meantime, effective deterrence doctrines are supported by this Government. The other part of the question which the honourable member presented to me was one of measurement of the relative capabilities of the two super-powers in respect of nuclear armaments. One is then confronted by the problem of asymmetrical differences. For example, the Soviet Union has more vehicles to carry weapons. It has more warheads. It has more explosive power. On the other hand, the Americans have much greater accuracy. I think the confusion and the complexities in trying to count these respective areas have been summed up in a paper entitled 'Management of the Superpower Balance' by Desmond Ball, a respected international authority in this field. In that paper he points out that the Soviet Union has 40 per cent more destructive capability in respect of countervalue or soft targets but in respect of hard targets or counterforce targets the United States has twice the destructive capability of the Soviet Union. Taking these considerations on board, the obvious conclusion is not to spend time trying to work out who is edging ahead, who is sliding behind, who on balance has the greater destructive power or who is lagging but to recognise that both super-powers have sufficient capability to destroy themselves and the world with them many times over. Nothing sums up that and the fruitlessness finally of the arms race more than the fact that the Americans are moving towards an advanced strategic weapon, the MX missile, and the Soviet Union is moving to the SS-X-24 and the SS-X-25. The Americans are moving to the Stealth 1B bomber and the Soviet Union to the Blackjack bomber. The Soviet Union already has anti-satellite destructive capabilities. The Americans are moving to that capability with technology in advance of that of the Soviet Union. In that last matter we have reason to be particularly concerned because it could introduce into the equation between the nuclear capabilities of the super-powers an anti- ballistic missile capability which would be extraordinarily destabilising. I do not propose to go any further except to stress the point I made a few seconds ago. The issue for us is not so much a matter of trying to carry out the calculations of who is ahead and who is behind and who is moving up and who is lagging as it is a matter of trying to stop what is a terribly fearsome race between the super-powers which already have the nuclear destructive capability to destroy this globe. Mr SINCLAIR —Does the Minister for Defence accept that Australia's defence responsibilities extend to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island? In light of his statement that Cabinet has endorsed for guidance on future development of policy a strategic basis paper, will he advise the House what guidance he would give the inhabitants of those two islands in the event of an invasion or threatened invasion by a hostile power? Mr SCHOLES —I am not aware of any such threat and I think it would be stupid in the extreme to give advance warning, if there were a potential threat, of what actions the Government would take. Mrs DARLING —I direct a question to the Minister for Health. Despite the current industrial action by some medical specialists in Australia, does the Minister have any information to indicate the level of acceptance of Medicare by medical practitioners generally? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for Lilley for this particularly timely question. Yes, we have certain figures which indicate the response of the medical profession to the Medicare program. I think they suggest quite clearly a discrepancy between some of the militant noises made by the leadership of the profession and the actual actions of doctors on the ground. We have, for the first seven weeks of Medicare, the bulk billing/direct billing program; that is, the number of services which have been bulk billed and/or direct billed. In New South Wales 5l.8 per cent of all services were bulk billed . In the Australian Capital Territory, unfortunately, only 18.8 per cent were bulk billed. That says something, I think, about the medical profession in this Territory. In Victoria 44.8 per cent of all services were bulk billed. In Queensland 49 per cent of all services were bulk billed. In South Australia the figure was 48.5 per cent, and in Western Australia it was 49.4 per cent. We fall away a little in Tasmania with 39.2 per cent, and in the Northern Territory the figure was only 20.5 per cent-but there are certain special factors in relation to the Northern Territory. Therefore, across the country as a whole, in the first seven weeks of Medicare, out of 9.l million services, 4.4 million, or 48.5 per cent, were direct or bulk billed by doctors. I think that that gives a very clear indication indeed that many ordinary doctors throughout this country have accepted the basic principles inherent in Medicare. I believe that, if this threatened and quite unnecessary strike goes ahead, many of the medical profession in Australia will not accept the militant dictates of their leaders. Mr SINCLAIR —I direct my question to the Minister for Defence. It is a supplementary question. In the light of his response that because there is no threat of invasion to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands or Christmas Island there is no need to worry about defending them, I ask whether it is on that basis that the Minister is persisting in his attempts to run down the Australian Defence Force. Mr SCHOLES —We have come to expect the right honourable gentleman to misrepresent facts rather badly. What I said was that as there is no current potential threat to those islands it would be irresponsible of the Government to give in advance the details of what response the Government would make if such a threat occurred . The right honourable gentleman has misrepresented that proposition, as he misrepresents propositions on most occasions. Mr REEVES —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy. Is the Minister aware of the allegations in last weekend's Four Corners program about a laxity in Australia's nuclear safeguards system? Was Australia's current nuclear safeguards system put in place by the former Liberal-National Party Government? Is the question of this Labor Government tightening Australia's nuclear safeguards system being considered by the Australian Science and Technology Council, which is due to deliver its report by the middle of next month? Mr BARRY JONES —I did not see the actual program referred to, but my colleague the Minister for Resources and Energy did. Of course, he has noted the response to the point of view put forward in that program. The Government wants to restate that it places the utmost importance on effective nuclear safeguards. On 10 November 1983 the Prime Minister announced the inquiry by the Australian Science and Technology Council to which the honourable member referred in his question. That ASTEC inquiry will be looking into this and other aspects of Australia's involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle. The inquiry is examining these things in particular: Australia's nuclear safeguards arrangements, giving particular attention to the effectiveness of the bilateral and multilateral agreements, and to the scope for strengthening these agreements; secondly, the opportunities for Australia through the conditions of its involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle to advance further the cause of nuclear non-proliferation, having regard to the policies and practices of recipient countries; and, thirdly , the adequacy of existing technology for handling and disposing of waste products by consumer countries, and the ways in which Australia can further contribute to the development of safe disposal methods. The inquiry is due to report in May. The Government will consider what specific action it needs to take in the light of the inquiry's findings. Mr CARLTON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that he failed to meet the provisions of his own Medicare legislation for the categorisation of private hospitals for the purposes of government subsidy and private insurance rebate? Has this resulted in all the private hospital categorisations in Australia, announced by him in December, being found to be invalid? Does this mean that the whole process has to be repeated, causing further anguish to patients awaiting the outcome of appeals and additional administrative and legal costs for the hospitals? How many more bungles of this magnitude can be expected from the Minister? Dr BLEWETT —My Department was informed by the Attorney-General's Department that there was a technical flaw in the timing of the determinations of hospital categorisation under the Medicare legislation. On being informed of this, my Department took immediate action in a simple and straightforward way to ensure that this matter should be put beyond all legal doubt by securing new determinations. However, I point out to the honourable member, who seems concerned only with creating anxiety and disquiet about this matter, and to all members of the House that this technical defect will in no way affect the payment of subsidies to private hospitals or the payment of private insurance benefits to patients. Mr CAMPBELL —Is the Minister for Science and Technology aware of the tremendous work being done by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in respect of the plant leucaena leucocephela? Does he believe that this plant will have a tremendous impact on agricultural production in Australia ? Is it evidence that technological advancement in Australia is not confined merely to plastic 'fish' and silicon 'chips'? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the honourable member for Kalgoorlie for his question about leucaena leucocephela. In our part of the country people talk of little else. It is an important breakthrough. It is a leguminous plant, a native of Hawaii and some countries of South America. It will grow to somewhere between seven and 10 metres. It has a very high protein content-about 27 per cent. As a result, it has enormous potential as a food for ruminants. That is the good news . The bad news is that unfortunately it produces an amino acid called mimosine which has the effect of causing loss of hair and interferes with the action of the thyroid. I would not recommend it to some honourable members. For this reason in Australia it causes debilitating effects in areas where it constitutes 40 per cent or so of the diet. This has proved very difficult because it is a preferred food. The animals like it. If they like it, of course, they suffer the consequences. The interesting thing is that the disease has had these ill effects in Australia but it does not have the ill effects in Hawaii and in South America. So it has been a matter of identifying why it is different in Hawaii and South America and finding whether we can make sure that the plant would have purely beneficial effects here. The CSIRO's technological breakthrough has been to discover that ruminants or cattle in other countries contain an anaerobic bacteria that destroys the mimosene. This is another achievement of the Hawke Government. This breakthrough has meant that cattle can now thrive on a diet of leucaena. In the Ord River valley it grows so well that carrying rates of nine beasts to the hectare are predicted for the summer maximum growth period and six beasts to the hectare during the winter. This technological breakthrough by the CSIRO means that the Ord River valley has the potential to produce more fat cattle than are currently produced by the whole of the Kimberleys or the Northern Territory. The bacteria, once introduced into ruminant cattle, is passed on by contact. It is a very great breakthrough and it may have the effect in the honourable member's electorate and in other areas in the north of Australia of turning unproductive areas into extremely productive ones. We ought to congratulate the CSIRO on another very important breakthrough. Mr CARLTON —Has the Minister for Health not declared that his determination to retain Federal ministerial control over doctors' contracts with public hospitals , embodied in section 17 of the Health Insurance Amendment Act, stems from his objective of controlling Medicare costs? Is it true that contracts with diagnostic specialists in all States limit their charges to the schedule fee or less? Does this mean that cost savings will be achieved only by reducing schedule fees and extending the use of section 17 to other specialties? If not, why does the Minister insist on the all-embracing powers of section 17? Dr BLEWETT —As the honourable member knows, the schedule fee guideline is the only requirement simply because the Government has already made major compromises and referred the other guidelines, which also relate to cost constraint in the field of diagnostic specialties, to the Penington Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals. The honourable member can make the point simply because the Government has already put aside other guidelines relating to cost constraint in the diagnostic specialist area to the consideration of the Penington inquiry. I reiterate now for all honourable members the actions the Government has taken in this matter to meet the objections of the medical profession over this question. First of all, we have put aside all the controversial guidelines except the very straightforward one about the requirement that diagnostic specialists should charge no more than the schedule fee in public hospitals. Secondly, we have accepted the suggestion of the Australian Democrats that there should be parliamentary scrutiny over the Minister's powers in relation to these guidelines. Hopefully, that will pass through the Parliament on this occasion. Thirdly, I and the Prime Minister have promised the Australian Medical Association that we will accept any recommendation from Penington on the arbitration and consultative procedures in relation to section 17 which so concern the AMA. If any objective person examines the responses we have made it will be seen that the strike that is now threatened is perhaps the most self- indulgent and the most unjustified strike in this country's history. Mr BLANCHARD —My question is directed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. Have there been some recent reports suggesting that there is a decline in construction activity in Australia? Can the Minister inform the House of the facts concerning this matter? Mr HURFORD —There have been some reports over the weeks to that effect. In fact, I was hoping to get a question of this nature some weeks ago. As the weeks have gone by, I have been really rather glad that I did not get it earlier because the picture has improved every week, rather like my golf, which is on the improve. With my golf there are the occasional hiccups, but not so with the construction industry, which is on the steady improve. To understand the construction industry one has to divide it into three sectors. First of all, there is the housing construction industry. The report from the Indicative Planning Council, issued on Sunday, shows that the number of houses being constructed in this country has increased from the miserably low 105,000 in the previous financial year to what is expected to be 135,000 this financial year. We are hoping for 145,000 in the next financial year, and all this without any resource constraints, without any overheating. In the case of the second sector, the engineering construction sector, I have to admit that the picture is not quite so good. That sector depends enormously on demand for our coal and iron ore. To the extent that it is possible for government to underpin the engineering construction sector, this Government has so underpinned it in the civil works program, in what it has achieved in new defence construction, and so on. In the case of the third sector, the other non- dwelling construction sector, which covers offices, factories, shops and so on, there the picture is better than in the engineering construction sector. Once again, this is thanks not only to the civil works program of the Commonwealth Government but also to the money we have made available through the gentleman's agreement, the Loan Council and the Premiers Conference, to the States, who have responded well through their public works program. All in all, the picture is an excellent one. I draw the attention of the House to the contrast that is to what it would have been under these discredited people opposite. They would have had a deficit of $2 billion to $3 billion less than we have been prepared to have. That $2 billion to $3 billion would, to an enormous extent, have come out of the construction program of this nation. Mr Howard —That is a very interesting admission. Mr HURFORD —It would have. That is from where honourable members opposite would have taken a lot of it. There would have been a much lesser amount. There would have been so much less construction in this country. Honourable members opposite are embarrassed by that because they know what lesser construction there would have been in this country. Overall, thanks to what this Government has produced in its Budget, thanks to its civil works program and thanks to the public works programs of the States, which have been financed enormously from this Parliament , there is a 3 per cent to 4 per cent increase in construction in this country. Mr HOWARD —I address a question to the Treasurer. I refer him to the decision of the Victorian State Australian Labor Party conference-- Mr Steedman —A very good group too. Mr HOWARD —Indeed. I refer to the decision of that conference, which was supported by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and other centre unity faction Ministers in the Government, to request the Federal Government to take no action on deregulation of the financial system and on foreign bank entry until the June State conference had voted on a report from its economic committee. In view of the Treasurer's repeated undertakings since January that this matter would be dealt with promptly, will he give an assurance that he will not further delay a decision on foreign bank entry, having regard to the thinness of the foreign exchange market and the additional volatility produced by that thinness, until after either the June State conference or the July national conference of the Australian Labor Party? Mr KEATING —I would not have thought that the former Treasurer would have been up suggesting that anybody is dragging his feet on the question of deregulation when in fact he was responsible for commissioning the report of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System and then, by and large , apart from one or two minor matters, leaving the report to lie on the shelf to collect dust because he could not get a piece of tissue paper through Cabinet, much less a Cabinet submission. The former Government and the economic geniuses of the National Party-particularly the former Prime Minister, who was, I suppose , probably one of the most chronic regulators the Commonwealth Parliament has ever had-always lined up together and defeated all proposals to free up the financial system in any way. This Government thought that it was important to maintain the momentum of discussion in this country about the state of the economic system, which had remained pretty much as it was in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Some of the impetus to the discussion which the Campbell report produced had fallen by the wayside because of the inactivity of the former government. The Martin Review of the Australian Financial System was commissioned to range over those issues from the point of view-- Mr Sinclair —What did you say at the time, Paul? We were going to let 10 banks in. Mr KEATING —Just hang on a second, George. The Martin review was to look at the question of regulation versus deregulation and the benefits to the nation from the social and economic policy perspective of the present Government. That report has been presented. A number of discussions are taking place now with financial institutions of all kinds as well as within my own Party, as is entirely proper. You may recall, Mr Speaker, that when I was asked a similar question about this matter some time ago I said there would be a long and coherent discussion within my Party. I think it is fair to say from a philosophic standpoint-certainly not from an action standpoint-that the coalition parties should have been the parties to act upon the Campbell report. But they did not have the sense, the direction or the gumption to do anything about it. I think it is also a fact that from a philosophic standpoint the Labor Party has not been the party in this country which, in the early stages at least, supported the move towards changes in the regulation of the financial system. As such it demands and commands a greater level of depth in its own internal discussion than the one we thought would have taken place within the coalition parties. That debate is going on and it will continue to go on, and decisions will be made. Indeed, as has been reported, we have already had very long discussions with the Martin committee. They have been very fruitful discussions. As a result of those discussions I will be bringing submissions to Cabinet. It is simply a matter of wait and see. One thing of which we can assure the honourable member for Bennelong is that we will do a lot more than he ever did. Mr MAHER —I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Are young Australians born here or naturalised at risk due to a possible national service obligation if they return to certain European and East European nations? Has any Australian citizen been called up for military service in another nation? If not, what advice on this question would the Minister give young Australians proposing to travel overseas? Mr HAYDEN —There have been problems in the past in respect of some countries which have refused to recognise the naturalisation processes which former citizens of their countries have undergone in a new host residential country such as Australia. That certainly was the experience in the case of Greece, but I believe that that has been rectified. It was the experience in the case of at least one Eastern bloc country-I will have to check to make sure I am right in the one I name-but that too has been checked. I think the only advice I can give people is to check on these facts before they depart this country. When they return to their former country, if the former country makes a claim as covering their citizenship certain liabilities are established and we are not in a position adequately to look after their interests. We do the best we can but it does present serious problems. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. Bearing in mind the Minister has today confirmed that Cabinet endorsed the 'Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy' and endorsed it, as he said, as a guide, or a guiding principle-of course that it is the basis of defence policy is encompassed in the title-how does the Minister reconcile Cabinet's endorsement of a document which suggests that Australia should be prepared to develop nuclear weapons if its neighbours move to do so with the statement in chapter 6 of the Australian Labor Party platform that Labor will oppose a nuclear component for the Australian Defence Force? Mr SCHOLES —I suggest that if the honourable gentleman were to read the answer the Prime Minister gave, which quite clearly acknowledged the Labor Party's policy of total commitment to the nuclear non-proliferation program, he would not be stupid enough to ask that question. Ms McHUGH —Can the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment give the House any information on the recruitment of staff for Australia's participation in the international exposition to be held in New Orleans from May to November 1984? Mr COHEN —The Cabinet made a decision earlier this year that Australia would participate in the world exposition in Louisiana, having participated in every exposition since 1967 and, most recently, in Knoxville. The Government will spend some $7m in putting together the Australian display. Recently we advertised for 24 attendants to look after visitors to the Louisiana exposition. An advertisement was placed in local newspapers throughout Australia. Some 2,436 applicants applied for the 24 positions. The interviews have now been completed. The positions were obviously highly sought after. The successful applicants will be trained for the job and will act as attendants. It is about a seven-month job for the young Australians who have been selected. There will be 12 males and 12 females. The youngest is 17 years of age. The oldest is 27 years of age. I am pleased to note that two Aborigines have been chosen in that group to represent Australia. One of the Aborigines-a female-will be the protocol officer, so she will be in charge of the whole Australian contingent. In May of this year the group will be visiting Canberra. I am sure that all members of the House wish members of the group every success in the very interesting and exciting job they have in representing Australia abroad. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 54 of the Wheat Marketing Act 1979, I present the Australian Wheat Board annual report for 1982-83, together with the text of a statement relating to the report. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 30(3) of the Honey Industry Act 1962, I present the Australian Honey Board annual report for 1982-83, together with the text of a statement relating to the report. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services) —For the information of honourable members I present the seventh report of the operation of the Special Employment-related Programs Act 1982. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —For the information of honourable members I present the eagerly awaited report of the Recombinant DNA Monitoring Committee for the period October 1982 to June 1983. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —Pursuant to section 36 of the Australian War Memorial Act 1980, I present the Australian War Memorial annual report for 1982-83. I point out to honourable members that the report is in typescript form and that limited copies of the report are available from the Bills and Papers Office, Parliamentary Library and Senate Records Office. Final printed copies of the report are expected to be available for circulation to honourable members towards the end of April 1984. Petitions The Acting 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. by Mr Beddall,Mr Cadman,Mrs Child,Mr Drummond and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms, entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations; deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ''community'' provide an environment conducive to the development, including the moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of the principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all members of Parliament. Any your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton and Mr Kerin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. that an airport in the north-west region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. note that such a proposal will result in the destruction of the historic village of Pitt Town, Longneck Wildlife Reserve, significant Aboriginal relics and the historic Scheyville Camp and will irreversibly alter the character of the five Macquarie towns. 3. consider the resulting intolerable pollution of the Hawkesbury River. 4. note that approximately 2,000 properties will be resumed, displacing over 5, 000 residents. 5. consider the detrimental effects of noise, air and vehicular pollution on many thousands of residents in the surrounding districts of Hawkesbury, Baulkham Hill and Hornsby Shires and Blacktown and Penrith cities. 6. give immediate consideration to finding a more suitable alternative site. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully 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 reaffirm 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 Carlton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We have become the innocent victims of your Government's Medicare scheme. We are forced to pay 1% of our wages only to receive less per capita benefits than the people of other States. Without canvassing the rights or wrongs of the dispute between the Federal Government and the State of Queensland the fact is that because of it over one million Queenslanders, who contribute to health funds, are being blatantly discriminated against compared with people in the rest of Australia. Because of the dispute over the introduction of Medicare, Queensland public hospital bed charges are $120 per day compared with $80 per day in the other States. This is grossly unfair. As it was the Federal Government which decided to introduce Medicare, we believe it is their responsibility to take action allowing health funds' rates in Queensland to be kept at reasonable levels. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives assembled, should- Use its influence with Government so as to avoid the discrimination (of $40 per day) against insured Queenslanders. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully show: That the potential noise hazard to residents of Sandgate, Shorncliffe, Brighton , and Nudgee Beach (including 4,000 aged people), will become intolerable when the new Brisbane Airport is operative in 1987, if protective action is not taken . Your petitioners therefore pray that the Federal Government will, when the redevelopment of the Brisbane Airport becomes operative, ensure that: (i) no jet aircraft use the 32'14' crosswind runway; (ii) the Department maintain the curfew on the runway from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. 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 request: That the Government's decision to introduce an Income and Means Test for aged pensioners be reversed as it will cause undue hardship and an unreasonable financial burden on a significant percentage of the aged population of Australia . Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will withdraw this legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. 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. 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 Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a ''first strike'' attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne . 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped, if we are to survive. Your petitioners pray that Members and the House assembled will close Omega. by Mr Kent. To 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, House of Representatives, Parliament House, Canberra. We call on The Australian Government to reverse the decision to proceed with the development of uranium mining at Roxby Downs-because of the destruction of aboriginal sites the irreparable damage of the environment the threat to the health and safety of Australian citizens especially aboriginals and mining workers and the undeniable link between uranium mining and nuclear weapons production and proliferation. We ask that all uranium mining and export cease. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling,Mr Keogh and Mr Wells. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Paterson's Curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Paterson's Curse. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the citizens of Queensland respectfully show: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain electors of the Division of Forrest respectfully showeth that the Australian Citizenship Act contains provision for the Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth II Queen of Australia, her heirs and successors, and an Affirmation of Allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth II Queen of Australia, her heirs and successors: That the said Oath and Affirmation of Allegiance are supported by the overwhelming majority of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will ensure that the present Oath and Affirmation of Allegiance are retained; and would strongly oppose any attempt to remove all reference to God and the Queen from the Oath of Allegiance, and any attempt to remove all reference to the Queen from the Affirmation of Allegiance. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. Petitions received. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The deep policy differences between the Ministers and the Departments of Defence and Defence Support and the adverse consequences of these for Australia' s national security. 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 SPENDER(North Sydney)(2.57) —The Department of Defence Support was formed in May 1982 under the Fraser Government. The purpose of that Department is to provide optimum support in peace and war to the Australian armed forces. It is the organisational, industrial and technical arm of our armed forces. Its importance to our national security is so obvious that it requires nothing further to be said on it. One would think that the person who was chosen by the Hawke Government to head this Department would be someone whose background, attributes and interests made him a fit and vigorous person to be there. It was, therefore, with some astonishment that we learnt of the appointment of the present Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) to that job. He is by background a pacifist and a member of a peace movement. He is a left winger; that may be neither here nor there, I suppose. He is on record as being contrary to any military ties with the Asian nations and he has, indeed, signed a petition to that effect. Putting him in that position, with the whole of his predilections opposed to the military and opposed to our involvement with Asian nations, is rather like putting a vegetarian in charge of an abattoir. It is as apt as that. What has happened in the year that he has been there? He and the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes), that man who lurches around within the Department of Defence looking anywhere at all for a policy, have been in continual and deep conflict. The conflict differences between them and between their departments are such as to cause a real danger to the development of the technical and military resources of this nation. The conflict between the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Support has been remarked on enough in the media. But if one goes to some of the documents produced by the departments from which that conflict emerges, it becomes apparent that it is a very serious problem not just to this Government, but to the national interest. For the purpose of examining those policy differences-policy differences which I might add are compounded by the Minister's inability to control his Department , by the lack of guidelines for that Department, and by the guerrilla warfare carried on by the two bureaucracies-let me go first of all to the Department of Defence Support's Estimates of Expenditure and Receipts 1983-84. At page 5 we see the following statement: A matter still to be resolved relates to the Department's responsibility for the administration and management of programs and activities to develop the Australian industry necessary to support the nation's defence capability. This is not a trivial matter; this is a matter of great importance. Why has it not been resolved? Why was it that by August of last year it was not resolved, and why has it yet not been resolved? We know of no reasons for that, because one is talking about policy differences between Ministers of this Government which are resolvable by this Government. Let us go next to the submissions which were presented to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, which was looking into Australia's defence co-operation with its neighbours in the Asian region. Two sets of submissions were put in, one by the Department of Defence and one by the Department of Defence Support. Those submissions are irreconcilable. Not only do they come from different departments, but they also express quite different viewpoints. The Department of Defence had this to say in its original submission of August 1983: The broad objective of our participation in Defence Cooperation Programs . . . is to promote the national independence of participating countries. To promote national independence, the Department said, was the broad objective. To make this absolutely clear, it came back to this theme in a later paper, which went to the Senate Standing Committee in February of this year. The Department said: The overall DCP is conducted for mutual benefit and while it assists in introducing Australian defence industry to the region it is not, and has not been encouraged to become, an arrangement for promoting the sale and export of Australian-produced defence equipment. I raised this matter with the Minister in the adjournment debate some few days ago, and I will come to his answer in a few minutes. What did his Department have to say? The Department put in a submission in August 1983, a submission which remained as it stood and was circulated to members of the Senate Committee until some last-minute alterations were made by the Minister. These alterations were so last minute that his Department did not even have the courtesy to retype the document. The Minister's last minute notice of what his Department was saying was exposed in all its nakedness. What did it say? In one part which remains on record as part of the submission which went officially to the Senate Committee and was not excised, it said this: A significant advantage to Australia's defence-related industries of encouraging Australian made military products to be provided, is that the recipient countries tend to ''lock-in'' to our goods and services when they are eventually in a position to buy these. If one reads that statement and if one reads what else was said, it is perfectly plain that this submission was quite inconsistent with the Defence Department's view that the Department and the policy it was dealing with were there to promote national independence of neighbouring countries. It is a question, no doubt, of which is the best policy, but why is it impossible for this Government to have one policy on one question, which quite obviously it is? This throws into relief the lack of direction in defence planning in this Government. For those who hastily excuse this Government on the basis that it has been in power for only one year, let me remind honourable members that the Government, when it comes to planning defence policy, is doing just that. It is not spending money; it is planning policy. One would think that it is quite capable of coming to some kind of conclusion about its defence policies within a year or so; but that has not been the case, as we all know. At page 57 the Auditor-General says: The inability of Defence to define the strategic capabilities it required for munitions creates fundamental problems for Defence Support and its factories in planning, factory plant capability and rationalisation programs. It is not without significant cost implications and does not encourage local production. So there we have it. We have clashes between the Ministers, which are well known , we have clashes between the departments, and we have a complete lack of policy planning and direction so that the Department of Defence Support does not know what it should do or when it should do anything at all. Let us look at some of the differences between the Minister and his own Department. That, one might think, makes far worse the kinds of problems that the Government and the Australian people are experiencing because it is their security which is dependent on the decisions made by this Government. We know that the Minister put the submission in or, to be more accurate, the Department did. We know that the Minister could not have seen it when it went in even though it must have had his imprimatur because he made last minute changes. One might think that the changes were made or were allowed to go by the Department in the form in which they did with malice aforethought for the purpose of exposing the differences between the Minister and his Department because it would have taken a matter of a few minutes to have the document re-set. Be that as it may, we see that the Minister makes these last minute changes. It is finally drawn to his attention that his officers are going to give evidence the following day or so before a Senate committee and he explains these changes. He explained them to me when I raised them with him. Amongst other things, he said: I removed what I thought were in many respects some misleading statements. I refer particularly to the reference to the creation of the situation of technological dependence within the Asian region. I think that that statement could be interpreted as reflecting an insensitivity which could be certainly misunderstood within the region. I wanted to ensure that that misinterpretation was not possible. So he makes his position quite clear, one might think. He says that he does not want us to be talking about dependence on Australia by other countries within the Asian region. Whilst when he hurriedly went through the submission he excised certain parts of it, he left in parts of it. One of the parts he left in is irreconcilably in conflict with his own statement in this House because, I remind the House again, he left in part of the submission that related to locking in, as it was said, other countries to our technologies. One can say only two things of him. If he meant what he said in the adjournment debate in the Parliament, he had not understood his own Department's submission when it was at last put in and he had not understood what he was doing when he made those corrections to that submission. That illustrates clearly enough not only a fundamental lack of interest in his job, which is understandable enough given his background, but as well the deep differences between the Minister and his Department and the lack of control by the Minister over his Department, which apparently did not know for eight months what his views were on the subject on which it was putting in a submission to the Senate Committee. On top of that we have endemic guerrilla warfare between the two departments which is too well known to need to spend time on. It is critical that those departments should work together. The submissions to which I have referred make that plain, as, indeed, does the recent example of the Minister putting up a proposal for 40 per cent offsets and a refusal to deal with those companies which were not up to date with their offset commitments. How could the Minister be putting up a submission quite contrary to the view of the Minister for Defence? It defies logic, and it defies any sort of order within this Government. As I have said, it is not this time open to the Minister to excuse himself on the basis of time. A year is enough to work out one's problems. A year is more than enough to understand what the job is that one has to do. Here we have these two Ministers and these two departments in direct and continual conflict on matters of great national interest. It would be really hard to find a more important subject. How, for example, is Defence Support to plan if no plan is given to it? One might say, in passing, that the absence of policy guidelines is illustrated by that superb document, the strategic basis paper, which the Minister for Defence, in his usual acute manner, said was endorsed for guidance for future defence policy. What can one extract from that paper? It could have been written by an intelligent 14-year-old with an interest in Australia's military interests and military problems and future military problems. Therefore, let us come in total to the problems that the Minister presents and the problems that the two Ministers present to the people of this country. First , there is no agreement on policy between the two Ministers; there is fundamental disagreement. Secondly, there is no agreement on policy between the two departments; there is fundamental disagreement and continuing guerrilla warfare between those departments. Thirdly, there has been no attempt to lay down any basis on which this country should be planning its future defence needs and on which the Department of Defence Support should be planning its industry and technical needs into the year 2000. Plans of that kind are not just necessary; they are essential if we are to guarantee to the people of this country not that they may be secure if they are lucky, but that they will be secure because we, the legislators of this country, will make sure, by planning, by thinking through to the future and by making the hard decisions, that they will be secure. As it is, it is only by guess and by God that we shall get through. This Government now needs to get hold of the Ministers and the bureaucrats and to put them into line. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Defence Support)(3.13) —When I heard last week the speech of the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) I did not think that we would get a worse speech on the matter of defence, but I think that the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has produced just that. What an extraordinary lack of substance in a speech about defence. Let us just run through some of the principal points. The honourable member's speech began with a bit of personality analysis by suggesting that I was somehow a pacifist. That has been suggested from time to time, but never by me. In terms of whatever my particular beliefs may be, the Government is made up of Ministers whose fundamental commitment is to Government policy. Whilst the matter of public importance centred on differences over policy, I thought that the honourable member for North Sydney was singularly unable to find one case in which there was a substantial difference. In the first place, it also showed a misunderstanding of arrangements set in place primarily by the previous Government. Let me recall the circumstances in which the Department of Defence Support was created. It was created in May 1982 following a Defence Review Committee report in which John Utz played a leading role. The purpose of the Department was to gather together certain functions in support of the Defence Force and within the context of defence policy. I have never suggested, nor has anyone in my Department, that the Department of Defence Support, particularly with respect to all of those defence industry matters under our purview, operates in any way other than under the overall policies of the Department of Defence within the context of government policy. The Department of Defence Support is not a policy department. The second issue that was raised is the matter of conflict over budget. Again, the Department of Defence Support has not, either under the previous Government or under this Government, had a budget which is distinguishable from the defence budget. Indeed, in our approach to the budgetary process we have to operate very much within the context of the overall defence budget. So, of course, there is a great deal of discussion with Defence over the level of funding that is available for the Department of Defence Support. (Quorum formed). Our budget is worked out very much within the context of the overall defence vote. So, insofar as there is discussion and debate, that debate occurs primarily within the Defence portfolio. To suggest that there would be no conflict of interest would be quite wrong, but that conflict was resolved, necessarily, within the time period for last year's Budget and it will happen quite successfully this year. Other references have been made to policy differences. As to the reference to the departmental submission, I think I have made it very clear that it was not for departmental people to discuss with a committee matters of policy. Certainly , in terms of the thrust of what I saw in what was being proposed, there was an emphasis that seemed to me to be inconsistent with defence policy, an emphasis that I would reject as being part of the Government's policy. We are not on about creating technological dependence within the region and we are not on about locking people in, so I suggested that the most offending clauses be removed. There may be some problems surrounding the way in which that was done; but, if we are to discuss a matter of public importance about policy, let us talk about policy differences and not about trivia. Again, there is not a jot of policy within the report of the Auditor-General to which the honourable member for North Sydney referred. The report essentially comments on administrative problems, not matters of policy. In summing it all up, no suggestion of any substance has been made of a difference in policy matters between the Minister and me, between my Department and the Department of Defence, or between me and the Government. Indeed, in broad policy terms, the shadow Minister, the honourable member for North Sydney, has not been able to put his finger on any problems. If we are going to talk about problems within the area of the defence industry, we have to go back beyond the past 12 months. We have, in the area of the defence industry-an industrial capability in this country-a legacy of neglect. One does not need to go very far to find the evidence of that neglect. One can go to one or any of the establishments within my portfolio and one will find that, in the post-war period, very often the buildings, the plant and the machinery and the capability that has been retained is not the capability of the 1960s, the 1970s or the 1980s but a capability of the 1940s. I refer to the most recent report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works brought down last week-I noticed that the shadow Minister did not refer to it-entitled ' Reconstruction of Pyrotechnic Section at the Munitions Filling Factory', at St Marys. In talking about the necessity for that facility the Committee said: Little change has occurred since the 1950s, and today many buildings are in poor condition. Building deterioration has been accentuated . . . by inadequate funding for programmed maintenance, and a number of buildings have developed structural defects such as cracked walls and subsided floors. The report goes on to describe the safety problems associated with that factory, safety problems so serious that it led to a Committee of Inquiry into Occupational Safety and Health at Munitions Filling Factory in August 1980. The workers in one of the most dangerous facilities that we have in the government factories in this country were not being protected in the 30 years or 40 years of conservative rule. Those workers were being exposed to terrible dangers that ought to have been engineered out of existence. This Government will have to allocate the $17m necessary to provide the proper facility. One does not have to go simply to St Marys. One can go to Albion explosives factory in the outer western suburbs of Melbourne-the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) should go there-to look at the conditions under which people are working in that factory. The honourable member should have a look at the capital neglect there. Or he could go to the dockyards. I do not think anyone would suggest that the dockyards, despite the money that has been spent on modernisation, represent a safe working environment for people within the modern context. The honourable member could go to the Government Aircraft Factories. In many of its sections it reflects a very good historical picture of what an aircraft factory was like in the 1940s. One could go also to the Government Ordnance Factories and find obsolete equipment and machinery, lack of changerooms and proper facilities and a lack of emphasis on maintaining the capabilities and the skills of what is often a very special and particular work force with a very important contribution to make to the defence industry. There is a massive problem in this country in terms of the defence industry which is not the product of a government that has been in office for 12 months. Anyone who thought that would be totally misguided. It is a product of a lack of a commitment to maintaining industrial capability in this country as it is relevant for defence over very many years. To suggest that we have not been tackling these problems with a great deal of expedition and, indeed, with the very strong support of the Department of Defence, demonstrates that the honourable member has not moved around and looked to see what is happening. For the first time we are developing a corporate planning process in government factories. We are setting some objectives and we are aiming to measure the performance of those factories against defined corporate objectives. For the first time we are installing commercial accounting systems so that it is possible, at the Government Aircraft Factories, Williamstown Naval Dockyard and many other establishments to measure the performance in commercial terms. For the first time we are developing standards in occupational health and safety. The agreement at Williamstown Naval Dockyard was the first agreement of its type signed in a major plant anywhere in Australia. We are making an agreement with the trade union movement with respect to occupational health and safety that will cover every establishment within the Department. This is an important by-product of the prices and incomes accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. We are making a commitment within the Department to improve management practice, and I think we will see massive management reform not only at Williamstown but also at the Government Aircraft Factories and many of our other establishments. We are introducing a consultative arrangement in which major decisions in the factory, or in any of our factories and establishments, will follow consultation with the work force. We are upgrading training standards. As with so much of Australian manufacturing industry, our work force, skilled as they may be and internationally highly efficient, have never been retrained. I was in Sweden last year where 5 per cent of the work force were in retraining. In one defence factory I visited, the whole of the work force had been retrained over a specified period. These changes that are occurring, the new capital investment, the attempt to build up our plant and machinery and to restore buildings, cannot be made overnight, but I believe that in the past 12 months this Government has made an important start . None of what I have suggested is controversial in policy terms. I think the Department of Defence and the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) fully support all we are attempting to achieve in those areas. It ill becomes the honourable member for North Sydney to come into this House and talk about policy differences as if there is something of substance there; yet when he gets down to it he is not able to point to a single issue of any substance. Indeed, that is what has been wrong with the Liberal Party of Australia and with the conservative parties in the post-war period in Australia. They have never been concerned about the development of policy. They have never thought in the long term. Is the honourable member for North Sydney suggesting to me that in the 1950s there was long term planning for defence industry in this country, or indeed long term planning for defence? Successive conservative governments have lived by the seat of their pants on defence matters. We know why the build-up occurred after 1980. Was it a result of some planning process? No, it was all to do with something that happened in Afghanistan and a change in the situation that was not thought through and not developed in terms of Australia's defence policy. So we were going to have defence spending increasing in real terms by 6 per cent, 7 per cent and sometimes 10 per cent a year. No doubt the right honourable member for New England would have it at 15 per cent or 20 per cent a year. That was not on, it was never on, and our problems flow from that. Defence policy has to be rethought. We have to consider the options. This Government in the past 12 months has made some tough decisions on both sides of the ledger. We have said there is no room for aircraft carriers in the Fleet Air Arm, but on the other hand we have said we will spend $800m building the FFGs in Australia because that will install a capability within the country in terms of shipbuilding and ship repair and being able to build a navy around Australian capacity and Australian interests. The talk of differences between the Minister for Defence and me and of differences in the Government in the area of defence, is just so much humbug and reflects a superficiality which, in turn, is based on a lack of concern. The honourable member for North Sydney has some policy ideas. Let us hear those policy ideas and not humbug. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(3.24) —I start my comments with a quote from the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) of 7 March in an article he wrote for the Australian newspaper where he said: Of all the responsibilities a government accepts when it takes office, one of the most important and difficult is to make proper and realistic provision for the defence of the nation. He went on: This Government is committed to the provision of a credible defence force appropriate to Australia's strategic environment. I welcome those comments from the Minister for he clearly indicates he is aware of the responsibilities of his office. At least in theory he is aware of his responsibilities. To provide a credible defence for Australia it is essential that a cohesive strategy be developed and a common policy approach taken to it by both the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) and their departments. What is needed is a clear delineation of the role of Australia's defence forces within the determined strategic defence environment and an exact understanding of what arms and equipment are needed for them to perform that role. A key consideration in establishing this role is the extent to which the Australian defence forces are required to be self-reliant in circumstances of regional or local threat. There is a growing body of opinion, as indicated in the leaked National Times strategic documents, that Australia must become very much dependent on her own resources up to a certain regional threat threshold. With this consideration in mind, firm decisions need to be taken as to what arms and equipment can be produced domestically and what needs to be imported from overseas suppliers. A further two key factors need to be settled in relation to this aim. Firstly, what is the desirable mix between private and public sectors in the production of the required arms and equipment? Secondly, what quantity and type of arms and equipment should be exported by Australia to friendly nations to widen our own industrial base so that it is efficient and viable and can achieve the requisite economies of scale production? Quite obviously the two considerations require the working out and implementation of consistent and exact guidelines by government. What has happened with this Government? We have a state of constant confusion, bitter feuding between Ministers, feuding between the two departments and even feuding with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Even on the very basic question of whether Australia should adopt a policy of defence self-reliance or dependence the two Ministers are confused. I will quote from what the Minister for Defence said: Perceptions of industry's role in defence too often stem from memories of World War II, where in the popular view, Australia produced most of the weapons it needed for its own defence. The Minister for Defence told this House that the Government was concerned at the growing number of calls for retention, on defence grounds, of industries unable to operate in a commercial economic environment. The Minister for Defence Support disagreed and told this House so. This vaudeville act of Don Quixote and his sidekick Sancho Panza goes further. While Don Quixote Scholes muses and wonders over the advisability of allowing the Williamstown dockyards to build two naval frigates, Sancho Howe is all gung ho. He told this Parliament that he would be fighting all-out for government defence establishments and a greater share of defence orders for local industry. Well, what is this Government's policy? Is it as outlined by the Defence Minister-the senior Minister in the Government-or as outlined by his sidekick the Defence Support Minister? What about the fiasco over the FA18? Defence had put a high priority on this plane but the Minister for Defence Support decided he wanted to spend more money on improving the safety and working environments of government defence factories. There may well be a good argument for the proposal from Mr Howe but surely the defence policy can be argued out by the two Ministers. Surely they could even announce the policy jointly or in stereo at least? What we have now is confusion, uncertainty and public brawling between these two pygmies of the Hawke Ministry. This infighting, this personal upstaging of each other may be funny, but it is hardly funny for Australia's defence and to Australia's allies. It was again Quixote Scholes and Sancho Howe- - Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member for Bruce to refer to the honourable gentlemen by their electorates as is required by Standing Orders. Mr ALDRED —However accurate my description may be, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will do that. These two gentlemen were responsible for a major uproar over the visit to Australia by HMS Invincible. When the Invincible wanted to dry-dock at the Captain Cook naval dock, the Minister for Defence Support welcomed this. What did the Minister for Defence do? Of course, he disagreed. Were these two Ministers concerned about the implications to the ANZUS treaty? They were not. Let us recall the public dispute between these two men over the cluster bomb project. The Karinga project was supported by the Defence Department and its Minister, while the Minister for Defence Support said no. Did the senior Minister win? No, it was a win to the Minister for Defence Support. How can this Minister for Defence talk about a credible policy for this country 's defence when he does not know what the policy is even after announcing it in this House? You on the Government side are a bunch of confused, squabbling jellyfish in relation to defence. You have no clear policy or plan. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will speak through the Chair. Mr ALDRED —Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will now quote from the recent report of the Auditor-General which stated: The inability of Defence to define the strategic capabilities it required for munitions creates fundamental problems for Defence Support and its factories in planning, factory plant capability and rationalisation programs. It is not without significant cost implications and does not encourage local production . . . In the same report the Auditor-General continued: Audit considers there is a scope for the central office of Defence Support to exercise greater management oversight of the factories activities assisted by improved management reporting by the factories. The Auditor-General may urge greater management oversight but who will urge the Minister for Defence Support to control his Department? Obviously the Minister for Defence Support has a 'Yes, Minister' syndrome in his Department. He orders his Department to rewrite the submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. What happens? Exactly nothing; the Department does a 'Yes, Minister' and then promptly goes its own sweet way. Time does not permit me to itemise each of the clashes between this Minister and his Department. However, let us recall the Australian foreign military sales body proposal. Let us recall the clashes involving the Minister for Defence Support over offset proposals. What about sales of military equipment to the Philippines and Indonesia? The Minister for Defence Support told the media that he was unhappy about guidelines on military exports. He even cancelled a contract with the Philippines. In an answer to a question from me the Minister for Defence Support told this House on 15 September last year that as far as military exports to Indonesia were concerned he would take no action. Where is the consistency in this policy? It is not an argument from me over whether we should or should not export military equipment to the Philippines or Indonesia, but it is a call on the Minister to get his act together on this matter. The Minister for Defence Support talks about a mix of private industry and government factories yet he persists in increasing protection to the government factories at a cost to private industry and the taxpayer. Currently, protection to the government factories is estimated at 118 per cent. Yet, in the period of 1980-81 the Defence Manufacturers Council has calculated that government factories had 71 per cent protection. That is probably too high also but it certainly is significantly lower than 118 per cent. How can the Minister justify this policy? In fact, how does the Minister for Defence Support justify many of his defence policies? How does the Minister for Defence Support stand in regard to the latest strategic policy as printed by the National Times? He has put himself forward as the great protector of Labor's platform and policies. He was the Minister who called on the Prime Minister to heed Australian Labor Party grass roots opinion and policies. I ask the Minister for Defence Support how he supports this latest strategic policy or whether he has his own version. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Defence Support) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the Minister wish to make a personal explanation? Mr HOWE —Yes. I simply make the point that for an honourable member to misrepresent someone's views is not in my opinion a terribly helpful debating technique. Mr Spender —Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister is taking a point of order. Mr HOWE —I am making a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister is making a personal explanation. Mr HOWE —I take two examples. The first point goes to the matter-- Mr Tuckey —Madam Deputy Speaker-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister for Defence Support claims to have been misrepresented. He is now explaining to the House how he was misrepresented. Mr Tuckey —Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order in relation to that matter. The Minister is debating that point. He is not directing himself to correcting the point. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The Minister is explaining where he has been misrepresented. Mr HOWE —Two points in particular were made although a number of others were made as well. The first point concerned HMS Invincible. The only public statement I made on that matter, which is the only evidence of my view on the public record, was when I wrote to the Canberra Times and made clear that I supported the position taken by the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes). There is no question of my having a view other than that of the Minister for Defence in relation to that matter. On the second matter, with respect to guidelines, there was never a contract with the Philippines to cancel. I intervened concerning some preliminary discussions about a possible contract. Again that was an error of fact. That is not helpful to the debate. I ask the honourable member to check his facts. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(5.38) —It is a pleasure to speak in the debate on this matter of public importance. We have heard two speakers from the Opposition, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) and the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred). I think it is fair to say that neither speaker has been able to provide any substance relating to the allegation contained in the matter of public importance. As the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) has had to point out, many of the so-called arguments made by them are completely lacking a factual basis. A lot of drivel has been said this afternoon. Actually, I have not heard so much in regard to defence matters since last week 's debate on the motion of censure of the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes), during which again it was claimed that somehow this Government was deficient in areas of defence. I would have thought that the Opposition would have learnt from last week. I find it quite astounding that it has couched this matter of public importance in the way it has, the final part reading that such and such is having 'adverse consequences' for Australia's national security. That matter was well and truly discussed last week in debates concerning our defence policy. I think that what came out of those debates was that it was the Opposition that, for years and years, in areas of both direct defence policy and defence industry policy had put the national security of this country at risk. When talking about the national security of our nation some comments on the performance of the previous Government in the defence area are pertinent. Its performance in the area of new defence equipment left a great deal to be desired . When the White Paper on defence was brought down in 1976 it envisaged that expenditure on new equipment would be raised to representing 22 per cent of total expenditure in l980-81. Of course that promise was never fulfilled. Under the policies of the previous Government by 1981-82 new equipment accounted for only 16.9 per cent of total expenditure. Four years after the release of the White Paper the previous Government was $1.5 billion behind in its spending on defence priorities. The Opposition talks about national security. Let us look at its pathetic record. When in government it was four years behind target with the tactical fighter. It was four years behind target on the frigate program. It was three years behind program with the armour and anti-armour weapons program. It was three years behind target with the 155-millimetre artillery program. It was behind in all of those areas. Of course the Opposition when in government never met its promises on defence manpower. If we are to talk about national security we ought to put it into perspective and look at the Opposition's disgraceful record in overall defence policy. But its overall defence policy and its record in that respect is nothing compared with what the Opposition when in government did to the defence industries and to our defence support establishments. That in many ways is the crux of the debate today. The Opposition has suggested in the terms of its matter of public importance that there are deep policy divisions between the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Support. That is utter nonsense because this whole Government-and it has shown it already in every area of activity-is committed to a stronger industrial base in this country, to a stronger economic base, to a foreign policy which is more independent and to a defence policy under which we are more self-reliant. When members of the Opposition say that there are divisions in the Government in those areas they are obviously wrong and totally ignorant. Our performance in those areas is good. Of course one expects that on occasions there will be some differences in emphasis between the Department of Defence and the Department of Defence Support. Defence looks at the demand side and at satisfying the needs in that area. Defence Support's primary role is as a supplier. In any area where one institution looks at demand and the other at supply of course one will sometimes get differences and of course there will sometimes be differences of emphasis. Honourable members opposite referred earlier to the so-called facts and substance of the matter. I certainly could not pick up any. I saw an article in the Australian Financial Review which referred to some differences. They are differences of emphasis. As I say, they are to be expected when one side is looking at supply and the other is looking at demand. Overall, in only 12 months of our Government we have seen a very strong degree of co-operation between the Department of Defence and the Department of Defence Support. This has been reflected not only in the area of total Budget outlays in those two areas but also in a number of the policies and programs which are going on at the moment within our Defence Support sections. I wish briefly to mention those and to bring them to the attention of the Opposition. The Opposition may be aware of the project Waler, which aims ultimately to replace the Army's light armoured vehicles with Australian designed and manufactured vehicles which are to enter into service in 1995. That is an example of co- operation between Defence and Defence Support involving both public and private enterprise. It is a project which, in the long term, will strengthen Australia's defence industry reliability. I hope that the Opposition is committed to such measures. In my area of Bendigo the Bendigo Ordnance Factory has benefited enormously from the policies of our Government this year. We have seen some half a million dollars put into the new metrology department which has now been completed and which will be opened in the very near future. That will bring that factory up to a technological basis which is equivalent to, if not better than, that of similar defence industry factories throughout the world. That is an initiative taken by our Government. Work is about to go to tender on the factory's new $580 ,000 electro-plating facility. Again, that will ensure that the very best facilities are available for the factory in the future. When the Minister for Defence Support spoke previously he spoke of the Opposition's total contempt for the defence industries when it was in government . Honourable members should go and look at our defence industry factories throughout Australia. Many of them are more like museums than factories of the 1980s. It is a joint commitment by the Department of Defence and of Defence Support to see that those factories are brought up to the best available standard. One of the other means by which we are doing that is increased workload. The decision to give Williamstown the contract for two follow-on destroyer frigates is a $830m decision. It alone will bring $13m of work to the Bendigo Ordnance Factory. The Bendigo Ordnance Factory is also working on project Hamel. Yes, that decision was taken by the previous Government, but yet again it provides an example of work of a standard being performed by defence industries, obviously with the support of the Department of Defence. To say that there are deep divisions between the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Support which are somehow causing our national security to be put at risk is patent nonsense. I mention one area where our national security was put at risk through the policies of the Liberal-Country Party coalition in the past. I mentioned the Bendigo Ordnance Factory and how much stronger that factory is now under our Government than it was in the past. We now have technology and new contracts. But the honourable member for North Sydney might be interested to learn that it was his Government which attempted to close the Ordnance Factory. During my 12 months in this place I have heard a lot of stupid things said, but none more stupid than the comment made by the honourable member for North Sydney when he was speaking in this debate and said that we do not have in our Government one policy on one question. I have never heard anything more stupid. What was his Government's policy on defence support in regard to the Bendigo Ordnance Factory when his razor gang tried to close it down and to put 600 people out of work? What were his Government's policies then ? Mr Hodgman —It was not closed down. It's still there. Don't you know that? Mr BRUMBY —It is still there because of the campaign by the Bendigo community and, most importantly, it is still there and is being built up because of the change of government and because this Government has a genuine commitment to the two departments working together to ensure that our defence industries are built up. Previously the Minister for Defence Support mentioned a number of other initiatives which we have taken. One of the most important of those in regard to our defence industries is in the area of industrial health and safety. Again, progress is being made at the Bendigo Ordnance Factory. There has been a legacy of neglect. It is being overcome. We are working as a government towards meeting our aims. One of the fundamental aims is to build the industrial and technological base of this country to give us a skills base in the future should it be needed, should we come under attack, and we will not need to rely on foreign powers. That is the basis of our Government's commitment and it is a joint commitment involving both the Department of Defence and the Department of Defence Support. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The discussion is concluded. [COGNATE BILLS: BASS STRAIT FREIGHT ADJUSTMENT LEVY BILL 1984 BASS STRAIT FREIGHT ADJUSTMENT LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Before the debate on this Bill is resumed, I remind the House that it has been agreed to have a general debate covering this Bill, the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Bill 1984 and the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Collection Bill 1984. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(3.50) —I do not propose to canvass some of the wider issues raised in this debate last week, such as the resource rent tax advocated by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) and the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous), except to say that one would not have a bar of the Government's typically socialist proposals in that area, which would be bound to distort exploration and investment decisions and inhibit the maintenance of a high level of oil self-sufficiency in Australia. I want to speak specifically on the subject matter of this legislation. As I said at the beginning of my remarks the other day, the House will have noted that the Opposition's spokesman has entered some important reservations about this legislation. However, there should be no doubt that the Opposition does not oppose this legislation, which proposes a compromise solution to a near intractable situation. It is perhaps unnecessary to traverse all of the ground, but these Bills are the culmination of representations by the so-called northern refiners-the Amoco and Ampol companies in Brisbane and the Caltex company in Sydney-to governments, representations which date back to the time of the introduction of the crude oil absorption scheme in September 1970, when it was deemed obligatory that each refiner/ marketer should take a share of the indigenous Bass Strait crude production. That was, of course, before the quadrupling of the world oil price which followed the Middle East war of 1973. An integral part of the crude oil absorption scheme was a freight allowance, then 9c a barrel, which was deducted from the f.o.b. price paid to the crude oil producer regardless of the cost of getting that oil to the respective refineries . This allowance was increased in recent times to 36c a barrel. However, that created a considerable competitive imbalance in the crude absorption system, as it favoured the low transportation costs of the so-called southern refiners-that is, the Shell, BP, Esso and Mobil companies-at the expense of the northern refiners, Amoco, Ampol, Caltex and, to a lesser extent, Shell at Clyde in Sydney . In fact, an over-recovery of costs is enjoyed by the southern refiners, as the southern refiners receive the 36c, transport the crude primarily by pipeline and incur costs of up to 14c a barrel with the average much less than that, whereas the northern refiners also receive the 36c but incur costs of upwards of $1 a barrel. The nub of this issue, then, is that for years-though in its early stages with less severity-Ampol and Amoco in Brisbane and Caltex and the small Shell refinery in Sydney have been at an acute competitive disadvantage as the cost of getting their crude oil to their refineries has been higher than other refiners. This additional cost cannot be recovered under the refinery exchange arrangements that prevail in the industry and the government policy of a common capital city price for petroleum products. These Bills, which provide that 20c of the 36c will go to a fund to be redistributed more in line with the higher transportation costs of the northern refiners, go a long way towards correcting an anomalous situation which has cost those companies, or rather their shareholders, a very considerable sum of money. Of course, on the other side, the southern refiners argue that they are entitled to the advantage of their superior locations. That is what makes the issue, as I said, such an intractable one. However, even with the proposed arrangements, there are still difficulties. For example, there can be reasonable concern among the northern refiners that as freight costs rise, both pipeline and shipping, thus increasing the total transportation allowance under the crude absorption system, the proportion of the fixed 20c a barrel reallocation money to the total allowance, will again become adverse for the northern refiners. I say in that respect that it is hoped that after a trial period and a study of whether the competitive imbalance has been significantly adjusted and, indeed, in the light of the future of the crude absorption scheme itself, the Government will further review the arrangements. However, notwithstanding this and other aspects raised by the Opposition's spokesman, as I said at the outset of my remarks for my part I commend the Bills as significantly correcting this inequitable and difficult situation which has been institutionalised through past government regulation. In particular, it will enable the Caltex operation in my State to be more cost efficient and competitive in the market place, and thus sustain its employment and investment position in New South Wales. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology)(3.55) —in reply-On behalf of my colleague the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) in another place, I thank the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt), the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Chynoweth), the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous), the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O' Keefe) and the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) for their contributions to this important debate on measures covered by three pieces of legislation. Not all honourable members dealt in precise detail with the Bills before the House-the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Bill, the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Bill and the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Collection Bill-but expressed their general philosophical viewpoint about the delinquencies and/or achievements of the petroleum industry generally. Dr Harry Edwards —You don't have to love them to appreciate their contributions to the economy and employment. Mr BARRY JONES —Naturally, the Government is delighted with any kind of enlightened debate in this chamber. If there are any additional points that need to be answered in detail, they can be taken up perhaps in correspondence by Senator Walsh or, in fact, responded to when these matters are debated in another place. It now occurs to me that there were one or two specific points to which I could refer. I make these observations: The crude oil market has changed significantly over the past few years from an oil supply crisis in 1979-80 to a world glut of crude oil today. Representations from refiners to the Minister for Resources and Energy in the middle of last year were such that it was clear that the industry, following its inability to resolve the matter itself, expected some government action. The figure of $1.26 per kilolitre-that is, 20c a barrel-is inflex- ible. It is a compromise figure which is not open to further argument from the refiners. Furthermore, freight rates are not very volatile and do not change markedly from one price adjustment to another. The basis of calculation-that is, the LR1 tankers of between 20,000 and 80,000 tonnes-is that used in calculating the freight allowance in the import parity price. Information is publicly available on the costs of LR1 tankers and this enables a true arm's length price to be estimated. The honourable member for Franklin also referred to the price of liquefied petroleum gas. I should remind honourable members that as recently as 28 March 1984 the wholesale price of automotive LPG was reduced by 3c a litre. LPG is not cheaper in Japan than in Australia. The average capital city retail price in Australia was 24c a litre in March 1984, compared with 35c a litre in Japan. The Australian price will be even lower following last week's decision on prices. The honourable member for Flinders raised issues and a number of questions relating to the closure of the British Petroleum company's Westernport refinery. Most of those questions should actually be directed to BP. They are not, in the first instance, matters for government to determine. But it is relevant to note that the present refining capacity in Australia is between 820,000 and 850,000 barrels a day. The forecast product demand in 1984-85 is 590,000 barrels a day. The closure of the Crib Point refinery will remove 60,000 barrels a day from Australia's refining capacity. The closure will lead to increased utilisation in the remaining refineries and, because of its hardware, Crib Point is probably the least efficient of Australia's refineries. I again thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 8 March, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: 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 Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 8 March, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: 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 Barry Jones) read a third time. Debate resumed from 7 December 1983, on motion by Mr West: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.03) —Madam Deputy Speaker, not even acute laryngitis will restrain me from saying on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition that this is a black day in the history of our nation. This legislation, the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill, introduced into this Parliament by the Hawke socialist Government, attempts to remove forever the Queen, Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, from the oath of allegiance. Dr Harry Edwards —Shame! From where? Mr HODGMAN —From the oath of allegiance; this shameful and disgraceful proposal to strike out the name of the Queen of Australia from the oath of allegiance will be denounced and rejected by the overwhelming majority of Australians both old and new. We now have a Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who is so power-crazed and megalomaniac that he genuinely believes that he is above the Queen. I refer to the Queen in her capacity as Queen of Australia, for that is what she is in law and in fact. It was the former Labor Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, who brought about the necessary legal and constitutional amendments to designate Her Majesty as Queen of Australia. I turn to the Australian Citizenship Act of 1973 and remind honourable members and my fellow Australians of the oath of allegiance and affirmation of allegiance that were brought into this Parliament when Mr Whitlam and the Labor Government were in power back in 1973. The oath of allegiance is in the following terms: I, . . . renouncing all other allegiance, swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen. That is contained in Schedule 2 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1973. The affirmation of allegiance is in the following terms: I, . . . renouncing all other allegiance, solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen. Those amendments were brought in by the Hon. E. G. Whitlam, Labor Prime Minister of Australia. They were accepted by the overwhelming majority of Australians at that time, and from 1973 Her Majesty has been designated Queen of Australia. I see that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) is at the table. Let me say to the Minister that the other day I and many others were appalled to hear the Minister say in front of 25,000 people that he would amend the oath of allegiance so that to become an Australian citizen, to quote his words: 'You will not have to swear allegiance to a monarch living in a foreign country'. Let me say that both in law and in fact the Minister was wrong, and badly wrong, because the law is that one must swear an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty, Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia. One does not swear an oath of allegiance to the British Crown. One does not swear an oath of allegiance to a foreign monarch; one swears an oath of allegiance to the Queen of Australia. That is logical because our Constitution guarantees a parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy. Let there be no doubt about that, because if one looks at the preamble to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, the most important legal document in this nation, one will see in the recitation that the various States have ' agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown'. That is what the Constitution says. That is the constitutional birthright of every Australian whether he or she was born in this country or has adopted this country. Migrants know that under our Constitution they are coming to a country in which the Constitution guarantees three things: A parliamentary democracy, and an indissoluble Federal system, under the Crown. Nobody, not the Prime Minister, not the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, not the Australian Labor Party, has the right to take away unilaterally that which is the constitutional birthright of every Australian. But oh, how honourable members opposite hate the monarchy-except when the monarchy is in Australia! Then good Liberal Party and National Party members, the loyal members, cannot get within cooee of the Queen and the royal family because of Labor politicians falling all over themselves to be near her. I ask honourable members to cast their minds back to last year. Who, when in England, put his arm around the Queen Mother? It was the same Prime Minister who today laughed and sneered when I introduced into this Parliament a notice of motion pointing out his double standards. That is the same Prime Minister who last year swore-I repeat 'swore'-an oath of allegiance when he became Prime Minister of this country. He did not do it privately; he did it at Yarralumla in the presence of the Governor-General and about 20 television cameras. The whole thing was televised nationally. The Prime Minister of Australia swore an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen of Australia, and today his Government, without any mandate whatsoever, is legislating to take out of the oath of allegiance and the affirmation of allegiance, which believe it or not will become a pledge-I will talk about that later-all reference to the Queen of Australia. Make no mistake, Madam Deputy Speaker, honourable members and my fellow Australians, this Bill is the first step of the Hawke socialist Government in its endeavours to turn Australia into a republic against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Australians. The Prime Minister is not the President of Australia and he and his Government have no election mandate whatsoever to remove the name of the Queen of Australia from anything. Who does the Prime Minister think he is? Power, I suggest, has obviously gone to his head. Did he stand in the Sydney Opera House last year and say: 'If you elect me as Prime Minister of Australia my Government will destroy the oath of allegiance and the affirmation of allegiance by ripping out of them reference to the Queen of Australia'? This legislation removing reference to the Queen from the oath of allegiance is blatantly pro-republican. It is against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Australians. The latest public opinion polls show that two out of three Australians are dead against this country being turned into a republic; and we in Her Majesty's loyal Opposition agree with them. The fact is that this legislation is the most politically and emotionally divisive that has been brought in to date by the Hawke socialist Government. It will cause considerable conflict within the Australian community and, in the opinion of some, it constitutes quasi-treason. Her Majesty's loyal Opposition tells the Prime Minister that he is not above the Queen and never will be. I might say just in passing that it is only because the latest public opinion polls show that 81 per cent of Australians believe in God that the Prime Minister has backed off the original intention of the Government to take reference to God out of the oath as well. At one stage last year we were going to have an oath of allegiance that had no reference at all in it to the Queen, and the Prime Minister thought that he had really joined the big time and was going to take out reference to God as well. He has not gone on with that. We remind the Prime Minister that when he publicly swore that oath of allegiance to the Queen when he took office as Prime Minister of Australia last year, in a ceremony which was nationally televised, he was pledging his allegiance as Prime Minister to the Queen of Australia. Yet today the Hawke socialist Government is legislating to remove all references to the Queen from the oath of allegiance. The Prime Minister of Australia is now saying that allegiance to the Queen is not necessary for somebody to obtain Australian citizenship. What double standards! What hypocrisy! The oath of allegiance is necessary for the Prime Minister of Australia. It is necessary before a single member or senator can take his or her seat in this Parliament or in any of the State parliaments. But the Prime Minister, this great man, this man whose power has gone to his head, says that one does not have to take the oath of allegiance to the Queen to become an Australian citizen. By law all Australians born in this country owe allegiance to the Queen of Australia without having to take any oath of allegiance. The Hawke socialist Government now proposes to create two classes of Australians-those who owe allegiance to the Queen and those who do not. The Prime Minister, aided and abetted by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, urged on by the mad socialist Left, the republican rabble in the Australian Labor Party, has decided that his Government will use its numbers to force this radical, republican proposal through the House of Representatives. I hope, and Her Majesty's loyal Opposition hopes, that wiser counsel will prevail in the Senate and that this disgraceful amendment will be defeated. Not only have the Prime Minister and his Government been quite hypocritical on this issue; they have also been quite cowardly. Why do I say that? I say that because the Constitution itself provides the form of the oath of allegiance and the affirmation of allegiance before anybody can take his or her seat in this Parliament. I will read to the people of Australia the oath of allegiance as set out under our Constitution: I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God. The affirmation reads: I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Her heirs and successors according to law. What are we going to have now? Under this incredibly crazy Hawke socialist Government and its socialist Left Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs we are going to have the situation that to become an Australian citizen one does not need to take the oath of allegiance to the Queen but that to become a member of Parliament, to join the armed forces or to join the diplomatic corps one does . Two classes of Australian citizen are being created. Having attended citizenship ceremonies in my home State of Tasmania for over 16 years as both a member of the Tasmanian Parliament and a member of the Federal Parliament, I have had not one single complaint about the oath of allegiance or the affirmation of allegiance. The Minister, listening to the socialist Left, the republican rabble, has said: 'This is a bit rough, getting people to swear allegiance to the Queen'. He told 25,000 people-- Dr Harry Edwards —Where? Mr HODGMAN —At the Sydney Opera House. On Greek National Independence Day-it was the big throw-away line of his speech-he told them: 'We are going to change the law so that you will not have to swear allegiance to a monarch living in a foreign country'. He expected a great roar of applause but, as the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) and other honourable members who were present will confirm, he got a very weak round of applause. Afterwards comments were made to me such as: 'What a terrible thing to say at a Greek Independence Day celebration'. Some of those who said that to me were Greek Australians who had been awarded imperial honours of which they were greatly proud. Some of them were Greek Australians who had fought alongside British and Australian soldiers in World War II. They did not appreciate for one moment the claim by the Minister that in some way from now on , in this new semi-Australian republic of which he dreams so much, they will not have to swear allegiance to the Queen. As the Prime Minister is not in the chamber, I ask the Minister: 'Are you game enough to put to the people of Australia a referendum to take reference to the Queen of Australia out of the oath of allegiance in the Constitution?' I bet he is not. He would get thrashed, and he knows he would get thrashed. Is he going to talk to his colleague the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) and tell him that to become a member of the armed forces in this country one no longer has to swear allegiance to the Queen of Australia? What has he got against the Queen of Australia? This country is a constitutional monarchy. Those who describe his action today in this Parliament as quasi-treason feel very strongly about what he is doing. He should not believe that it is only the Returned Services League or right wing groups who feel strongly. I am telling the Minister that he has not done his homework on this and that many Australians who came to this country following World War II came because it was a constitutional monarchy and not a republic. Most of them had fled from republics. They do not want a bar of republics. They do not want a bar of two-bob presidents. They came here because it was a constitutional monarchy. The Minister has been listening to the radical few, to men and women who do not represent the mainstream of Australian opinion. I put quite bluntly to the Minister that he has been derelict in his duty. If he is prepared to change the oath of allegiance for citizenship why does he not have a crack at changing the oath of allegiance for members of parliament? Every single member of parliament in Australia has to take an oath or affirmation of allegiance before he or she can take his or her seat in this Parliament or in any of the State parliaments. This legislation is, therefore, discriminatory. It discriminates against those who wish to become Australian citizens and who wish to take an oath of allegiance to the Queen, because in this airy-fairy proposal the Minister has brought forward he does not mention the Queen at all. It is important to note the wording of the proposed oath and pledge. We will not have even an affirmation any longer. The Government is proposing to make it a pledge. It will read: I renounce any current citizenship and all allegiance to any State other than Australia. I pledge that I will faithfully uphold the Constitution-- Are we in America? To continue: obey the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen. On behalf of Her Majesty's loyal-I emphasise 'loyal'-Opposition we prefer Mr Whitlam's draft to this one. We think this is shoddy, cheap republicanism. We think it is against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Australians. I predict that this little sortie by the Minister, at the behest of some well known leaders of the socialist Left, the republican rabble, is going to cost his Government thousands and thousands of votes at the next Federal election. Mr Braithwaite —What happened when they were in government previously? Mr HODGMAN —As the honourable member for Dawson reminds me, I remember that back in 1974 a former Labor Prime Minister got delusions of grandeur. Power went to his head. I can remember the car stickers that were sent all around Australia. They said: 'God save the Queen, not Emperor Gough'. We have gone from Emperor Gough to President Bob. I repeat: Prime Minister Hawke is not president of an Australian republic, and he is not above and of more importance than the Queen. The Queen and the constitutional monarchy in this country will be here long after President Bob will be nothing but a bad memory. As I have said, I hope that in the Senate wiser counsels will prevail. However, before leaving the subject of the oath of allegiance, I have to put the question directly to every member of the Government opposite: When you took that oath of allegiance or affirmation of allegiance last year, did you mean it? If you did, how does that compare with the stand that you are now taking? Did you take it with your fingers crossed, or until the socialist republican rabble in your ranks get their way? As my colleague the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) has said in this chamber, what will be next? After the Queen, the flag; prayers at the commencement of Parliament; the Victoria Cross; and the Queen's Medal, which was not presented last year because it was in honour of a queen? Shall we be seeing the portraits of the Queen removed from government buildings and offices? Will the Government be telling the ethnic children of Australia that they have no obligation at all to their Queen? Members of the Government should wait until the Queen comes here next and they see the Greek and Italian children in their thousands waving their Australian flags and flocking to see her. As I said before, no Liberal Party or National Party member will get within cooee of her because members of the Labor Party will be all around her. You are the people who are so hypocritical when the Queen comes. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Perhaps the honourable member would like to speak through the Chair. Mr HODGMAN —Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. With the exception of yourself and the gracious manner in which you conduct your affairs, I just want to say that what I see with my own eyes proves to me beyond any doubt that when the Queen is here, Labor members need to be near her, and they get near her, but, by heavens, when she is back in London they are the first to move to take away that vital oath of allegiance which is the basis of the duty in law of every Australian. In a few moments, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall be giving notice of an amendment, but I want to turn to some other passages of the Bill because the Minister, again, without any mandate, has moved into areas which will please the socialist Left and gratify the republican rabble within the Labor Party but will not be in the interests of the people of Australia. Her Majesty's loyal Opposition takes the view that Australian citizenship is valuable. It is the greatest honour that can come to any person. It should not be devalued, or perhaps I should say debauched. The Opposition expresses the gravest concern about the moves in this Bill to cut the qualifying period for Australian citizenship from three years to two years. We point out that, already , Australia, of all countries in the world, has one of the shortest qualifying periods-namely, three years. In the United States one is looking at five years. Most other countries ask people to stay in the country for some time to prove that they really want to become a citizen and to be satisfied in their own mind that this important step is the correct one, not just for them but, as President Kennedy said, for their nation. We point out that many new settlers take at least a year or so to settle in and to make up their minds as to whether or not they should remain in this country. We suggest that there are many dangers in the move to reduce the period from three years to two years. That point will be developed further in debate. We feel that in itself, is a provision which requires very careful scrutiny by the Parliament. The Minister should also note that we are strongly opposed to his proposal to reduce the knowledge of English requirement from 'adequate' to 'basic' as a qualification for citizenship. Whether or not the Minister and the Prime Minister realise it, English is the language which is spoken in Australia-not French, not Russian and not Chinese. English is our language. The laws are written in English. A citizen is presumed to know the law. Ignorance of the law, it is said, is no excuse. We suggest that there is also a compounding of a blatant breach of a clear election promise contained in this provision. Last year the Opposition, as it then was, and the shadow Minister, as he then was, the now Special Minister of State (Mr Young), gave a clear, firm and unequivocal commitment that the adult migrant education program would be made permanent. Furthermore, he indicated that this program, under which new arrivals are taught the English language, could expect a considerable upgrading in funds. The Minister's memory is not so short that he cannot recall that outside Parliament House just four months ago 300 migrant teachers protested publicly and vociferously against his Government' s breach of election commitment. I suggest that this is one of the things on which the Government is moving. We are going to change the requirement from ' adequate' to 'basic', so what we shall have is another example of two classes of Australians-those who speak the English language and those who do not speak it. I repeat: I warn you, Minister, that you will find enormous division on this issue within the Australian community because you are creating two classes of citizens. The next move of the Minister, typically anti-British-and you should not accuse me of 'veiled racism' because I point out that you are just about-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the honourable member speak through the Chair to the Minister. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister is about to knock off something which he says needs to be knocked off because it does not still continue in any Commonwealth country-that is, the right of automatic acquisition of Australian citizenship on the part of British subjects resident in or with close connections with Australia in l949. What is it that the Minister has against British and European migrant settlers? He has cut their numbers down by 33 per cent and 22 per cent respectively. Mr West —Here we go again. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will have his chance later. Mr HODGMAN —The Minister can carry on as much as he likes about 'veiled racism'. I assure him that that is not washing in this Parliament or in the electorate. He is paranoid about anything British, whether it is the Queen or whether it is someone in Britain who has a relative in Australia and wants to come to this country as a permanent resident. I have dealt with the amendments to the oath of allegiance, the affirmation of allegiance and the pledge. The Minister's first option is a pledge, but if one really wants to do so, as a second option, one can swear an oath. I remind the Minister that his own Department will tell him that eight out of 10 taking citizenship prefer to take an oath which involves a reference to Almighty God. Dr Harry Edwards —He has got it the wrong way around. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Berowra correctly makes the point. The Minister is making the preferred option the second alternative. So, when a person goes along, he is given this pledge, as it is to be called, without any reference to the Queen, but if he asks, he can have his second alternative of an oath. The next matter, which reflects particularly upon the Minister's advisers and the people to whom he is talking, is that in relation to the whole question of citizenship the Minister is not practising what he is preaching. He is saying publicly that he wants people to become Australian citizens, yet he knows and I know that in some parts of Australia, under his Government, it takes eight to nine months from the time of application to the granting of Australian citizenship. I do not believe that that supports his contention on a matter which should be bipartisan. Because there are provisions in the Bill which Her Majesty's loyal Opposition will support-we refer particularly to the right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the question of exemption of elderly migrants from the requirement of English, the provisions in relation to removal of discrimination on the basis of sex and marital status, and the question of deprivation of citizenship when obtained by fraud, deceit or concealment of information or any other dishonest means-we shall not deny the Bill a second reading. However, I now move, and the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) will second: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for: (a) its shameful and disgraceful action in seeking to remove Her Majesty The Queen from the Oath of Allegiance and the Affirmation of Allegiance, against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Australians, and without having first put such an important amendment to the people of Australia in a referendum, (b) its deliberate devaluation of the importance of the honour of Australian citizenship, and (c) its overall failure to consult properly with the people of Australia before bringing into this Parliament such radical Republican legislative proposals'. I commend the amendment to the House. At the end of this debate the people of Australia will be able to see and hear exactly where the Government and the Opposition stand on this issue. The Government is already condemned for its hypocritical attitude to the Queen of Australia, in respect of whom each and every one of its members took an oath or an affirmation last year. They took that oath or affirmation almost exactly 12 months ago. Did the Prime Minister as he now is, stand on the steps of the Sydney Opera House and say: 'If I become Prime Minister of this country I will tear up the oath of allegiance'? Did the Prime Minister go around saying: 'You will not be allowed to swear allegiance to the Queen no matter how much you want to do so'? Did the Prime Minister seek a mandate to turn this great country of ours into a socialist republic? I suggest to the Government that what it is doing today is wicked, shameful and disgraceful. It will pay a very heavy penalty for this because at the next Federal election many of its supporters, who have written to me and said 'We can 't believe it, what on earth has got into the Prime Minister, what on earth has got into Minister West?' will vote against it. I suggest to all people listening to this debate that they now have, without doubt, the Hawke socialist republican Government. It stands condemned for what it is doing today in this, our national Parliament. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Ruddock —Madam Deputy Speaker, I have pleasure in seconding the amendment moved by my colleague the honourable member for Denison. I will seek to participate in the debate at a later hour. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(4.32) —Until recently I thought that Samuel Johnson's dictum that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel was a rather cynical witticism . Since listening to the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) in this House I see that it was an accurate observation, for once we look behind the cardboard facade of piety and patriotism put up by the honourable member, we find just another species of whoopee cushion making loud, unwholesome and meaningless noises. I will not dignify his diatribe by further comment on it. However, I must say one thing; that is, many citizens of republics which are our allies and trading partners will not be over-impressed by being described as rabble with two-bob Presidents. I support the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1983 in the knowledge that the rationale behind the proposed changes embodies the Australian Labor Party Government's acceptance of the fact that the majority of people living in Australia do so with a proud and genuine commitment to our country's national identity. It is with this sense of national identity in mind that the proposals for change have been considered and put forward. It is to this Government's credit that it is committed to ensuring that the Australian Citizenship Act reflects the national identity of all Australians; that it does not discriminate between persons on the basis of sex, marital status and present or previous nationality; and that provision is made for a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal should decisions arise to deny or deprive persons of citizenship under the Act. The Government's aim is to embody a thoroughly Australian character in the Act. This Bill will put the commitments of this Government into effect. The Bill, proposing extensive amendments to the Citizenship Act, was introduced in this Parliament on 7 December 1983 by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West)-a very fine Minister, as we all know. The Minister is to be commended for putting forward this legislation which, in the long term, will be of benefit to Australia's new residents. The Bill is the result of the most extensive review of the Citizenship Act since it was passed by the Chifley Labor Government in 1948. The fact that the Act has not been changed since 1948 is either a tribute to the fine work of that Government or an indication that subsequent governments have seen no reason to acknowledge the changing nature of migration patterns in this country. Our country has come a long way since those post-war years, which heralded a very active and successful migration program, a program which was to intermingle our own unique Australian culture with those of European and Asian origin. Australia since has become a culturally diverse society, an enriching feature giving way to a term more commonly used today-that of multiculturalism. The relationship between multiculturalism and national identity is very important in the context of this legislation. Clearly, while giving full respect to ethnic background, the Government wants to encourage those people who are eligible to take out Australian citizenship to do so in order that they may assume the associated rights and responsibilities of citizens of Australia and participate fully within the framework of our national identity. This Government believes that the measures contained in this legislation will assist those who wish to become citizens while at the same time removing from the existing Act what some may see as disincentives to the acquisition of citizenship. In considering the proposed amendments it needs to be appreciated that Australian citizenship was not in existence before January 1949. Until that time all persons living in Australia were simply either British subjects or aliens. There are still many provisions in the current Act which reflect this historical fact. The decision to migrate to another country is a very serious and important one to the people concerned. There are many factors to be weighed and assessed, not to mention the emotional effects of such considerations. But, our new residents having made the decision to migrate to Australia and having successfully completed the lengthy migrant application processes, it is the wish of this Government warmly to welcome them and give them every opportunity readily to take on a very meaningful and happy life in their new home. Many people genuinely wish to become Australian citizens, taking on the accompanying responsibilities and rights, as soon as possible after taking up residence. But an estimated 1.2 million residents remain non-citizens although they qualify for citizenship. The Government wishes to see those people in the residentially eligible category take out citizenship in the new homeland of their choice so that they can enjoy the benefits and assume to their full potential their rightful place in our national identity. Let me emphasise here that although a large number of people have not taken out citizenship the number applying for citizenship status has increased quite rapidly in recent years-from 78,000 in 1981-82 to 101,000 in 1982-83. A similar increase rate is occurring this year and it is the Government's intention to give encouragement to this trend, as it undoubtedly stems from a real pride in Australia and the status of Australian citizenship. It is this conviction of the 'proud Australian' that marks this legislation with a genuine pattern of national pride and a wish to share this sentiment with those people who have chosen Australia as their new home. Since taking office as the member for Chisholm I have attended many citizenship ceremonies in my electorate. I am proud to have been in a position to welcome new citizens from very diverse backgrounds and to see at first hand how important the citizenship ceremony is to each one of them. My electorate of Chisholm encompasses a large migrant population and hardly a day goes by without visits to my electorate office from people who have migrated to Australia in search of a more rewarding life. The reasons for their visits vary. What has been proved to me from my conversations with such visitors is that the migrant constituency within Chisholm is a very vibrant one. It is one which provides many examples of community and family support and activity by which we can all benefit. What does this Citizenship Amendment Bill do? The Bill alleviates many existing problems and addresses itself to making the process of citizenship much easier and more agreeable to all concerned. Among other things, it reduces the qualifying period from three years residence in the previous eight years to two years residence in the previous five years. I believe that once a person has made the decision to migrate to Australia, once a person has gone through those endlessly long processes-security checks, health checks, sponsorship and all of the things associated with migration-and has still decided to come here and make this place his or her home, it is not up to this Government to make the process of obtaining citizenship lengthy and arduous. This Bill recognises the fact that the decision to try to obtain Australian citizenship is very often made in the new citizen's own country and that the applicant has already seen himself or herself as attached to Australia for some time before coming here. The Bill allows for appeals on a number of grounds to be directed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the Government, or the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs no longer has the final determining powers in these cases. A demonstration of an adequate knowledge of English is no longer to be a requirement. A basic knowledge of English is the new requirement under these amendments. Applicants over 50 years of age will be exempted from the basic English requirement. People can question the logic about the words 'adequate' and 'basic' if they like but the fact of the matter is-this Bill recognises this fact-that many people who apply for citizenship and gain citizenship by going through a citizenship ceremony have only a basic knowledge of English. But the fact that they are acquiring Australian citizenship by their own choice is evidence enough of their intention to acquire the language of this country. They will certainly operate better with a good knowledge of the language of this country and they will be encouraged to acquire it, but to deny them citizenship until they acquire it is being ridiculous. It is also being discriminatory between those who have a background of education in many languages and those who have a background of education in a few languages or knowledge only of their home language. Migrant women especially should benefit from this amendment when they apply for citizenship. Due to family and employment responsibilities migrant women often find it harder to attend English classes in order to gain what is referred to in the existing Act as adequate levels of their newfound language. The Government understands that to participate fully in Australia's social, cultural and political life, a fair knowledge of English is essential but it does not want to deter those with limited English from taking out citizenship. The amendments will provide for the repeal of the definition of British subject status from the Citizenship Act. Australia is now the only country in the world that continues to use the concept of British subject status in preference to its own nationality. All other Commonwealth countries, including Britain, have abandoned this notion. It should be emphasised that changes relating to the British subject status derive from the need to provide equality to all migrant groups residing in Australia. Overseas developments and changes occurring within our society since 1949 give credence to such changes. It has already been mentioned that this Bill is the outcome of a most far- reaching review of the existing Citizenship Act. Proposals to vary the Act were announced in May 1982-proposals which had already been scrutinised by various ministerial advisory bodies and by State governments. They were widely circulated throughout Australia to community groups and were also the subject of discussion at public forums in every capital city during June and July 1982. Written submissions and informed talks were also part of the process of extensive consideration of the Act. The views put forward during these national consultations were summarised in a report. The then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the Hon. John Hodges, said at the front at the report: The following report attempts faithfully to capture the sense of the wide range of opinions expressed during the consultations and to present those views in a manner that will be informative to the general public and of assistance to decision-makers. Careful consideration of that report in preparing this Bill has also been given to suggestions from the Human Rights Commission, which undertook a very thorough review of the Citizenship Act in 1981-82. Of course, the Government's own policy commitments have been included in the Bill. The amendments under discussion at this time clearly embody our policy, which states: Labor considers that the Australian Citizenship Act of 1948 is in urgent need of reform. The current Act contains many anomalies and discrimination on the grounds of sex, ethnic origin and nationality. All discrimination should be removed . . . Act as quickly as possible. This would include the requirement that an applicant demonstrate an adequate knowledge of the English language. . . . . . . Labor also questions the appropriateness of the 'Oath of Allegiance' as it is currently worded. Many ethnic and native-borne Australians are dissatisfied with the wording of the oath. Labor would initiate a study to be carried out which would investigate possible alternatives to the present oath . . . The oath of allegiance segment of this Bill has caused much community discussion, not to mention hullabaloo in the House, over past months. Very strong support was conveyed at the national consultation level for a rewording of the oath to carry with it a distinctly Australian flavour. I fail to understand why having an Australian oath or pledge of allegiance is such a criminal offence. I, as a fifth generation Australian, believe that it is our country to which we have allegiance in the first instance. It became evident that the swearing of allegiance to a monarch residing outside Australia was very confusing to prospective citizens. It has been confusing for a very long time. It certainly confused my husband when he took the oath of allegiance some 32 years ago. It goes without saying that the declaration of allegiance is of great importance to the person about to embark on Australian citizenship. In speaking to this Bill I am adding my support to what I hope will soon be one of the finest achievements of this Government and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. It is legislation that will be of positive benefit to newcomers to our nation and encourage them to take up their new lives in an atmosphere of national pride and identity-a national pride and identity which I share in this great country of ours. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(4.46) —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West), in his second reading speech, used the word 'discrimination' and derivations of it to justify parts of this legislation. Discrimination is one of the buzz words of members of the Australian Labor Party and must rank with reform as part of the meaningless rhetoric in which they indulge themselves from time to time. The Labor Party, as with my Party, discriminates. I would like to think it is discriminating as to who may be endorsed as a candidate for political office. Certainly the Labor Party discriminates as to who will belong to which faction, whether it is the right wing, the left wing or the putrefaction. I would just like to question why we have to go through this charade of justifying-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! Though we are having a far-ranging debate on this Bill, it would be appropriate if the honourable member did not range as far as he appears to be intending to do. Mr ROCHER —Mr Deputy Speaker, I should explain to you that I am responding to the use of the word 'discrimination' to justify part of the legislation, as you will find lavished throughout the Minister's second reading speech as recorded in Hansard. I question why we have to go through this charade of justifying what are the Government's priorities instead of claiming it is the elimination of discrimination. It is a fact that immigration and citizenship laws and policies already discriminate in favour of refugees, family reunion, those possessing skills in demand and those with employment-creating capital to bring with them, and rightly so. I presume that this Government and future governments will expand or contract those qualifications as economic and social factors change over the coming years. In fact, it is the right of any government or any nation to discriminate. When we use that word unwisely and selectively we bring it into disrepute and we tend to mislead. I would like to think that we will not try to kid the nation that there are not legitimate forms of discrimination enshrined in these amendments as well as in immigration and other laws as they presently stand. Discrimination will remain in the principal Act after these amendments are passed. It is time to discredit the use of the word 'discrimination' in the way in which it is used in political debate. We should not accept the implied meanings given by the radicals, including this Minister, without question. Despite its collectivist approach to social and other problems, this Government must not be allowed to explain away parts of these amendments on the spurious basis that they eliminate all, or even some, forms of discrimination. Nowhere in the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill is discrimination more evident than where it seeks to relegate, in clause 12, the oath of allegiance to second place after, and only as an alternative to, an affirmation. The complexion of Australia and its people has not changed that much since the election of the Hawke Government to justify relegation of the option to swear by Almighty God to a mere second choice. As my colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has already indicated, polls in Australia show that a vast majority of citizens believe in a god and although some of those believers do not choose to take the oath when required, my attendance at citizenship ceremonies in my State leads me to observe that the majority still prefer to swear by Almighty God. It is insensitive in the extreme of the Minister to impose his values on a great many others, probably a great majority, in this way . Similarly, the omission of direct reference to the monarch in either the oath or affirmation seems to bear the personal stamp of the Minister and a gaggle of Australian Labor Party members who will seek to change traditional values in Australia for the sake of change. Queen Elizabeth the Second remains Queen of Australia. Despite the preferences of many honourable members in the Government Party, she will remain Queen of Australia whether they like it or not. The reference in the present oath or affirmation which calls on new citizens to 'be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors' recognises the monarchy and her constitutional role. By omitting reference to the monarch and substituting the pledge to uphold the Constitution, these amendments promise to offend many new and old citizens alike. It will be argued that since upholding the Constitution necessarily involves supporting the monarchy-at least until Labor's republican plans have progressed- the new form of words makes no substantial difference. This is the type of casuistry we can expect from the Minister. Symbolically-symbolism is at the heart of matters such as this-the new wording does matter and the omission of any reference to our Head of State is ominous, to say the least. Next on the list, no doubt, is the Australian flag. In that regard I must say that it is surprising that a front runner for its replacement seems to be the Eureka flag, the symbol of a group of mining entrepreneurs and tax evaders, the last people whom I understood these socialist parties would be ready to support. The Minister, in his second reading speech, refers to the declaration of allegiance and how it is regarded as of singular importance by many people. Of course, he is dead right. He offers, as part justification for making mention of that reasoning, strong support 'for wording distinctly Australian in character'. The new affirmation reads: I renounce any current citizenship and all allegiance to any state other than Australia. I pledge that I will faithfully uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen. What could be more Australian than the wording in the present oath where it refers to the Queen of Australia? Surely that is Australian. Surely that is traditionally, and in the most accepted way, Australian. The honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear) who attempts to interject is a member of another faction. He, along with a few new members here, belongs to the watermelon faction. They are green on the outside and various shades of red on the inside. I conclude by saying that there is much in the Bill to support. I think there is much in the Bill with which we hold great truck also. That has been mentioned at length by my colleague the honourable member for Denison. Not without great reservations we intend to go along with reducing the qualifying period for Australian citizenship from three years to two years. While I say 'not without great reservations' I take the point that, in most other countries, the term for qualifying for citizenship is much greater. I see great merit in it remaining at least three years. However, I do not think it is one that we intend to go to the barricades on. We support amendments which give right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against the Minister's decision to deny or deprive Australian citizenship in certain circumstances. I support the exemption of elderly applicants from the requirement to have a basic knowledge of English, although I am opposed to a reduction in the requirement of knowledge of English as an adequate basis for those who are younger. We add our support to changes to renunciation of allegiance and removal of discrimination certainly on the basis of sex and marital status. Deprivation of citizenship when obtained by fraud, deceit and concealment of information or any other dishonest means should also certainly constitute disqualification from Australian citizenship. But in those areas, which have been outlined either by me or the shadow spokesman on this matter, the amendments cover our position. Those amendments will have my entire support. Mr GEAR(Tangney)(4.57) —I welcome the chance to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1983 because Australia has been one of the few countries in the world that draw the majority of their citizens from other countries. Therefore, the Bill is very central to Australia's well-being. In my contribution today I would like to review the role new citizens have played in the development of Australia, certainly since the end of the last war, and comment on where the amendments before us today will enhance the role of new citizens in Australia. First, I think it is true to say that most Australians do not know what it is like to go and live in another country. I would imagine that would be reflected in this chamber today. Not many of us have gone overseas and tried to live as new settlers in another country. I went to Canada in 1970 and, therefore, I can speak in a limited sense with a bit of empathy. One of the first things that strike a person when he leaves his own country and goes to another country is that he is all on his own. He does not have any friends; he seldom has relatives. Under the current policy I am sure that the family reunification system is a good one because it brings out those people who have relatives in Australia and that is a tremendous help. But certainly a lot of people who have come to Australia did not know anybody when they got here. They certainly face handicaps, the major one being language. When I went to Canada the people spoke English; so I was fairly well looked after in that regard. But many of the people who come to Australia do not have English as their first language and have a very limited use of English when they first get here. That has implications that not many of us would realise-simple things such as going to a doctor and telling him what is wrong in order to get an illness diagnosed. In a newspaper this morning there is a call for more ethnic doctors to be trained in Australia. The Vietnamese population of Adelaide is a good example. I think that is a good move because those people cannot speak to an Australian trained doctor with any sense of security. Obviously the language barrier would preclude them from getting the medical care to which they are entitled as residents of Australia. We take for granted simple things such as reading the morning's newspaper. Some of the larger ethnic groups produce newspapers, and they are good newspapers too, but they usually come out on a weekly basis. So if a person cannot read English he is limited in finding out what is going on. Finding out about citizenship and how to go about applying for it is a problem. I know that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs puts out publications in many languages, but getting the message through on how to become an Australian citizen is one of the restrictions placed on those people who come to Australia from other countries. It has moved me in my particular area to produce what I call a citizenship information kit. I can publish that only in English. I will be putting that information out next month and making it available to any intending citizen, new citizen or, indeed, anybody who wants it in my electorate. Once again I come back to the fact that I speak only one language. I suppose that is a deficiency, and one which I am sure is shared by many other members, in corresponding with constituents. I instance simple things such as making friends in a new country. One's ability to make friends is certainly restricted if one cannot converse. Even getting a driver's licence necessary to get a job may be difficult. I know that learning the customs and laws in a new country is difficult, from my experience in Canada. For example, simple things such as taxation laws are completely different. I was working as an electrician at the time and I found that industrial laws were very different in Canada. I notice that the technical and further education system here is currently mounting programs designed to overcome that deficiency by teaching new tradesmen who come to Australia the industrial and technical language they will need to survive on entering the work force. I turn now to one of the chief benefits that new citizens bring to Australia- the educational and vocational skills they developed in their own countries. That is a cost we do not have to worry about because those people have developed their skills at a cost to their own country and they have brought their skills out to us. If we look at the economy of a country, its hidden assets are its human skills, and certainly Australia has been the beneficiary over the years of sufficient skills to allow us to reach the point we have today. Without the immigration policy that was set in train by the Chifley Government and carried on by successive governments after the Second World war, Australia's standard of living, indeed the development that we see today, could not have been achieved. I suppose that in a sense today we face the same sort of crisis as we faced in those days. We have to start rebuilding our economy, and I am sure that the people who are yet to come to this country will play an important part in doing just that. I turn now to some parts of the Bill. The first and most contentious part, if we listen to the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who spoke for 20 minutes on it, is the desire to change the pledge of Australian citizenship. We have a choice of two different forms of wording and I suppose the honourable member sees that as divisive. I do not see it as being particularly divisive myself. The proposed wording for the first form of the oath of allegiance states : I . . . renounce any current citizenship and all allegiance to any State other than Australia. I pledge that I will faithfully uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen. The alternative proposed pledge states: I . . . renounce any current citizenship, and all allegiance to any State other than Australia. I swear by Almighty God-- and that is the change-- that I will faithfully uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen. Given the propensity of the honourable member for Denison for looking at socialist countries, I thought I would have a look at another democratic country , the United States of America. I rang the American Embassy this morning to get the text of the American pledge. That pledge states: I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; or that I will perform non-combatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; or that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. Let us look at the comparisons we can draw between the American oath of allegiance and the proposed Australian oaths of allegiance. The similarities are that both provide for swearing to God for those people who put a premium on that . In Australia's case we offer a choice for those people who do not. Secondly, both pledge allegiance to the Constitution and laws of their countries. The similarity is quite pronounced there. Thirdly, neither swears allegiance to foreign monarchies, so a comparison can be drawn there also. Mr Hodgman —That will go down very well in Tangney. Mr GEAR —Good, I hope it does, because I will be there for quite a while. Mr Hodgman —That's what you think. Mr GEAR —That is what people said last time. They did not think I would win the seat last time, but here I am. I should like now to deal with some of the points raised by the honourable member for Denison, who went on for 20 minutes in a rather emotional burst about how the Government will lose the next election because of the change to the oath of allegiance. Let us look at some of the issues there. It has been pointed out to me that the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) when he was Minister drew attention in May 1982 to the confusion caused to many settlers by the requirement to swear an oath of allegiance to a sovereign resident elsewhere-not living in Australia. He also drew attention to the resistance of many people to taking such an oath. I wonder how the honourable member for Denison would get on swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen of Holland? It is quite possible, if we trace our history back, that that could have been the case. I wonder whether the honourable member would have jumped up today and said the same sorts of things. Currently, there are 1.2 million residents of Australia who could become citizens. I wonder how many of them will become citizens now we have removed that part of the oath of allegiance? A number of United Kingdom citizens have questioned the swearing of allegiance to the Queen because they already owe their allegiance to Her Majesty as a person, if not in her role as sovereign of Australia. A number of United Kingdom citizens serving in the Australian Army who have applied to become Australian citizens have expressed strong feelings at the requirement again to pledge their allegiance to the Queen. A number have said they find the requirement offensive to their commission or to their original oath of allegiance on joining the Army. In some cases the wording of the current oath has resulted in misunderstandings, including the belief that renouncing all other allegiances means abandoning one's cultural heritage. The proposed wording of the new pledges makes clear that it is the citizenship and not the cultural heritage which is being renounced. The two forms of pledge proposed will allow all people, whatever their views on religion, and here they have a clear choice, to make a full commitment of allegiance to Australia. I support that fully. Our first allegiance is to Australia and not to a foreign monarchy. Mr Hodgman —She is the Queen of Australia. Mr Donald Cameron —And Gough Whitlam made her that too. Mr GEAR —That is right. That is another point I would like to come to. Honourable members opposite keep going back to 1973. In fact they go back further than that to when the Constitution was drawn up. This Government certainly does not believe that those documents have holy writ. We think that as times change so should our Constitution. In fact, if we look at the history of constitutional changes in Australia, there are two parties that have opposed almost every one of them, and their members sit on the other side of the House. It might be true to say that in 1973 the Whitlam Government brought in that legislation, but I am certain that if we went back far enough we would find that at one time the Labor Party said, when vehicles first came on to the road, that they should have a person in front of them holding a red flag. We do not hold that view today because we know it is outmoded. Mr Hodgman —You still support the red flag, don't you? Put that one in Tangney and see how it goes. Mr GEAR —I support the Australian flag. The honourable member for Denison kept coming back to the Hawke socialist Government. One thing that can be said about the honourable member for Denison is that he is a man of the 1950s. That is the sort of rhetoric we used to hear then. He should ask members of the National Party-when they are in the chamber-what they did. They conducted a survey on what people thought a socialist was, and some of the answers would surprise the honourable member. A lot of people thought that a socialist was a tourist who was overseas all the time. Not many people on the other side of the House use the word 'socialist' any more. Mr Braithwaite —You just admitted to going overseas. Mr GEAR —Not as much as Mr Fraser when he was Prime Minister. The honourable member for Denison also talked about public opinion polls supporting the Opposition's stand on this. I do not know of any such poll but, if Mr Fraser is to be believed, there is only one poll that counts and that is the one on polling day. When we look at the polls that are coming out now, I am fairly sure which way the next one will go. The honourable member for Denison also talked about two classes of Australians. Really, that is going back to the days when Mr Fraser as Prime Minister tried to divide Australia. We seemed to have a cultural cringe in those days. We thought that Australians were not as good as anybody else. Going back even further to that other celebrated conservative Prime Minister who used to adore the Queen, I can see remnants of that attitude today in the honourable member for Denison. Mr Hodgman —Thank you. That is a very great compliment. I appreciate it. Mr GEAR —I am glad that the honourable member takes it as such. I do not think that anybody who looked at this legislation objectively-certainly those people from the United Kingdom or from any other Commonwealth country-could ever suggest that we mean any disrespect to the Queen of England. This legislation reflects the fact that change is occurring in Australian society and that we as a nation-certainly since the honourable member for Wills (Mr Hawke) became Prime Minister-are a lot more proud of our nation than we used to be. Nowadays we seem to think that we can do a lot better, that to be Australian is not inferior and that to buy an Australian product is the right thing to do. Advertisements on television certainly do not talk about European products any more. Most of them promote Australian products. I think that that nationalism is reflected in this Bill because we are taking out the oath of allegiance to that monarch who lives overseas. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. That is a most offensive statement. She is the Queen of Australia and the honourable member swore an oath of allegiance to her last year. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr GEAR —I am glad that the honourable member brought that up because it was a point I meant to cover. It is true that I swore that oath of allegiance but I could not have changed it until I had sworn it. I was not even a member of parliament until I swore it. Now we have the capacity to change it if we want to . Mr Donald Cameron —The next step! It is foreshadowed, is it? Mr GEAR —If it comes up for debate I will think about it, but I think that there are more important items on the agenda such as unemployment and interest rates, areas in which we seem to be doing a lot better than the Opposition is doing in this debate. I would like to make a few points before I wind up. One of those points alludes to the many agencies throughout Australia which are helping to bridge the gap for the new citizens who come to Australia. I am talking about the Good Neighbour Council and the many church and service organisations which act as a bridge to allow the new settler to come into the country and to find his or her feet. I think that those organisations do a tremendous job. It is a job which costs governments nothing, but if it was not done I am sure that the people who come out here would not integrate as fast as they normally do. I close my comments by congratulating the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West). He is a splendid Minister. In his short time in office he has shown that he has the interests of Australia at heart as well as the interests of new citizens and citizens yet to come to Australia. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(5.13) —The Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1984, which is now before the House, represents a very significant move on the part of the Government to change the provisions which have hitherto conditioned the practices of our society. The Bill contains a number of measures of considerable merit and logic. Yet, notwithstanding the insistent protests of members of the Government that it carries the imprimatur of the society, there is ample evidence that our population has great apprehension about it. That suggestion might be dismissed. Possibly a parliamentarian on this side of the House would be the least effective advocate of that proposition. With that in mind I bring before the House a comment contained in an editorial of the Maryborough-Hervey Bay Chronicle. I maintain that Maryborough, Queensland, would fairly epitomise the character of broader Australia, and may be taken as a fine example of the attitudes of broader Australia. On 30 January the editor was moved to remark: What the hell is going on inside Australia's department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and who is making decisions that are having the effect of changing traditional policies in that area? The latest edict to surface is one affecting the 'Big Brother' movement, which in 58 years has brought out to Australia under a most successful sponsorship program 12,000 migrants, mostly from Britain. The Big Brother people have been advised that the special dispensation which has applied to them in that period has been halted by the Department without any explanation, and the minister, apparently under the thumb of his bureaucrats, has refused to discuss the matter with them. The move certainly adds weight to the view of many in Australia that there is an anti-European, more particularly an anti-British, bias within the Department. Some group somewhere within the department-probably under the guidance of Mr Al Grassby-seems hell-bent on forcing multi-culturalism on Australia without the approval of the electorate. There is not the slightest doubt that the composition of Australian society is quietly changing as a result of immigration policies of recent years. That is a broad statement. It links with another editorial in the Maryborough- Hervey Bay Chronicle in which the editor says: For a party that rode into power under the banner of 'consensus' the Australian Labor Party is certainly a living contradiction. Not content with the normal divisions within the community, involving capital and labour, conservation and industry and other seemingly permanent points of controversy, it has seen fit to promote a few of its own. The pointless scrapping of the traditional Queen's Medal for the champion shot in the Australian Army, the move to change the oath of allegiance, the possibility of the scrapping of the Victoria Cross for gallantry, and moves to change the Australian flag are all pointers towards republicanism, and they are removing the nation's background and history. None of those moves will do a thing towards improving the quality of life in the nation. All they will do is promote divisions in the community when unity is so essential. Electors will note-and the Chronicle will remind them at the next federal elections-that none were highlighted during the last Federal election campaign. These are genuine concerns. They lead one to ask why these measures, which will in many respects change or remove the tenets and forms which have sustained our society, are coming about. One looks for motivation. One senses in the shadows behind this matter the skeleton of apprehension. Why is it happening? I know of one who had more time to address himself to research this matter, to flesh out that skeleton of apprehension. What has been put to me has proved to be plausible and persuasive. I offer it to the House for its consideration. Motivation is the operative word. Where can we look for the seeds of such a motivation? Maybe it would be a good idea to think back to 1973 when the then Minister for Immigration, Al Grassby, as mentioned in the editorial of the Maryborough-Hervey Bay Chronicle, sought to remove the oath of allegiance to the Queen. Parliament in its wisdom rebuffed that proposition. But it was a seed. That same gentleman is still in good standing with the former honourable member for Maribyrnong, Moss Cass, and his group. The report of the Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs states: The task of radically restructuring the earlier policies of migrant settlement fell to Al Grassby, the Minister for Immigration in the Labor Government of 1972 . His 1973 statement 'A Multicultural Society for the Future' still remains the original testament and manifesto of cultural pluralism and multiculturalism in Australia. The seeds germinate. They go a little further and start to sprout. Where, perhaps, did Mr Grassby secure his motivation? Where did he get his ideas? Mr Grassby says that he got his Irish inspiration as did Padraig Pearse and Eamon De Valera, the two key figures of Irish republicanism in this century. Addressing the Irish Day seminar, Mr Grassby said: I am proud to be one of the great number like Padraig Pearse, Eamon De Valera and Albert Dryer who drew their Irish inspiration from Irish mothers. What does Pearse say in his book? He quotes Tone, who, in 1798-- Mr Maher —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I am very reluctant to interrupt my good friend the honourable member for Wide Bay in his interesting dissertation about Irish history, but there are other matters to raise and other honourable members who wish to speak. He should be more relevant to the Bill before the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —There is no point of order. I am sure the honourable member for Wide Bay will return to the specific points of the Bill. Mr MILLAR —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am addressing the question of motivation so that this Bill may be assessed in the light of the spirit that has brought it into the House now. The quotation attributed to Tone is: To complete the work of Tone! . . . And let us make no mistake as to what Tone sought to do, what it remains for us to do. We need not re-state our programme; Tone has stated it for us: ''To break the connection with England, the never-failing source of all our political evils, and to assert the independence of my country''-these were my objects. They are the objects to which Mr Al Grassby clearly attaches himself. That is the underpinning of the measures that have come into this House, under the mantle of benign paternalism, to accommodate the expectations and ambitions of our society, which in no way can be proved. The honourable member for Denison ( Mr Hodgman) issued a challenge to the Government to conduct a referendum on this question, fully confident of what would result from it. There is this notion of the English. It is shown throughout the Bill and, notwithstanding anything that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs ( Mr West) and members of the Government may say, it is very difficult for one to accept that the Bill has not been introduced substantially, in respect of those critical elements, because of a spleen, a resentment of things that have gone by ; things that are very much part of our history. They seek in this legislation to achieve a total divorcement from the connection with the Queen of Australia and to remove all elements of the Act as it presently exists which in their judgment should be construed as acts of sycophancy to a crown. Mr Hunt —They are trying to make us a banana republic. Mr MILLAR —That is very true. Mr Maher —Come back to Irish history. You are better at that, Clarrie. Mr MILLAR —The honourable member for Lowe suggests that I address myself more directly to the Bill. Let us refer to the Bill. The Minister in his second reading speech claimed that this proposal-the proposal that conditions the Bill- was supported by the report entitled 'National Consultations on Multiculturalism and Citizenship'. Yet Professor Zubrzycki, who wrote the report on the consultations, made it clear that it was difficult to gauge the representativeness of the opinions expressed in the consultations. The professor stated: It is difficult to gauge the representativeness of the various opinions expressed. Clearly, forums conducted in the capital cities could not cater for more than a token representation from rural areas or non-metropolitan regional centres, though attempts were made to encourage such representation. So it is acknowledged that the conclusions have been arrived at by a relatively small sector of the community. The Minister in his second reading speech also implied quite clearly that the notion of common nationality in Britain for citizens of Commonwealth countries is obsolete. So that there will be no misunderstanding about it, the Minister stated: The common code concept of uniting all Commonwealth countries under the umbrella of British nationality is no longer valid. All other Commonwealth countries, including Britain itself, have abandoned this notion. Australia is now the only country in the world to continue to use the concept of British subject status in preference to its own nationality. This is grossly misleading. Australian citizens resident in the United Kingdom are not foreigners, despite limitations on entry to the United Kingdom. Citizens of Commonwealth countries resident in the United Kingdom are eligible to vote; eligible to stand for parliament; eligible to join almost all parts of the Civil Service, whether or not they are British citizens. If the Minister clearly misleads the House in one instance, what credibility can be given to his propositions throughout his speech that otherwise may have been persuasive in their reasonableness? The document, as a consequence, must become suspect. It adds fuel to the fires of apprehension and misgiving of those citizens in wider Australia who have not had the opportunity to express a view as to whether they want the essential character of this country changed. The point that I put simply challenges the credibility of the remarks made by the Minister in his second reading speech. The fact that he has misled the House-and I would not wish to attribute to him an intention so to do-must make the document somewhat suspect. The suggestion that we reduce the requirement in respect of knowledge of English may arguably be not unreasonable in respect of certain cases on compassionate grounds. But what is the reality of it? We will grant citizenship to residents of this country, which will make them immediately responsible to discharge their citizenship by, for instance, serving on juries and voting. How can they be equipped to discharge those duties if they lack the ability to comprehend what is happening in this country? There is a potential mischief in the requirement to vote-and on being granted citizenship they are required to vote at law-when they lack the capacity to educate themselves directly and personally on the issues confronting this nation . They become dependent on others who must make good the inadequacy and, therefore, they are not volunteering an expression of view that is a result of their own reasoning and their own understanding. They become simply an echo for the opinions and ambitions of others. I say to the Minister that we have seen this happen with our fellow Australian citizens, the Aborigines. A particular grouping of Aborigines, with all understanding, have been totally incapable of coming to an honest and objective conclusion about where their best interests lie in regard to voting. They have been totally dependent on best friends or advisers who, in many instances, have had no particular interest in the Aborigines' welfare but certainly have had a keen interest in the result of a ballot. So we create a citizen, and leave him lamentably ill-equipped to cope with the responsibilities he faces as a citizen. The citizens of Australia have a right to expect people to accept the requirements of their country. We do not have to apologise to any new settlers in this country for what we are; nor do we require them immediately to conform to the practices hitherto established in our country. The very successful post-World War II migration policy is clear proof of that situation. Some four million people have entered this country and, as a consequence, have changed the character of the Australian today. It has happened very innocently and in the best of worlds. Nobody was required to condition himself to be another; nobody was required to shed his culture; nobody was required to dress in khaki and a slouch hat and become an ocker. Our football heroes in Melbourne now bear exotic names which would have been anathema to Australians in 1935. They would have been shocked at the proposition that their football champions should be, in the jargon of the day, 'wogs' or 'wops'. But now these people are accepted and are lauded as champions, and that is good and wholesome. But now we seem committed to the propagation of multiculturalism, which is simply a euphemism for divisiveness. Mr West —It is what? Mr MILLAR —It is a euphemism for divisiveness. We should just let it be. Nobody is required to shed the characteristics which attach him to his place of origin. But if people come here to be Australian citizens we have the right to expect them to accept that very truth: That there are no first, second or third class citizens. There is one Australian citizenship status, and we should not be undermining that condition by accepting second or third class, or even different types, of Australians. If people who come to live in this God-fearing country have a notion that that is antipathetic to their philosophies or attitudes, they can scarcely expect the Australian citizens to change just to accommodate their expectations. We are one country and one people regardless of origin-I am speaking now of Australian citizens-and we should not undermine the status of that classification. We are talking about making it very easy now for a citizen to become naturalised or to acquire citizenship. We are reducing the period to two years. I suggest to the Minister that that two years is scarcely adequate. For those people who intend to make Australia a place of permanent residence it could arguably suffice. But it would be a very simple thing for a person who, for reasons best known to himself, seeks to gain Australian citizenship as an expedient to spend two years here and then quit the country. It could well be reasonable to suggest that we have a post-qualification period; that we give people Australian citizenship in two years but make it conditional on their remaining for all practical purposes as residents for a further three years. That would eliminate the opportunity for a person as a matter of personal expediency to come here and spend two years, which really is a very brief period. In summary, I have to say again that many people in this country strongly suspect the motivation behind this legislation and would certainly seek to have an opportunity to express their views through a referendum. They would be most insistent that Australian citizenship be regarded proudly as such, and that it should not be bent to accommodate the expectations or ambitions of those who seek to be something slightly different. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(5.33) —There is an old Irish axiom, 'Who dares to speak of '98?', which refers to the 1798 Rising. Yet today in the House we heard the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) speak extensively, quoting Wolfe Tone and others , about the Irish-British nexus which Tone was intent on breaking in 1798. The honourable member cannot have understood the notion of breaking that nexus as proposed by Tone and can have little knowledge of Irish history at that time. There was no such thing as Catholic emancipation or emancipation for dissenters in any way, yet the honourable member went on-- Mr Braithwaite —I take a point of order. I can recall a point of order being taken by the honourable member against the introduction of extraneous matter, as he called it. The honourable member is now doing the same thing. Should it not apply to him? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr MAHER —The honourable member for Wide Bay is totally ignorant of Irish history if he hopes to draw any support out of a happy, pleasant talk on Australian citizenship by Mr Al Grassby at some Irish function. Al Grassby happens to be a very close personal friend of mine. He is a former member of this House and former Minister of the Whitlam Government who served this nation with great distinction both in this House and in the Public Service. He did a lot to help migrants who came here from Europe and from every country in the world to build our nation, to work on the Snowy Mountains project, where they died in great numbers, and to work in the factories and in all the lowly jobs. Al Grassby did much to raise the status of the people who were factory fodder. I refer to the migrants who came here, the migrant women who worked in the sweat shops in the suburbs and in the clothing factories. Such people were never lucky enough to go to Wide Bay or for that matter probably to read the Maryborough- Hervey Bay Chronicle, that hysterical, jingoistic newspaper-that is all I can describe it as-which I would be ashamed of if it were pouring out such nonsense in my electorate. As for the Big Brother movement, the honourable member for Wide Bay is very concerned about this important organisation. But this Government and the previous Government ensured that there was no bias in Australia's migration policy. It was the honourable member's Government which introduced family reunion and cut down all the preferences for the British. So there is no need for the honourable member to come in here with crocodile tears and speak about an anti-British bias, because that is absolute rubbish. The biggest group of migrants in our nation is the British. They are the people who can benefit from the family reunion scheme and from all the present migrant sponsorship policies. So I was absolutely appalled by the incredible outpourings of the honourable member for Wide Bay, and I expected much more from him than we got. The honourable member should remember the racist campaign that was run against Al Grassby in 1974, which succeeded unfortunately in defeating this great Australian. The Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill covers a variety of matters and I believe it is of considerable importance to Australians, particularly those in an area such as Lowe where one-third of the population was born overseas. This is not uncommon in the city seats and is not uncommon in some rural areas. Several points in the second reading speech of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) quite interested me. Firstly, I refer to his statement that prior to 26 January 1949 there was no such thing as Australian citizenship. (Quorum formed) It is a shame that all of my colleagues were not here to hear the outrageous racist remarks of the honourable member for Wide Bay, his appalling attack on Al Grassby and his support for that disgusting rag, the Maryborough-Hervey Bay Chronicle, which should go down in the annals of this nation as the nastiest newspaper in the whole of this country. I am sure that honourable members would like me to repeat my remarks on Irish history, but I will restrict the rest of my remarks to the Bill. The Australian Constitution has a requirement in placitum (i) of section 44 which disqualifies from membership of Parliament any person who is a citizen of a land other than Australia. It is my belief that this may well exclude British citizens, United Kingdom nationals, Irish citizens and citizens of other British Commonwealth nations from membership of this Parliament. The legislation before the House today again reminds us that since the earliest time there has been an opportunity for aliens to become Australian citizens. The point about the Bill raising most interest in this House is the pledge of citizenship which is to be either sworn or affirmed. The Australian nation has accepted more migrants per capita since the last war than any other country except Israel. We have a multicultural society, whether or not the honourable member for Wide Bay likes it. There has always been the right to affirm rather than swear the oath, going back to the days of Bradlaugh in the House of Commons . Many of us have sat through long, drawn out citizenship ceremonies in our areas. The new citizen, having taken the oath, the affirmation or, in future, the pledge, will have the same rights as any other Australian; and no government has any right to deport these citizens unless he or she obtained citizenship by fraud. Nothing can be done to those new citizens that cannot be done to any other Australian. They are subject to the normal processes of law if they fail to observe their pledge. It is very important that the pledge be simple and that it be acceptable to all people in Australia, whether born here or new citizens. As is the case with other honourable members who have spoken in the debate, I have approached or been approached by United Kingdom nationals and asked them or been asked by them about becoming Australian citizens. On several occasions these people have said: 'I have already sworn allegiance to the Queen. I am already loyal to the Queen. Why should I swear another oath of allegiance?' What comes out of any independent examination of Australian society is that there are 1.2 million people who are non-citizens, who are residentially qualified for citizenship but who have never become Australians. Some of these people identified their reasons for not becoming citizens when consultations were held at great expense in every city by the previous Government. Some of them said that they objected to the form of pledge. They were people who may not have been British subjects but who for one reason or another had never come forward and gone to the trouble of becoming citizens. The Government is proposing to introduce a number of quite important matters in this Bill. There is the proposal to repeal British subject status. There is the important proposal to reduce the qualifying time for citizenship from three years to two years. I feel that that is a quite progressive move because I have met many people who have come to live in my constituency and who, due to a death overseas or the illness of parents, have been called back to their former country to care for an aged relative. These people have had great difficulty in obtaining citizenship and in some cases were unable to obtain citizenship. Recently I was approached by a Polish national who was to be involved in the Australian Olympic team through a local rowing club. This man was not qualified for citizenship because he had been in Australia for only 18 months. I think he actually resided in another constituency. Despite the eagerness of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, he was not able to help in any way because the man had not qualified for citizenship. I draw the attention of the House to some other important matters in the Bill. One is the requirement that the knowledge of English shall be basic rather than adequate. It is my experience that women particularly are discriminated against under the existing legislation. If a man and wife go for an interview and can convince the citizenship officer that between them they understand or can speak English, they can both become citizens. If a single, divorced, separated or widowed woman goes for an interview and cannot speak English-she may work in a factory where all her workmates speak another language-that woman cannot become a citizen. Citizenship is conferred on a family basis and it discriminates against sole women. I was approached by a woman who worked in a government clothing factory. She had to become an Australian to qualify for superannuation. This woman could not pass the English language test, yet she could come and see me on a Saturday morning at my interviews and in her basic English could tell me what was happening. She showed me the letter rejecting her citizenship application. She could not answer the questions, which perhaps were not tricky questions. They included questions such as: 'Who is the Prime Minister?' At that time who wanted to know who was the Prime Minister? This was some years ago. Anyway, there is to be a really significant change. In some communities there was quite notorious and blatant coaching in how to get through the citizenship test in the knowledge that certain questions would be asked. The Human Rights Commission looked at this issue of basic or adequate English. It is important to recognise that not every person who was brought here after the war as an adult earlier had the opportunity to go to school. In some countries there was no education because of poverty, depression, war or famine. I have often met in my office people who could not sign their names on a pension form or on an application for a Housing Commission house and who could not speak English. Yet such people are here, have been working here and have been contributing to this country. They have children and, in many cases, grandchildren who are good Australians. They should not be denied the right to vote and the right to be full citizens. I am delighted that the age barrier is to be reduced from 60 to 50 so that an old couple who may never speak English can obtain citizenship after a shorter qualifying period. Many of us have no skill at learning a foreign language. It is a gift that some people have and other people have no capacity for. Other important provisions in the legislation deal with adoption, which is becoming a very significant matter with the large number of Australians adopting children overseas and bringing their kiddies back here. There is also an attempt to make the legislation impartial in that there will be a right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. There are provisions in the legislation dealing with the loss and re-acquisition of citizenship. I have raised in this House the problem of women who have married foreign nationals and gone to live in other countries. They have taken out citizenship in those countries in the belief that they were still Australians. Now in two cases brought to my attention the mother or surviving aged parent needs their attention here and they cannot come back. In one case the wife became a British national and cannot return except under a normal family reunion sponsorship. In another case a young girl from my own suburb is now living in Canada, finds herself Canadian and cannot return. There is a need to cover these cases because people are not really sure what the position is if they take out the citizenship of their husband or wife. It is even more tragic if the marriage breaks up and they find they cannot come back to their home in Australia where their families are, reassume their former citizenship and have the right to live here. I will not deal with other provisions of the Bill, but I will touch on this very unfortunate and silly amendment proposed by the Opposition. The Opposition has not the courage to oppose the Bill at the second reading stage but it has put up a very foolish amendment. The Opposition is totally without any knowledge of the law. The Queen is still to be legally the Queen of Australia. That is part of our Constitution. No matter what the Opposition says in its amendment, the Queen is part of the constitutional law of Australia. The notion that Australia is devaluing the importance and the honour of Australian citizenship is also rubbish, because it was the Liberal Government that took so long to grant citizenship applications. It took up to a year. There were always long lists of people who, for very vague political reasons, were not granted citizenship. They were here as permanent residents. They were denied citizenship . They had no right to come and go as they pleased. They were people in a very difficult situation. Having accepted the person into Australia and approved his or her permanent residency, there is an obligation, I believe, to grant him or her citizenship. I believe that what occurred previously offended against all basic principles of human rights. One cannot leave large numbers of people in this hiatus. The third part of the Opposition's amendment is even sillier. It talks about the Bill being the forerunner of republicanism. That is quite offensive. It used to be popular once to call members of the Labor Party communists. Now the kicking of the communist can has gone out of fashion. We are now called republicans. If Australia had been a republic in 1975, one of the Liberal Party or National Party politicians of the day might have become president of our large and great nation. I shudder at the thought of this country ever becoming a republic. I am quite happy with the present constitutional provisions. I feel that Her Majesty the Queen will not lose any sleep tonight or at any time if this legislation goes through. I have the highest regard for the royal family. The Queen and her family set a great example for the Australian people and for the people of the British Commonwealth of Nations. One member of the Opposition has quoted from a silly newspaper-the Maryborough-Hervey Bay Chronicle-and has tried to strengthen his argument by harking back to Ireland in 1798. This is the most disgraceful aspect of debate that I have heard today. I only hope that my good friend Al Grassby never reads the Hansard report. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(5.51) —Great emphasis has been placed by previous Government speakers on the necessity for the amendments contained in the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill. They moaned and groaned from time to time about the 1.2 million residents of Australia who have not taken out citizenship. I ask the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) to turn to his right and to ask the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Beddall), who has lived in this country for 20 years, why he did not take out Australian citizenship until January 1983. Does one suggest that the honourable member for Fadden feels uncomfortable-- Mr Beddall —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I should like to make an explanation. I could not become an Australian citizen; I could only stay a British subject. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member for Fadden is not entitled to make any explanation at this stage. He may make a personal explanation at a later stage, if that is necessary. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I am not disputing for one moment the loyalty to Australia of the honourable member for Fadden. I am saying that it is an over-simplification to say that there are 1.2 million residents of Australia who have not been naturalised because of such things as their distaste for having to swear allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II. Of all the humbugs who have ever come into this Parliament, the honourable member for Lowe is one. I have never seen a man who has put so many feet into so many camps at the one time. He is one of those members who run around their electorates knifing one group behind the back of another, runs into another group-- Mr Maher —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I find the remark ' knifing one group' very offensive. It is an offence under the criminal law to carry a knife and to knife any person. I find this particularly out of character in my case. The remark is offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Moreton will withdraw the offensive words the honourable member for Lowe has mentioned. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I should like to explain that I did not mean that he carried a knife-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Moreton will withdraw the offensive words. Mr DONALD CAMERON —With great-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Moreton will withdraw the offensive words. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Because of the great power you hold at present, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will do so-for my own safety, because I might get knifed, too. The point I am trying to make is that the honourable member for Lowe is one who tries to ingratiate himself with every group. Here he is supporting this legislation, on the one hand, and on the other hand standing up at the end and saying: 'Long live the Queen'. I have never encountered an honourable member with such double standards in my life. I suppose that that comes from his having taken a seat that had been a Liberal seat for so many years. The amendment moved by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) states: . . . this House condemns the Government for: . . . shameful and disgraceful action in seeking to remove Her Majesty The Queen from the Oath of Allegiance and the Affirmation of Allegiance, against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Australians, and without having first put such an important amendment to the people of Australia in a referendum, The reason that this proposal is being put by the honourable member for Denison is that he knows, as does every honourable member on the Opposition benches, and , I suggest, every honourable member on the Government side of the House, that if the Government went to the people on this subject it would be done like a dinner-with a knife or without a knife. Labor would be done like a dinner. The Australian Labor Party sneaked this in during the last election campaign. I do not mind any party outlining its proposals and then, when in government, saying, 'We told the people'. But the Labor Party came in ignoring this matter and any suggestion that it was out to destroy the standards that exist in this country and to turn Australia into a republic. Labor Party members dismissed it and said : 'What rubbish'. This is the beginning. First, reference to the Queen is to be removed from the oath of allegiance. Next it will be the flag, and then the Queen's Medal-we shall go back to that one again-and the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), sitting over there barking like a dog, was the one who came running into this Parliament-- Mrs Darling —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I find the words spoken by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) extremely offensive. There has been one long line of invective. I am sick to the stomach to have to listen to this, and I ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Right; yapping, then. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Moreton will withdraw the words that the honourable member for Lilley finds offensive. Mr DONALD CAMERON —'Barking' to be replaced by 'yapping'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw the offensive words. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Perhaps I may suggest, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you might get guidance-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member may continue his speech if he wishes, but he is not in a position to ask anything of the Chair. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I realise that you are new in your job, Mr Deputy Speaker, but those words are not regarded as offensive, surely. As I was trying to say, the Labor Party, in government-- Mrs Darling —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not hear the honourable member withdraw the first offensive words, and then he used a second lot of offensive words when responding to you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Lilley raises the fact that certain words used by the honourable member for Moreton were offensive to her. I suggest that the honourable member withdraw those words and then continue his speech. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I withdraw 'barking'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw the words that were offensive to the honourable member for Lilley. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I withdraw 'barking'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I call on the honourable member for Moreton to withdraw the words that were offensive to the honourable member for Lilley. Mr DONALD CAMERON —For the sake of peace, the words 'barking like a dog' are withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I shall not request the honourable member again. He will withdraw the offensive words. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I thought that I had withdrawn. Mrs Darling —On two occasions. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I have withdrawn, three times now. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Moreton will withdraw the words that he used that were offensive to the honourable member for Lilley. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I am as confused as you are now, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I would appreciate elucidation as to what is now offensive. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member only has to say that he withdraws-- Mr DONALD CAMERON —I withdraw anything that the honourable member for Lilley finds offensive. Before we got sidetracked by those interruptions, I was saying that the Australian Labor Party is hell bent on destroying tradition in this country. What many Labor members do not understand or want to appreciate is that some of the traditions which have existed in this country, which in terms of civilisations throughout the world is relatively young, have helped to make Australia one of the greatest countries in the world. It was not the advent of a Labor Government which caused Australia to win the America's Cup, as one of the Government speakers tried to suggest by association. It was not the advent of a Labor Government that caused us to win a Davis Cup match. It was not the advent of a Labor Government which caused us to win an international test competition. I am talking about national pride and the mistaken belief of honourable members on the Government side that if, by these amendments, we rip out the Queen, cast her to one side, tear down the Australian flag and get rid of the Queen's Medal, the Victoria Cross and such things, Australia will become so imbued with pride that we will become a world beating nation. I have now represented three electorates-Griffith, Fadden and Moreton. If we asked the people in every one of those electorates how they felt about the removal of the Queen of Australia from this oath, they would overwhelmingly be against what the Government is doing. Our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) throws what he regards as peanuts to the gallery. He thinks: 'Let the lefties have their say in some area; destroy the tradition; keep them happy and let me get on to such things as uranium'. I notice the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) smiling about uranium. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Moreton for the final time that he return to the subject matter of the Bill. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I know that you find some of these things offensive, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am trying to speak about what motivates the Government to do these things. This is an absolutely pointless exercise. This suggestion that 1.2 million people have refused to take out citizenship because swearing allegiance to the Queen is part of the current oath is hollow and without foundation. Many of those people who did not take out citizenship were caught up in some areas such as the language problem. I concede that the widening of that aspect of the legislation has some virtue. I commend some parts of this Bill. For instance, if a heinous crime is committed by somebody who has taken out Australian citizenship, the Government will have the power to withdraw citizenship. I commend things such as that. Quite frankly, I would go one step further. Many people play it quietly until they get Australian citizenship and then resort to what may be bad habits. I never understood my own Party in government in relation to this. People who come to this country from overseas and perpetrate crime and simply use citizenship as a way of staying here permanently do not deserve the status of Australians. The honourable member for Denison says in paragraph (b) of his amendment that the Government is deliberately devaluing the importance of the honour of Australian citizenship. He also alludes to the fact that in other parts of the world a person has to stay many years before qualifying for citizenship. Perhaps in five years time, if the Minister is still the Minister, he will reduce the qualifying period to 12 months. He is shaking his head. Is that a guarantee that that will not occur? Mr Hodgman —He will give it to them as they arrive. Mr DONALD CAMERON —He will give it to them as they arrive. The Minister will be at the wharf, will shake their hands and say: 'Welcome, fellow Australians. You do not have to swear any oath of allegiance whatsoever'. The Opposition has successfully highlighted this evening the fact that the Government, I believe mainly for political reasons, is deliberately devaluing the importance of Australian citizenship. It is pursuing the professed line in terms of turning this country into a republic by removing any allegiance to the Queen. I refer not to the Queen of England. I get tired of hearing the carping from honourable members opposite referring to the monarch residing on some foreign shore. We do not have the Pope living in Australia and we do not have the Queen living in Australia. Are we going to ban catholicism in the future as well as any love of the monarchy? That is the simplification which this subject deserves so that people can understand just what the government of the day is endeavouring to do. I do not think there could be a more flimsy excuse to explain away the removal of the Queen than the fact that she is living overseas and is a foreign monarch, to use the utterances of some honourable members opposite. Because someone is overseas they say, 'Out'. What are we to do? Will we restore the oath if the Queen shifts Buckingham Palace to Australia? No, the heads are shaking. It would not matter what we did. The Queen is finished in this area. This is just the beginning of the end. Honourable members will remember the removal of the Queen's Medal last year and the behaviour of petty little men on the Government side. I believe that the honourable member for Lilley played a magical role in suddenly having that decision reversed. She saw the political implications of taking away the Queen's Medal. She threw up a dorothy dixer to the discredited Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes), I think it was, and he quietly announced to the House that the medal had been restored. The honourable member knew that in her electorate of Lilley the oil was boiling. That move was seen in her electorate as a sign of the undermining of the monarchy's standing in this country. It was symbolic. She knew that the Government had to hasten quickly to save the situation. She knew the people would not be happy otherwise. Why she sits there tonight and supports what the Minister is doing on this count is beyond me. I believe that exactly the same feelings which motivated her to get cracking at the end of last year would exist in the community right now in relation to this subject. That is why the honourable member for Denison has moved that this matter be taken to the people by referendum. The final paragraph of his amendment reads-- Mr Maher —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw the attention of the House to standing order 74, which states: No Member may use the name of Her Majesty . . . for the purpose of influencing the House in its deliberations. The amendment that the honourable member for Denison has put before the House uses the name of Her Majesty for exactly that purpose. Having looked at that amendment very carefully, I believe that it is out of order because it is not an exact copy of the actual oath of allegiance, as it exists at present, or the affirmation. It uses the monarch's name to influence the deliberations of this House. I believe it is out of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —The terms of that standing order are not applicable on this occasion. I rule that there is no point of order. Mr DONALD CAMERON —You are right, Mr Deputy Speaker. He is trying to ingratiate himself with the Queen now. Mr West —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I understand that there is a standing order that asks you to prevent an honourable member from continually making repetitious, harping, inconsistent argument on a particular point and stating a particular point over and over again. I suggest that in this debate we have heard nothing but harping, boring, repetitious argument on one particular aspect of a very complex Bill. It is trivialising this whole debate, which is very important to a whole number of permanent residents in Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I regard those comments as the Minister's wind-up speech. Obviously my reference to his feelings on the subject of uranium have left him stinging. Effectively, the Minister has eroded the time remaining to me. Just for his sake I repeat some of the things we have said in the last 16 minutes or so and which were not undermined by interjections and points of order from the Government. The Opposition believes that this Bill is a back-door method along the road to republicanism, that this is the first move. The Queen's Medal was nearly taken away but the Government gave it back. Mr Hodgman —They'll change Queensland too. Mr DONALD CAMERON —As to the possibility of a change in the name of Queensland, I do not quite see that happening; not in Joh's lifetime, anyhow. This is the first step by legislation to erode the standing of the monarchy in this country. I think it is proper for Australians to reflect on the way in which the Prime Minister fawned over a little baby in the United Kingdom only a year ago and to compare it to what is allowed to go on in this chamber as a sop to the left wing of the Australian Labor Party. I have as much pride in my country as any honourable member but I do not believe that there are any advantages-there are definitely disadvantages- in tearing down some of the traditions which allow us to share things in common with people in other parts of the world. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(6.10) —We have just witnessed a lot of dribble and drivel coming from the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron). In fact I was rather concerned for the safety of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman ). All honourable members will note that he is not wearing a raincoat. With the dribble and drivel that was coming down on him from behind I am sure that he felt very unsafe. Unfortunately, we heard nothing constructive from the honourable member for Moreton. He did manage to make some remarks-this is a rarity in this House-which led to his being asked by you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to withdraw. Even then the honourable member for Moreton did not have the good grace to withdraw immediately. He had to be absolutely cadged to withdraw his remarks. I feel sorry for the constituents of Moreton. I am sure that had the constituents of Moreton heard these comments on the air the result at the next election would be quite different from what it was in the by-election that brought him into this House. The honourable member mentioned that he had represented two previous electorates. I am sure that the constituents of those two previous electorates were wise to him and were pleased to get rid of him. I support the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill and-- Mr Hodgman —Shame on you. Mr BLANCHARD —I hope that the honourable member for Denison will listen. There are deep concerns about the thrust of the Bill among both Australians of British descent and British migrants which need to be addressed. Certainly in many cases these concerns are misplaced and are illusory. Nevertheless, they are real to the people who hold them. They fear that the repeal of the definition of ' British subject status' from the Australian Citizenship Act will in some way lessen our British heritage. As a person of British stock I am proud of that country. I am proud of that country's contribution to the development of this country, warts and all, even though many of our first white settlers came to Australia not as free men but in chains. But unlike the honourable member for Denison and other honourable members opposite I do not believe in remaining in the nineteenth century; the glorious age of imperialism, jingoism, great inequalities of wealth and an uncaring society which had emerged as a consequence of the industrial revolution. Australia is not Britain or any other country; it is Australia, with its own identity, its own characteristics and its own policies, independent of Britain. These policies have developed over a period of years and are still being developed in the light of the current world situation. The Opposition has failed to realise that since the Second World War we have seen the beginnings of a change in our immigration policies which have resulted in the growth in numbers of people migrating from countries other than the United Kingdom. Italians, Germans, Greeks and Yugoslavs, as well as many other ethnic groups, came to Australia in large numbers. I might add that strong prejudices were expressed about those groups in the early years of post-war migration. We are all aware of those prejudices. It is interesting to note that this prejudice against persons of European extraction has largely broken down. Unfortunately it has been replaced by a strong prejudice against persons of Asian origin. I am sure that, over time, this prejudice too will break down, although with the efforts of the honourable member for Denison I am sure it will take a bit longer than members on this side of the House would wish. During this post-war period, as was pointed out-- Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I seek a withdrawal of the racist remarks made by the honourable member for Moore reflecting on me. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable member for Denison has been singing out racist remarks-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will resume his seat. I have taken a point of order from the honourable member for Denison. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take offence at the remarks. They are racist. I ask the honourable member for Moore to withdraw them forthwith. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for Moore directed offensive remarks to the honourable member for Denison, I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr BLANCHARD —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I know what the offensive remarks were? Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Moore untruthfully and incorrectly attributed to me an attitude which is not my attitude in relation to migration generally and Asian migration in particular. He knows exactly what he said. I find it offensive. It is racist and I ask for it to be withdrawn. Mr BLANCHARD —Mr Deputy Speaker, in the light of those comments-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Moore will resume his seat. From what I could gather from the remarks made by the honourable member for Denison it was more a point of view than a point of order. There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Moore. Mr BLANCHARD —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to take a fresh point of order. It has become a convention, accepted by many of your predecessors, including the present Speaker, that if a member takes offence at a remark-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —What is the point of order of the honourable member for Denison? Mr Hodgman —That the honourable member has made a remark to which I take offence . Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have ruled on that point of order. The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat. Mr BLANCHARD —I was pointing out that during the post-war period, when this matter was looked at by the Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs-I should mention that the honourable member for Wide Bay ( Mr Millar) referred to that Committee of Review and tried to slant some comments arising from it-the Committee pointed out that there were three main thrusts in social policy in the post-war era. As all honourable members would know the first was assimilation. It was considered that, by and large, existing institutions were deemed adequate to meet migrant needs. Then it was realised that although the institutions were designed to meet migrant needs they did not do so. This was followed by the policy of integration. This has been well described by an expert in this field of migration as the 'melting pot ideology'; a blending of cultures to preserve the best of all worlds. The third policy-this is the one which the Australian Labor Party is prepared to support-was multiculturalism. This recognises the ethnic diversity in Australian society and the powerlessness of many migrants from non-English speaking countries. It is against this background that this Bill should be understood, not the restricted interpretation placed upon it by the honourable member for Wide Bay. The Bill that is before the House gives effect to the Government's commitment, firstly, to ensure that the Citizenship Act reflects the common national identity of all Australians. Secondly, it removes from the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 discrimination between persons on the basis of sex, marital status and national origin. Thirdly, it provides for reviews by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of decisions by the Department or the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to deny or deprive persons of citizenship under the Act. Fourthly, it amends the Act so that it will become thoroughly Australian in character. This debate will have one important outcome to which the Bill does not refer: It will make known to the wider public that Australian citizenship did not exist before 26 January 1949. Those living in Australia before that date were either British subjects or aliens. The measures contained in this Bill will make it easier for those who wish to do so to become Australian citizens as soon as possible after settling in Australia as well as remove what many people see as the disincentives to acquiring Australian citizenship contained in the present Act. It is pleasing to observe the increase in the number of persons who have been taking out citizenship in recent years. In 1981-82, 78,000 people took out Australian citizenship; in 1982-83 this rose to 101,000 people and it is anticipated that there will be a similar rate of increase this year. My observations at a number of naturalisation ceremonies held at Wanneroo and other places in my electorate are that those people seeking citizenship do so because they have a pride in Australia and a willingness to work for its prosperity. There has been a continuous process of review of the Citizenship Act over the last two or three years. It should be noted that the former Government took part in that review. Credit should be given to that Government. On 6 May 1982 the Minister concerned announced a number of proposed amendments which had already been the subject of close consideration by ministerial advisory bodies and by State governments. These proposals were widely circulated throughout Australia in 1982 to community organisations and were discussed at public forums in every capital city in June and July 1982. There were also supplementary inputs from written submissions and informal talks. Credit must be given to Professor Zubrzycki, the Chairman of the Ethnic Affairs Task Force, for the thoroughness with which he attempted to obtain the views of community organisations. In a covering letter in the report entitled 'National Consultations on Multiculturalism and Citizenship', which was published in October 1982, he stated: I was an active participant in the public forums and in addition spoke with several hundred community leaders, representatives of the media and ordinary citizens. I became a target of some criticism, mainly from the representatives of those groups in the community that would favour a return to a discriminatory immigration policy and those who are offended by the suggestion that multiculturalism is for all Australians and not just an indulgence to be extended to immigrants until they adapt to a homogeneous society. He went on to say: The experience of national consultations has reinforced my belief that a vision of a multicultural Australia and its present foundation in the existing range of policies and programs is the one viable option which must be pursued if we are to avoid the communal disorders that have plagued other pluralistic countries. A return to the policy of assimilation would not be in Australia's best interests today. It would make us poorer in that we would be denied the benefits of cultural diversity. It would perpetuate those structural conditions that place many members of our cultural minorities at an economic disadvantage. Finally, he stated: I firmly believe that a common language and commitment to democratic institutions, the rule of law and an Australian nationhood will remain a strong bond to hold our society together. I suggest that this Bill reflects the views put at the national consultations, as well as the amendments which were suggested by the Human Rights Commission. Let me now turn to the topic which has caused considerable community discussion; that is, the declaration or pledge of allegiance. From listening to some of the speakers opposite, including the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), the honourable member for Denison and the honourable member for Wide Bay, one could be forgiven for believing that this is an horrendous measure. It is not. The pledge incorporates three separate but important elements: Firstly, the renunciation of former allegiance; secondly, the commitment to observe the laws of Australia; and thirdly, a declaration of new allegiance to Australia. That there are two forms of pledge indicates the Government's awareness that many people wish to swear an oath before God when giving allegiance to Australia. The pledge, in either form, can be said to be distinctly Australian in character. Its phraseology expresses full commitment to Australia, its laws and its Constitution. The present renunciation of allegiance appears to be ambiguous. It does not make it clear whether people are being asked to renounce their previous nationality, their previous language and culture, or all three. The proposed wording of the renunciation makes it clear that only allegiance as a citizen to one's former country is being renounced. I would say that this is supported by all ethnic groups within the community. I welcome the proposal to reduce the residence eligibility period from three years in the previous eight years to two years in the previous five years. This proposal recognises that many migrants genuinely wish to become Australian citizens and assume the associated rights and responsibilities relatively soon after settling in Australia. To wait three years can be a source of frustration. I also welcome the proposal to give the Administrative Appeals Tribunal powers to review and determine decisions to deny or deprive persons of citizenship. This is consistent with modern principles of judicial review of administrative decisions. We are a multicultural country. This Bill will improve the existing Citizenship Act by taking account of that fact. I support the Bill. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8.45 p.m. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(8.45) —Mr Speaker, I am delighted to see you in the chair for this important debate. The debate on the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill is one of the most significant that has taken place in the House because it affects the whole gamut of Australian life and the attitudes of Australian people. I have endeavoured in my examination of the proposals that are before the House to make some sort of assessment by the study of law and history to see what is entailed in the processes of citizenship. I believe that if one looks at the history of citizenship one ultimately comes to the position of accepting that a man cannot abjure his native country or allegiance which he owes to his sovereign. He cannot divorce himself from that position. That is our starting point. I believe that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) and all honourable members would agree with that proposition. We heard debate early in the evening about the position of the sovereign. I will not raise the position of the sovereign until later in my comments. We will accept for the word 'sovereign', 'country', 'constitution' or the wide gamut of descriptions that are used to encompass what is meant in the word 'sovereign' I have used. I believe there are two aspects of citizenship in civilised countries that are ascribed to an individual. These are two distinct legal conditions which apply to that individual on attaining citizenship. One is by virtue of his becoming the subject of some particular country binding him by the tie of natural allegiance and which may be called his political status. He is placed in society as a political entity. The other aspect is by virtue of his having ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country. As such, he is possessed of certain rights and subject to certain obligations. This is the aspect of the character of a citizen. On one hand, we have the political status of a person and on the other hand we have the character of a citizen-what a citizen really constitutes as an entity within our community. These are the two aspects I believe we need to consider when looking at citizenship. The Minister and the Government have canvassed the views of citizens or those who may become citizens in regard to citizenship. I do not believe that the Minister or the Government has in fact canvassed the aspects of the political status and character of a citizen that I have raised. I believe that all Australians who are citizens have a view on the character of citizenship. They were not consulted in the processes which the Minister went through before preparing changes to the legislation. In fact, the previous Government did not have an opportunity to pursue the matter to its fullest extent, which I believe would have taken into account the need to consult all Australian citizens to the best extent possible on what they believe the character of a citizen is. I believe the Minister and the Government have successfully pursued the political status of a citizen but have not been able to apply the other aspect of citizenship-the character of a citizen-in the changes they have made to the legislation. The House will be aware that we have had some debate about the role of the sovereign. In my pursuit of this matter I have turned to various laws and provisions that other countries have adopted in order to establish citizenship for their people. First of all I will refer the House to the requirements of the oath of allegiance-not a pledge-of Malta, a country with a strong socialist government. I read the oath that people take when becoming citizens of Malta. There are various oaths for those who become, for example, the Prime Minister or the President. However, the oath for the citizen is: I- giving the name of the person- solemnly swear or affirm- the choice is there of oath or affirmation- that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the people and the Republic of Malta and its Constitution. (So help me God). That is the conclusion for those people who take the oath. I draw the attention of the House to the difference between the Maltese oath and the pledge that is proposed by the Government which states: I . . . renounce any current citizenship and all allegiance to any State other than Australia. That is the first sentence of the pledge which is then followed by the part that compares with the Maltese oath. It states: I pledge that I will faithfully uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen. The Maltese oath is somewhat stronger. Instead of saying, 'will faithfully uphold', the taking of Maltese citizenship requires the person to say, 'I will bear true faith and allegiance'. There are no inhibitions to that statement; there is no holding back. There is no 'upholding faithfully' which is a somewhat more qualified statement than that which the Maltese citizen makes. That concerns me. Whilst this may be, as the Minister described it, an Australian- style oath or pledge it lacks strength and commitment. The people of Malta pledge true faith and allegiance. A strong and unequivocal commitment is prominent in the oath of that strongly socialist country Malta. I turn to another country of a similar political persuasion-Greece. I will read to the House the form of oath that is taken by Greeks. I know my friend the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous) will be familiar with this. This again is in the form of an oath-not a pledge or qualified statement, but an oath . Can anybody doubt the strong historic tie of the Hellenic tradition, a nation that has its citizens scattered around the world, many of them in Australia? As Greek citizens they take a strong oath and make a strong commitment as individuals to the Hellenic tradition. It is not a pledge. It is a strong commitment by the individual who states: I swear- there is no option of affirming- to bear true oath to the Country and to observe the Constitution and laws of the State and discharge conscientiously my duties as a Greek citizen. That is not some wishy-washy 'fulfil my duties as a citizen'. It is to ' discharge conscientiously my duties as a Greek citizen'. I hate to have to say to the Minister that he has the most wishy-washy pledge possible, and the most wishy-washy pledge of any country that I have examined. The Minister has discounted citizenship in this nation to the extent of not even having a pledge that is worth while. I turn now to Britain. Honourable members might suspect what a British citizen would have to say in the circumstances of taking an oath or affirmation. I will deal with the oath because the affirmation is similar. Honourable members will understand where the variation of wording for the affirmation is. The oath states: I- giving the name- swear by Almighty God that, on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second Her Heirs and Successors according to law. That oath is very simple and is understood by Australians and by those people who up to this point have become Australian citizens because it is very similar to our own oath of allegiance. I will not analyse the British oath because I think it will become clear to the House why we have adopted an oath similar to the British oath. Mr Millar —Unequivocally. Mr CADMAN —It is an unequivocal statement. There is no chance of avoiding the responsibility implied in the statement: 'I will be faithful and bear true allegiance . . . '. There is no chance of avoiding the responsibility, as there is under the oath: 'I will . . . fulfil my duties' or 'obey the laws' or 'uphold the Constitution'. The statement which the prospective British citizen makes states: 'I will be faithful and bear true allegiance . . .'. I turn now to the United States oath. I think that all honourable members are aware of the passionate feeling which citizens of the United States have for their citizenship. I have never met an American who is prepared to forsake his allegiance. When one reads the basis of the American oath one understands the very strong commitment which citizens of the United States make to their country . The oath states: I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereign of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen . . . That is the first part of the oath-the declaration and renunciation aspect. The second part states: . . . that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; or that I will perform noncombatant services in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; or that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. That oath of allegiance is sworn by people to gain citizenship of the United States. It is a long piece. Let us examine some aspects of what the Americans do to see whether there are any implications for us in Australia. First of all, the American oath states: I . . . absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance . . . Our oath states: I . . . renounce current citizenship and . . . allegiance. There is nothing firm, nothing unequivocal, nothing absolute in our words. Yet the American oath says unequivocally that people must 'absolutely and entirely renounce' allegiance. That is a strong statement. It is meant to be strong, because people who become United States citizens are committing themselves unequivocally to that nation. Do we want Australians who are becoming citizens to have any lesser attitude? Do we want them to have an attitude which says: ' Well, I may have some reservations and I may not be absolute, but at this point of time I renounce any current citizenship'. Big deal! They are saying: 'All I will do is not have dual citizenship. I renounce current citizenship and allegiance'. The American oath says 'absolutely and entirely renounce'. There is no strength in what we are putting forward. I turn now to the second duty which the new American citizen has to undertake. Under the oath he must state: . . . I will support and defend the Constitution . . . It is not 'I will faithfully uphold the Constitution', but 'I will support and defend' it. What about that for a positive and unrestricted statement of allegiance? There is no equivocation there either. It is positive, it is supportive, and it is constructive in action in support of the nation the new citizen has adopted. The third part of the oath states: . . . I will support and defend the Constitution . . . against all enemies, foreign and domestic . . . That involves the new citizen in a set of responsibilities within the nation. He or she takes upon himself or herself a responsibility for the nation as part of government for the people, by the people. The Minister has not understood this. He has not sought that sort of commitment from future Australian citizens. There is no 'for the people' or 'by the people'. What else does the proposal before us say? It says: . . . will faithfully uphold . . . obey the laws . . . and fulfil my duties. Honourable members should look at what other nations do. No other nation on earth has a commitment so futile and empty as the one we are putting through this chamber tonight. I say to the Minister that the commitment is futile and empty. Why does he not value Australian citizenship? Over the years since the Second World War hundreds of thousands of individuals have come to this nation under the migration program established by that great Labor man. He saw a vision , and said: 'Australia must have new citizens'. This Minister has backed away from that. He has said that we will discount that idea, that we will not really ask people to be citizens but only to give up what they feel at the moment, to move across a little bit, and then everything will be right. There is no commitment in the proposition the Minister has put to the Australian people and to which he will be asking them to agree. The conclusion of the American oath of allegiance states: I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; . . . We know how many people have false passports, how many have made false declarations, how many have taken on citizenship because it has been discounted? It is now being discounted even more. There is no requirement to examine a person if he is unfaithful to his oath. If a person performs some traitorous or unwarranted act he cannot be asked: 'Did you take on this responsibility freely and without reservation or for purposes of evasion?' What do we say to them? We say: 'All you have to do is say that you will faithfully uphold the Constitution , obey the laws and fulfil your duties'. There is no real commitment. I am extremely disappointed in this House and particularly in the Government for not drawing out the responsibilities and sense of dignity which all Australians should have in being a citizen of this great country, a country we are seeking to build, and one which old Arthur Calwell sought to build also. The Government is walking away from the commitments he made to all people. The House needs to be aware that the oath, the commitment, the outward pledge by a person making his attestation or promise in a sincere, deep and responsible spirit must be a meaningful oath, a pledge which means something. We have heard a lot about the Queen. If honourable members opposite cared to analyse what the Crown means in Australian law they would find, on analysis, that what the Queen does is to take up all aspects of the American oath of allegiance covering every detail of the administration of law, of defending the country, of being a good citizen, of having a citizenship character which can be identified. Honourable members opposite have not tried to find out what the Crown means at all. They have pushed the Crown out of the oath and have left nothing but barren words which are a half-hearted commitment to citizenship. If they are to remove reference to the Queen, let us have some definition of what the Crown stands for. The Ministers in this chamber understand the processes of the Crown. Those processes are the laws, the protection of the individual citizen, and the rights of that citizen. The Government has not replaced that with anything. The proposal is half-baked and terrible. What the Minister and the Government should be doing is strengthening our citizenship laws so that it is harder for people to become Australian citizens and, being harder, there should be greater benefits for people acquiring it. Why not extend the period but give people social security benefits when they are citizens? Why not extend the period to three or five years and let them become full and proper citizens? The Government has not done that. The legislation that we are debating tonight is tokenism. A fellow can move in and out of this country, using Australia as his base, and the Government says: 'As long as over a two-year period you happen to have been here for a total of twelve months, you are an Australian citizen'. What is his commitment to this nation? It is a convenient base from which he can operate and his passport will not be questioned. Why does the Government not put some strength, some dedication and some commitment into citizenship, because that is what the new citizens of Australia value about this country. If we question any migrant group they will say that they value their citizenship. When we probe them deeply they say: 'This is the best thing we have done in our lives, for ourselves and for our children, and we are helping to build Australia'. Why does the Government think that they come out as they do on Australia Day? They love this country and they are committed to it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke)(9.06) —The Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill is very important but unfortunately the Opposition has concentrated almost exclusively on one small aspect of it to the exclusion of all others. Indeed, in some cases we have heard no mention of the major issues involved in all the questions surrounding citizenship which this Bill brings forward. I am extremely disappointed with the attitude of the Opposition and its failure to bring out those important aspects of the Bill. Responsibility for that lies with the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). When we compare the honourable member for Denison with a former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), who initiated the modern discussions relating to the Citizenship Bill, we are comparing a nincompoop with an Einstein. Responsibility for lowering this debate on citizenship issues lies directly with the honourable member for Denison. Let us look at some of the history surrounding the development of this Bill. It was the honourable member for Balaclava, when the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs-not a Labor Minister-who made a statement to the House on 6 May 1982. He called for a bipartisan approach and put forward certain proposals about citizenship. He said: 'We will have discussions throughout the community all over Australia. After we go through that discussion process we will take all of the feedback from the ethnic community and from the Anglo-Australian community, from the totality of the Australian community, and we will put together citizenship proposals'. The current Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) has simply followed through that process. It is an absolute disgrace for the Opposition to raise in this House spurious arguments and attacks of a very personal nature against the Minister rather than focusing on the issues in the Bill. In those discussions we had the participation of the then Opposition in the form of the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) who is here tonight to hear this important debate. He also went around Australia and had discussions with people about what they thought ought to be changed in the Australian Citizenship Act. I begin with one aspect of the report that has been debated over and over in this chamber. We have had debate about the oath of allegiance as if it were the only thing mentioned in the Bill and as if it were a concoction of the present Government. A report in October 1982 entitled ' National Consultations on Multiculturalism and Citizenship', was produced under the signature of the then Minister, Mr Hodges. The section of the report entitled 'Oath of Allegiance' states: Speakers' responses dealt with two parts of the present Oath: the renunciation of former allegiance and the swearing of allegiance to Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors. The strongly-held and predominant view emerging from the consultations was that swearing allegiance to a sovereign, and especially to a named sovereign resident elsewhere, was inappropriate in Australia at its present stage of history. That is not a concoction of the Australian Labor Party. It appears in a document published when the present Opposition was in government and it was published as a result of the national consultations. So let us now put to rest completely the smears which the honourable member for Denison has been trying to put on the Labor Party around Australia in relation to this matter. Let me also mention another point in relation to all the provisions of the Citizenship Act and the question of a mandate. We have had a lot of talk by members on the other side of the House about loyalty. What about loyalty to the Constitution in terms of the mandate given to a government to carry out its program? Is there any question that the Labor Party has a mandate to change the provisions of the Australian Citizenship Act? There is absolutely no question. It was talked about before the election. It was contained in the Party's platform and in the policy with which we went into the election. Having regard to the behaviour of the honourable member for Denison in this debate and his behaviour in relation to this specific matter and the ethnic communities, it is no wonder that the ethnic community organisations around Australia are calling for his resignation as Shadow Minister. He is displaying pathetic attitudes in relation to questions of fundamental importance such as this. Let us look at these fundamental questions. The fundamental questions concern the basic rights of citizens. The most basic right of a person who comes to this country as a permanent resident is the general right to apply for citizenship and to be granted it unless extraordinary circumstances arise. Unless such extraordinary circumstances are raised, he should have that particular right. In the years before the first Labor Government of the modern era, the Whitlam Government in 1972, what did we have in this country? We had the misuse of the Australian Citizenship Act against the political opponents of the Liberal governments of that time. People were prevented from getting Australian citizenship on no other grounds than their political views. That situation continued until the election of the Whitlam Government in 1972. I know of examples when that occurred. Those people had the perfect right to become Australian citizens. It was only because of a kind of vicious behaviour on the part of certain Prime Ministers, who shall remain nameless, and their ministers for immigration that those persons were continuously rejected for many years. Some of those persons were trade union leaders. Because of the misuse of these provisions they were not allowed to become Australian citizens. What else happened in relation to the Australian Citizenship Act? Whole groups in the community who were considered to be not too favourably disposed towards the various right wing extreme groups of the Liberal Party and so on were prevented from obtaining citizenship by the complete misuse of the English language provision in the legislation. Immigration officers were told: 'When you come across a particular bloke'-a wog or whatever description was applied to people in those days-'you must give him a very tough English test'. If they failed that English test, which even many ordinary Australians would have failed , they were not allowed to become citizens. That is the disgraceful situation which existed, and it is because of this that there is so much emotion about this issue in the ethnic community. The honourable member for Denison has no understanding of the fundamental feelings which so many people who came here as migrants have about the misuse of the provisions of the Citizenship Act. Mr Donald Cameron —How did you get through? Dr THEOPHANOUS —That is a typical comment. Let me tell the honourable member that I will match him in a test of English any time, and in logic as well, not to mention basic human values. I turn now to the period I mentioned, after the reactionary period when things were changed around by the Whitlam Government and it was made clear that further changes to the citizenship Act were needed. I give the honourable member for Balaclava his due; when he was the Minister he wanted to create consensus in this country on this important issue. One thing that can be said about him is that he understood the feelings of the ethnic community in relation to these matters. So the honourable member for Balaclava set up the consultative mechanism that I referred to earlier and through that mechanism a whole process of consultation took place. Today, we should be thanking the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for bringing to fruition this process of consultation and we should have total bipartisan support for these proposals. I will speak on something else which was referred to by honourable members opposite. It has been said that we are claiming that the only reason 1.2 million people have not taken out citizenship is the oath of allegiance to the Queen. We are not claiming that that is the only reason; that is one of several factors. Let me mention them. Mr Hodgman —You hate the Queen, and she is married to a Greek. Dr THEOPHANOUS —This is the level of interjection from the honourable member for Denison. He keeps saying that we hate the Queen. No, we do not hate the Queen; we simply love the Australian Constitution and the Australian people. Mr Tuckey —No, you want to change the Constitution. Mr Groom —What about the Queen? Dr THEOPHANOUS —I see that some of the stooges are in here to try to interrupt. Mr Groom —You have not answered your own question; what about the Queen? Dr THEOPHANOUS —I will try to answer the question if the interjections from the other side will cease. Some of the other reasons why people were concerned about taking Australian citizenship had to do with this: Until recently there was no fundamental acceptance of the concept of multiculturalism, consequently people felt that they could not be Australian citizens and sustain substantial proportions of their culture. It was only with the carefully thought out proposals of the Minister-if honourable members opposite had bothered to read them they would have seen that he has thought them out carefully-that people are able to take an oath of allegiance covering all that is required for loyalty to this nation and to the Constitution while at the same time not discounting totally their previous cultures as if they were suddenly born again. The whole situation is this: Once multiculturalism increasingly becomes an accepted fact in this society more people will apply for citizenship because they will not feel that their identity, their heritage and so on, will be threatened by administrative fiat. Other factors are important. Until we upgraded the family reunion program for migration people were concerned about taking out Australian citizenship because they did not know whether they would be able to bring their relatives to join them in Australia. That was a matter of considerable concern. When a person's brother or sister is living in a different place and that person does not know whether he or she will be able to come to Australia he will be careful about taking out Australian citizenship and finding that he loses the citizenship of his homeland. So what will that person do? He will try to secure a situation wherein he can have a family reunion and the family will therefore be in a position as a total group to apply for Australian citizenship. That is what is happening. If we read the facts and the statistics that the Minister has put forward we see that more and more permanent residents are applying to become Australian citizens. There is another factor. I refer to what would happen if people felt at a certain age that they wanted to return to their homelands. That situation has been addressed only recently, again by the actions of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). We are having bilateral negotiations with other countries in order to determine whether or not we can have arrangements for pensions, social security payments and so on so that persons who have a bicultural identity will not feel threatened if at a given time they feel that they want to take out Australian citizenship. All those factors are important, plus the oath of allegiance factor which I have already mentioned. I will not cover it again because everyone else seems to have spoken about it. I simply refer again to the report which clearly showed how many groups in the community were concerned about that, and the fact that the Government has acted on that concern. Let me discuss a couple of other provisions of the Bill. I refer to the question of British subject status. We have been criticised for changing the British subject provisions. These were iniquitous provisions. For example, I came from Cyprus, a Commonwealth country, with my parents and they had the right to vote within six months of arrival. However, someone who came from the mainland of Greece had to wait for three years before being eligible. Some migrant groups were able to vote and participate within six months and others were able to do so after three years. That was because we had the provision that one did not have to be an Australian citizen to vote; all one had to be was a British subject. That, of course, is all outdated stuff from the Empire days and we want to get rid of it. It was the Labor Party which initiated the process for getting rid of those provisions and ending the discrimination. Mr Barry Jones —You were the beneficiary of an historical accident. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Yes, it was purely an historical accident, as the Minister said. We brought in provisions to change that situation. Most people now, wherever they come from, are in the same category, under the same provisions, and are treated equally with respect to citizenship. They can vote only if they are Australian citizens. I wish also to discuss the English language provision. I have already referred to the way in which it was disgracefully used in the pre-1972 days to keep people from having Australian citizenship. But even since that time we have found that it is applied in totally different ways by different officers of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, depending on whom one comes across . What was the sensible thing to do? The recommendations and suggestions of the report and the recommendations that the Government had received time after time from the ethnic communities were simply that the whole matter be straightened out by requiring only a sufficient level of English for a person to understand the basic every day life situation. It is not necessary for people to be geniuses in English in order to be Australian citizens, nor should we require that of them. Again, that provision is a very sensible provision which is long overdue and one which when passed by this House will have the effect of- Mr Cadman —Why don't we make it that they do not speak any language at all? Dr THEOPHANOUS —We heard the honourable member talk for 20 minutes about the oath of allegiance. He did not even mention this provision. If he had something to say about it, why did he not discuss it? It is there in the Bill. It is one of the key clauses. Mr Aldred —I raise a point of order. Will the honourable member for Burke clearly state whether or not he wants a republic? Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member takes frivolous points of order of that type he will be acted against. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I conclude by congratulating the Minister, the immigration committee led by Senator Bolkus and everyone else who has been involved in the drafting of these provisions. We strongly support the reduction of the qualifying period from three years to two years. As honourable members know, and for the information of the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), some groups wanted the period to be reduced so that a person was eligible for citizenship as soon as he or she arrived or six months later. This provision is a very positive compromise. I strongly endorse all the provisions in the legislation. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(9.27) —The Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill gives us the opportunity tonight to reflect for a while on Australia's past-after all, the bicentenary is in 1988-and to cast our minds back to the settlement of Australia and the nature of the Australian today. Before I do that, may I just comment on the speech of the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous), who has just spoken. He talked about mandates. I do not believe that any party elected to government in any State or at the Commonwealth level actually has a mandate for many of the things for which it claims it has a mandate just because it has 50 per cent or more of the votes. It has the authority, if it can get enough seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate, to put through legislation. But for an honourable member to claim a mandate for everything that is done by using the questionable tactic of saying that it was mentioned during a campaign when on many occasions it was not mentioned during a campaign is an argument that I cannot sustain. In the latter part of his remarks the honourable member spoke about an historical accident. Maybe that is what the world is-a series of historical or geographical accidents. But I think we have to reflect at this time, after our first 200 years of history, on what that historical accident was and what we owe to the past. If we were to begin at 1788, of course, we would be looking at a nation of convicts and soldiers, basically of British stock, had nothing changed since those days. But things have changed. There has been an influence on the citizen of Australia. The face of our population has changed. It is now not so much British stock but European stock, with more Asian, African and Indian stock , so that today we have quite a large variety of ethnic people making up the face of Australia. There is a part of those 200 years that Australia cannot be proud of. I refer to the 1870s when Solomon Islanders were conscripted to work on properties in New South Wales, where they found it too cold, and then on the sugar farms of Queensland. Those people, who were offered the chance to return to their islands but some of them stayed on, today claim justly to be as Australian as everyone else. Yet they introduced to Australia a different culture and a different approach. I can proudly say that those Solomon Islanders are contributing by their citizenship as much as any person who might be of British stock. I want to mention my own electorate because I believe there is a lesson in what has happened in the electorate of Dawson which might not be the experience of capital city people. I have found a tremendous integration of people of many nations from all over the world into a rural or country scene-a much better integration than in the capital cities. For instance, there are no divisions between the Italians, the Maltese, the Spaniards, the Chinese and the Asians in the electorate of Dawson. They all claim to be Australians. There is no segregation of that nature. Yet I feel that our society, possibly through our own laws, is building a divisiveness which must be halted. I am not sure that the Bill presented to us tonight is not directed more to divisiveness than to trying to integrate the various aspects. Mr West —You are a divisive influence. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I am not a divisive influence, as the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs says. The Minister has perhaps been directed more by his own thoughts than by sound judgment in relation to the legislation before us. It has been said that if we look at the underlying currents of pressure for this legislation we will see basically what is predicated for the future. So the Minister should not talk to me about divisiveness. I believe this Bill is the greatest possibility for that. Mr West —In which area? Mr BRAITHWAITE —As I say, the Australian character has changed. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister will cease interjecting. Mr Tuckey —He is just trying to destroy the argument. Mr BRAITHWAITE —He is not trying to destroy the argument. He is just trying to show his absolute ignorance of the subject he has embarked upon. He gets 100 marks out of 100 for ignorance. May I go on to try to describe the average Australian. We cannot go into the street and say that just because a person is male or female, black or white, European or Asian, he or she is an average Australian. I believe an Australian is somebody who appreciates the system into which he or she has been born or integrated; appreciates what has gone on in the last 200 years; and is prepared to look at life in Australian today, to work for its harmony and to try for the future to maintain the strength that we have built up from the past. That is the average Australian. That average Australian is the product of nothing more and nothing less than the Act which brought Federation and the Constitution into being. May I just read a portion of the Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia on 9 July 1900. I will read the opening: Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluable Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established. The first words indicate that we seek the blessing of almighty God. The second aspect is the Constitution itself. In Part 1-General, section 1 states, in part: The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate and a House of Representatives . . . There has certainly been no referendum to indicate a change in the manner in which the Commonwealth has been formed. What is worse, the Government is not prepared to test at a referendum whether we are still a God-fearing people who believe in almighty God or whether this legislature still insists on the Queen being part of the system of government. Basically this Bill is about changing that system not by referendum but by the form or words in this piece of legislation. As I say, the Constitution has served Australia since Federation. People who have come to this country have been given the right of residence. They have been prepared to take citizenship on the base of an oath of allegiance to God and the Queen. It has been suggested that because the Queen resides in Britain she is not the Queen of Australia, but I believe that we have proceeded to ensure since those early days that she is the Queen of Australia. I turn to clause 11 of the Bill concerning the grant of a certificate of Australian citizenship. It seeks to insert into the Act a new section 13, of which paragraph (d), I believe, is the most pertinent. It says that the Minister may grant a certificate of Australian citizenship to a person who satisfies the Minister that he has been present in Australia as a permanent resident for a period of, or for periods amounting in the aggregate to, not less than one year during the period of two years immediately preceding the date of the application , and paragraph (e) says basically that a person may be granted citizenship if he has been here for not less than two years during the immediately preceding five years. Proposed new section 13 (1) (f) provides that he should be of good character. Proposed sub-section (1) (g) provides that he should possess a basic knowledge of the English language. Paragraph (j) states: (j) if granted a certificate of Australian citizenship, he is likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia, or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia. The right to become an Australian citizen carries with it certain responsibilities. I do not believe that all of the responsibilities could be set out in clause 11 to indicate what the basic qualifications would be. However, I believe that if a person is granted residency, that period of two years may be too short a time to prove his or her ability and good character to become an Australian citizen. It has been mentioned tonight that if we are to take the two-year period, perhaps some post-entry qualifications should be looked at to see whether, in that further period, the person is entitled to claim Australian citizenship by virtue of the life that he or she has led. The aspect of the knowledge of language is one that all people will face irrespective of the nations to which they went. But if they choose to live in Australia and they are granted that privilege, perhaps they ought to accept with that right the responsibility of trying to integrate themselves on a language basis, on the basis of who they swear allegiance to and, basically, on the basis of our form of life in Australia. An amazing part of this debate occurred when one government member was indicating the deficiencies in the Australian system faced by a person who migrated here and who could not speak the language. That honourable member referred to the difficulty that that person had in trying to understand forms and the way of life. If we are to lower the English language requirement of this country, it will take longer for people to be integrated and to find out the differences. The last thing that we want in Australia is the Canadian situation where there are two languages and each is as fiercely fought for as the other. In reducing the language level to a basic knowledge of the English language we could be doing a disservice to migrants. We could be putting them into a system in which they will be forced to live together and not expand. That will not be for the ultimate good of the people themselves. An aspect that I mention again is the oath of allegiance to the Queen. It is within our Constitution. It would require a change of the Constitution to prove to me that the Australian people required this. The letters that I have received in this connection on inquiry from the Ministers responsible have indicated that there have been difficulties and confusion in the minds of people coming to Australia as to the situation that they will face. This system will not relieve that confusion at all; it might just exacerbate it. If a person comes to Australia and is confused, perhaps it should be the responsibility of the authorities to remove that confusion so that the person knows exactly what is to be faced. The clauses of the Bill indicate that people should have an adequate knowledge of the privileges and responsibilities of Australian citizenship. Surely it is one of the responsibilities of a person coming to Australia to know exactly that, first, we are a God fearing nation and that we call on God's blessing; and, secondly, that the Queen is part of our whole parliamentary system. As I say, this is probably one of the first steps in what could quite well lead to a change to a republic. The honourable member for Denison has adequately demonstrated that in his speech today. It is something of which we should be very careful. In a period of 12 months we have seen the oath of allegiance changed. It is only optional to swear an oath to God and it is not even optional to swear it to the Queen. We have seen Britons taken off the favoured list as far as voting is concerned, and in so many other ways, and we have seen the Australian flag under attack from so many quarters-no more so than from a party that uses as its backdrop the Australian flag in its advertising information. Mr Hodgman —That is hypocritical. Mr BRAITHWAITE —As the honourable member says, it is hypocritical. I believe that the Returned Services League and many people in the community are concerned . Many concerned citizens wrote to me, particularly about the oath of allegiance , and asked me exactly what the situation was. No reason has been given as to why we should drop the oath of allegiance to the Queen. If we take this matter a little further, the next step might be that we take the 'Queen' out of Queensland and the 'Victoria' out of Victoria. Just where does it stop? Government members interjecting- Mr BRAITHWAITE —Honourable members opposite may laugh. Maybe they ought to go back to the 1972 to 1975 period. I am not sure whether it was an edict, but photographs of the Queen were certainly being taken out of Commonwealth offices and replaced by photographs of the president. As the honourable member for Denison has said, there is a real threat through this Bill as to where we may be heading. Maybe it is not unreal for some Australian people to believe that the chief bicentennial project of the Labor Government is to form us into a republic by 1988. I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the honourable member for Denison. There are parts of the Bill which are necessary; there are other parts which will be more mischievous in their own way in forcing more confusion on people, including the older residents and citizens of Australia as well as the people who are yet to come here. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(9.40) —I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate on the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) — Order! Mr HAND —The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) is showing his usual ignorance by interrupting. Mr Hodgman —I was not saying a word. Mr HAND —The honourable member for Denison has been interrupting everybody's speech tonight and claims how popular he is with the ethnic communities. I understand the New South Wales Ethnic Affairs Council has called on his leader to replace him as the spokesman on ethnic affairs. That tells us about the respect that the ethnic communities have for this character. Mr Hodgman —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was, first of all, the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous) and now it is the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) who is deliberately misleading the chamber and lying. The ethnic communities have not requested my replacement at all. I ask for a withdrawal. Mr HAND —I refuse to withdraw that. (Quorum formed) For those honourable members who were not in the chamber, I was just stating that the New South Wales Ethnic Affairs Council has called on the honourable member for Dennison to be replaced as spokesman for the Liberal Party. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I challenge the honourable member to prove the truth of that. It is a deliberate lie. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member for Denison wish to raise a point of order? Mr Hodgman —My word he does! The honourable member for Melbourne is lying to the chamber. He is misleading the House and I demand a withdrawal. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat. There is no point of order. Mr HAND —It is all very well for the honourable member for Denison to refer to someone else lying. He has been sitting here all night lying his head off. We have heard a series of speakers from the other side of the chamber ranging from the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), who insulted people and had to withdraw half of his speech, to the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), who referred to the question of dividing the community. I put it to the House that the only people in this place who are trying to divide the Australian community are the people who follow the banner of the honourable member for Denison. The honourable member for Denison has been going around the country, whipping people up, initiating and contributing to the very sad racist- type developments that are occurring in the capital cities around Australia and particularly within my electorate. I referred to that matter the other night in the adjournment debate. With the presentation of the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill in December last year, the Australian Labor Government is ensuring that the Citizenship Act reflects the true multicultural character of Australia. The Bill ensures that the Citizenship Act reflects the common national identity of all Australians; removes from the Act discrimination between persons on the basic of sex, marital status and national origin; provides for reviews by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of decisions by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs or the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to deny or deprive persons of citizenship under the Act; and amends the Act so that it is thoroughly Australian in character. Honourable members will agree that obtaining citizenship is a necessary prerequisite for full participation of an individual in the total social and political fate of any democratic country. Citizenship entitles a person to vote and stand for public office, to be employed as a permanent public servant or judge, and to hold an Australian passport. it means eligibility to act as a juror as required, and to be eligible for military service as required. Citizenship confers both rights and duties. If we look back in history we will see that post-war migration has brought some three million persons to settle in Australia. Forty per cent of my electorate is made up of people who were born overseas and I am proud to be their representative in this place. Fifty-six per cent of those three million new Australians are from non-British countries. As far as citizenship is concerned, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs consolidated statistics show that from the mid-1960s until the mid-1970s, when figures were maintained on registered aliens, over 500,000 persons, 70 per cent of whom were of southern European or Middle Eastern origin, were officially registered as resident aliens . By 1981 we estimated that 1.2 persons born overseas and aged 18 years or more were not Australian citizens. Sixty-six per cent of these persons were from the United Kingdom, New Zealand, United States of America and Canada and 33 per cent from other countries. At the same time, if one looks at the Department's 1981 citizenship estimates, one finds that comparatively few persons born in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada an the United States have become Australian citizens. Around 25 per cent of those eligible, compared with 87 per cent Greek born, 88 per cent Polish born, 80 per cent Yugoslav and Lebanese born, and 72 per cent Italian born, have elected to take up citizenship. This Bill has been presented to the House because the Government is committed to assisting all people, regardless of their national, linguistic or ethnic background. In Australia at present we have many hard-working residents who are not yet citizens and who consequently are not able to participate fully in all aspects of social and political life in our country. Evidence presented suggests that many of these persons are keen to take up citizenship. Mr Shipton —Are you reading this? Mr HAND —I am reading it, yes. Unlike honourable members opposite, I am trying to inject some statistics into the debate so that people will better understand the issues. I wrote the speech myself. Many of these persons, especially those of non-British origin, are keen to take up citizenship. Evidence also shows that such pesons, once having obtained citizenship, are keen to fulfil their democratic rights, duties and commitments. I think everybody in the House would understand that comment. These people have contributed to the greatness of this country and will continue to do so in the future. The proposed amendments are aimed at assisting this process and obtaining such a commitment. It is about time honourable members opposite stopped playing political football with the ethnic communities. It is about time the people opposite tried to offer constructive criticisms of legislation, if there are any. There is no real criticism of any concrete nature in the amendment moved to the motion for the second reading. I am mystified as to why we have had such a string of people on the other side opposing the Bill. Their contributions have ranged from discussion of the flag to the campaign involving Sir James Hardy. I noticed on the news today that they have been giving him a hard time, and he has had to withdraw from a democratically elected committee because they were attempting to drive him out of business. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The level of conversation in the chamber is far too high. I am sure it is not helpful to the honourable member for Melbourne in completing his speech. Mr HAND —I am not worried about who is listening and who is not. It is time that their irresponsible attitude was replaced by a responsible approach to this Bill in order that this Parliament can begin to represent truly all Australian citizens and not just the privileged few with whom the people on the other side are more concerned. If we examine the proposed amendment to the Citizenship Act we find that, amongst other things, the amending legislation proposes, firstly, to shorten the time for eligibility for a person residing in Australia from three continuous years to two continuous years of permanent residence, or from two years residence in total of the previous five years preceding application, compared to the previous stipulation of three years in the previous eight years. No one can say that that was fair-providing that the applicants meet the criteria of being of good character and having a basic knowledge of English. Secondly, the legislation repeals the definition of British subject status for Australian citizens, thereby making all permanent residents, regardless of British background, equal in the sense of citizenship entitlements. Thirdly, it will allow persons refused citizenship the right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and, fourthly, it will change the pledge of Australian citizenship to either one of two forms. The first form reads: I . . . renounce any current citizenship and allegiance to any State other than Australia. I pledge that I will faithfully uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen. The second forms reads: I . . . renounce any current citizenship and allegiance to any State other than Australia. I swear by Almighty God that I will faithfully uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen. With all the talk about God, Queen and country here tonight, I do not think I have ever had the privilege of being among so many people on the other side who, judging from the way in which they have treated people in the course of this debate, lack the basic Christian ethic. In relation to the first pledge, there is enough evidence, both from the Department's statistics and studies, and from other studies which have been undertaken, to show clearly people's increased commitment to take up Australian citizenship and enrol as voters. Given this commitment, anyone would agree that we should be allowing such people to participate fully in all aspects of our life. The shortened period for eligibility also meets the basic ideals of human rights. If people work, pay their taxes and meet the criteria of good character and a knowledge of the duties of Australian citizenship, they should be allowed to participate fully in all aspects of our society. As for repealing the definition of British subject status, honourable members will agree that this amendment meets the commitments of other aspects of social policy in that all policy should aim to be non-discriminatory in terms of age, sex, birthplace, religion, et cetera. The change will mean that special emphasis will have to be placed on information and/or education strategies to inform people of British status backgrounds and to encourage them to take up Australian citizenship. In relation to the right of access to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, to which the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous) referred, and about which he was interrupted so much, this is a very important amendment. Evidence has shown that many non-British ethnic communities in Australia believe that they are discriminated against when applying for citizenship. For example, in a research paper in 1974 Storer shows that between 1945 and 1970 635,555 persons were naturalised and there were 531 definite refusals on security grounds, 92 per cent were for being communists and 8 per cent for being right wing extremists. Of the 155 persons considered communists in the 1967-1970 period, some 53 were Greek, 35 Italian and 26 Yugoslav. It might be argued that 531 refusals is a small number. However, this number was significant for it was often the case that those refused citizenship were the most active and articulate leaders of the growing vocal ethnic communities. As these persons tried to find out why citizenship was refused they soon ran into the brick walls of departmental secrecy. There were no grounds of appeal. These findings quickly spread throughout the ethnic communities. Consequently, whenever amnesties were announced in 1974, 1976 and 1980, many communities were quick to spread the rumour that such amnesties were political ploys by the conservatives to flush out left wing activists who would declare themselves and then find they had no guarantee of a system of appeal. The case of Ignazio Salemi, a left wing alien who applied in the 1976 amnesty and was subsequently deported by the government of the day-he believed it and it deported him-seems to verify such suspicions. All this has been described by Storer and Faulkner in a report to the International Labour Organisation on its survey of the 1980 amnesty. This study showed that most non-English speaking communities stated their suspicions and wanted a system of appeal. As far as the fourth point is concerned, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West), in his second reading speech last year, clearly stated : The present renunciation of allegiance is ambiguous and does not make it clear whether people are being asked to renounce their previous nationality, their previous language and culture, or all three. I believe it is important that the future wording of the renunciation makes it clear that it is only allegiance as a citizen to one's former State or country that is being renounced. It is unfortunate that certain members of the Opposition have decided to make this a public issue. It is disgraceful that they have used this amendment in order to divide the community in the way in which they have. They have been led again by the honourable member for Denison who has been renounced by ethnic community groups all around this country. That will continue right up until the election. The honourable member for Denison should see me outside about the next election and we will have a wager with him. He is gone in Tasmania. Mr Hodgman —Communists are not supposed to bet. Mr HAND —Other people have said worse things to me than that so the honourable member is not offending me at all. Members of the Opposition have been supported by a minority in the community which, as the Minister said, 'does not appear to accept the reality that Australia is now a multicultural community and an independent nation'. This Bill brings Australian citizenship laws into the 1980s by amending some clauses contained in the present Australian Citizenship Act. The Government, in line with its commitment to represent all the people of Australia, has presented the Australian Citizenship Bill so that all Australians, regardless of language, culture or origin, can be given the opportunity to participate fully in the affairs of this nation. It is up to the people on the opposite side of the House to put up or shut up. They must either allow all people to become Australian Citizens as long as they meet the criteria set out in the Bill or refuse them this right and face the consequences at the next election. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.01) —I am a little disappointed by some of the comments that I have heard tonight, particularly those just made by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand). I suspect that, in a sense, he has allowed the argument to degenerate somewhat to vilification of Opposition speakers who participated earlier in this debate. I regard that as unfortunate. The honourable member recently drew attention to a speech that he made during the adjournment debate. While I very much agreed with some of the sentiments expressed in that speech in which he asserted that racial discrimination was wrong in principle and was something that ought not to be encouraged, he then launched into a campaign of personal vilification against people who had expressed points of view on other matters that were not necessarily the same as his. I do not regard that as a constructive way of contributing to debate. I am quite prepared to discuss and debate the issue and that is what I have come into the chamber to do tonight. It is not my purpose to condemn in any way the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) or honourable members opposite except out of their own mouths when they make comments of a condemnatory nature of my colleagues on this side of the House. Let us get to the issues because that is far more constructive. Honourable members opposite have asserted that there was a report by Professor Zubrzycki who was part of the multiculturalism unit established by the previous Government. That unit was asked to undertake certain inquiries in relation to citizenship and certain consultations throughout Australia. I understand that last year that organisation had a number of meetings which the previous Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs had the opportunity to attend, as did others. In the debate today I heard some honourable members refer to the fact that they attended some of those consultations, presumably as interested members of the public. I have no doubt, as I was familiar with the fact that those meetings were going on, that that is exactly what happened; that there were discussions with the ethnic communities and that other people were invited to participate and make known their views. Ultimately certain reports ensued, and that is what one would expect. But I have heard a great deal recently about other reports from other honourable members opposite-reports that were commissioned by the previous Government and reports that have been commissioned by their Government. The honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous), who spoke in this debate, told us that we had to put great weight on Professor Zubrzycki's document because it was a report for the previous Government and we had to accept its recommendations. I cannot imagine that that is an appropriate basis on which to proceed in this instance. I do not believe that any honourable members on the Government benches believe that we should proceed on that basis without considering the merits of the particular proposals. Let us scotch it once and for all. Some members of the Government do not want to accept the report of the Martin Committee on the Review of the Australian Financial System as holy writ. We heard a great deal from the honourable member for Burke about why the report of the Martin Committee ought not to be accepted as holy writ. I know that the report of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System, commissioned by the previous Government, to which the present Government wants to suggest that the previous Government was not committed, is a document- Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I just wonder what the Martin report and the Campbell report have to do with this legislation? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —I am sure that the honourable member for Dundas is using them as an example in his speech and he will return to the subject matter of the Bill very quickly. Mr RUDDOCK —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are exactly right. I was arguing by analogy that there are other important reports that some Government members do not wish to accept and that is their right. They want to argue the question on the merits and I accept that. Equally I think honourable members on this side of the House do not have to be held responsible for a report that was commissioned by the previous Government. That does not make it right. We have to look at the merits. That is the point I wish to get to in this debate. Mr West —It is an example of what they said. Mr RUDDOCK —Yes. I accept that there was a report and that views were expressed. Equally I look at the way in which that Committee carried out its task. I think it did very well within the constraints of the situation in which it was working . Equally, when we are dealing with citizenship-that is really what we are dealing with-it is not the citizenship of migrants alone that has to be considered; it is the basis upon which other Australians invite those who have come to live with us permanently in Australia as citizens. As much as the migrant has an interest in this matter, so does the rest of the community. That is why this Parliament has an interest in the matter. I think that is one reason that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has moved in his amendment, and I have seconded, that there should be perhaps even a referendum of the people of Australia to determine a wider view. I do not think one should run away from that. Mr West —What sort of referendum? Mr RUDDOCK —A referendum that considers some of the major changes that are occurring in relation to the law on citizenship as a result of this legislation. The honourable member for Denison identified some 12 initiatives that are involved in this legislation. The first is the reduction in the qualifying period for Australian citizenship from what is known as the three-year test to the two-year test. As a part of that there is also a reduction from two years to one year in the period people are ordinarily expected to reside here before making their application. The second test is the right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against the Minister's decision. The honourable member for Melbourne put great weight upon the absence of a test which can be appealed against when the Minister makes a decision. He cited a number of amnesty situations and suggested that some plot by conservatives was reported to the International Labour Organisation in relation to the granting of Australian citizenship. I must submit that he argued by assertion rather than evidence about that matter. The fact is that, regardless of the view that the honourable member for Melbourne has pronounced, the Opposition has supported the right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against the Minister's decision on Australian citizenship. That is the end of the matter. We have made it very clear that this is one of the initiatives. The honourable member was speaking to this initiative in the Bill. He advanced all those arguments. All I have to say is: That is a proposition which the Opposition accepts. The third initiative, having dealt with two, was the reduction of knowledge of English from adequate to basic as a qualification for Australian citizenship. I will return to the question of competency in English. The Opposition will oppose the step that is to be taken. The fourth initiative seeks to exempt the elderly as applicants from the requirement to have a basic knowledge of English. The Opposition accepts that proposition. We do not want to impose any hardship on elderly people who are brought to Australia to join their families. It is unreasonable to expect in their later years that they will be able to obtain what one may regard as a very adequate, or even a basic, knowledge of English. We recognise that in that situation-as I understand it, the test is only that the applicants have to be over 50 years of age-that is an appropriate extension. So the Government has the Opposition's support in that matter. I think it is very important that we recognise that the questions that have been raised have been looked at by the Opposition in context. They have been considered on their merits. In some cases they have been supported; in some cases they have not. The fifth initiative is the abolition of the automatic acquisition of Australian citizenship by British subjects resident in or with close connections with Australia in 1949. That is a controversial proposal. It will always be a controversial proposal when we are dealing with existing rights that people believe they have. Notwithstanding the desire, I think as much on the Opposition 's part as on the Government's part, to have a system of immigration and of citizenship which is not racially selective and which does not depend upon particular nationality as a test for eligibility, when seeking to remove certain privileges that some people have and regard as important we are dealing with a slightly different situation where some cognisance has to be given to these pre- existing circumstances. Initiative six, the amendment to the oath of allegiance by deleting all reference to the Queen, is opposed by the Opposition. Initiative seven, the replacement of the affirmation of allegiance by a pledge, also by deleting reference to the Queen, is opposed by the Opposition. Initiative eight, the placement of the pledge as the first option rather than as an alternative or second option to the oath is another matter that the Opposition opposes. In case I do not get time to come back to it, I make the point that it is my experience in my electorate, having attended many citizenship ceremonies, as I believe most honourable members would be very anxious to attend from time to time-I do not think there is anything unique about it-that the great bulk of applicants for Australian citizenship seek to take the oath; they do not seek to take the affirmation. The affirmation is there as a choice. The Government accepts that in the proposals it is putting to us. It wants to change the name to a pledge but, in essence, what it is saying is that the choice should still exist. The fact of the matter is that in a situation where applicants have an existing choice the great bulk of applicants seek to take the oath. It seems to me that if the great bulk of people seek to take the oath surely that is the appropriate form to be given priority. Surely it would be in the position of primacy in terms of an expression of view on that matter by the Government. I do not know why the Government would even entertain a change except that it is trying perhaps by that change to indicate some element of preference on its part . If it is not, I do not think the change is at all essential and the matter of the status quo could easily have remained. Initiative nine is the removal of the reference to the Queen from the pledge. Initiative ten is the change of the renunication of allegiance and that matter has the support of the Opposition. The eleventh initiative is the removal of discrimination on the basis of sex and marital status. That has the support of the Opposition. Finally, the twelfth initiative is the deprivation of citizenship when obtained by fraud, deceit, concealment of information or any other dishonest means. That is supported by the Opposition. If my count is correct, of the 12 propositions that the Government has advanced it has the support of the Opposition in some five proposals. I think that is important and it is a point that has often been overlooked by members of the Government who have sought to discuss this matter. In his second reading speech the Minister puts the matter in terms of an Australianisation test. I want to make it clear that I have a belief in an integrationist policy in relation to the way in which people come to Australia and are subsumed in our society. I do not believe we can assimilate people in any sense and compel people to fit into some particular niche, nor do I believe in a separate development policy. I think it is very important to note that the pursuit of multiculturalism as it is often termed, has not been pursued as a policy of separate development, nor do I think it ought to be taken to the point where it can be categorised as such. I believe that over time all people who settle in Australia will emerge as Australians. I think that that is appropriate and what one would expect in a society such as ours-one in which tolerance is a virtue. It seems to me that the question of what is being an Australian or of Australianisation is a very subjective test. The Minister has applied his test, but in relation to those matters that are the subject of discussion in this legislation I must say that I do not understand how we can say, in relation to the language test that the Minister is proposing as a grant for Australian citizenship, that to have a basic knowledge as distinct from an adequate knowledge will in some way make it more Australian in terms of the test that we are applying. I do not really understand that. I do not see the distinction. I think the Minister has applied a test of Australianisation which is a subjective test and does not really bear out the changes he is making. I do not understand the way in which the changes to the oath or the affirmation of allegiance, as I have called it-the pledge, as the Minister wants to call it-in any way advance the cause of Australian nationalism. I really do not consider that those questions are at all relevant. In the time that is available I turn briefly to the question of replacing the reference to the Queen in the oath of allegiance and the affirmation or pledge, as the Government prefers it. As a proposition I find it difficult to understand . What the Government seeks to do is to replace the reference to the Queen with a reference to the Australian Constitution. It may mean that some people who take that oath or make the pledge will not understand the full meaning of the oath or pledge they are being asked to undertake. The fact of the matter is that the change by the Government to the oath or affirmation will not, in one way or another, ultimately change Australia's Constitution. Mr Hollis —What are you worried about then? Mr RUDDOCK —I think it is misleading and inappropriate. Fundamentally, the reference to the Queen in the oath is symbolic of the type of constitutional monarchy that Australia has. The fact of the matter is that until the Government is prepared to change the fundamental nature of our Constitution, Australia is a constitutional monarchy. The fact of the matter is that this Parliament, within the framework of our Constitution, is juxtaposed directly with the Queen, who has a role as part of the framework of law making in Australia. Section 1 of the Constitution states: The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which consists of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is hereinafter called 'The Parliament,' or 'The Parliament of the Commonwealth.' The Queen's role is one of primacy in terms of her position under our Constitution. There is an established framework of law under which she operates as Queen of Australia. We are a constitutional monarchy. The Government can argue for a change but it should be honest enough to argue whether it thinks that Australia ought to be a republic so that people will know what the Government stands for. But Government supporters should not come in here asking for a change to the oath or affirmation of allegiance which seeks to put aside the fact that Australia is a constitutional monarchy by ignoring the fact that the Queen has a role. Mr West —We are not ignoring that at all. Mr RUDDOCK —Of course the Government is. The fact that the Government is making the change obviously indicates some intention that people should read into the change. It may be legal and proper to take out the reference to the Queen and put in the words 'Constitution' but there is an indication of where the Government's priorities lie. That is the test. I do not believe it is appropriate to make that change without asking the Australian people for their view on this matter. The Government can do so by way of holding a referendum. I think that would be appropriate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr STAPLES(Diamond Valley)(10.19) —The changes to the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 which are incorporated in the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill really are a true and clear reflection of community attitudes in Australia today . Those who care to dispute that really should take the time to consult the Zubrzycki report entitled 'National Consultations on Multiculturalism and Citizenship'. That report, as has been mentioned here, was commissioned by the former Liberal-National Party Government. I remind the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) that, as distinct from other reports, there was national consultation. The opinion of a wide range of Australians was sought, not just the opinion of a select group but that of a wide range of Australians throughout all capital cities in Australia. It was not just a matter of racing round the establishment clubs and right wing organisations to round up archaic attitudes. The Zubrzycki committee would not have had to go much further than the Liberal- National Party rooms of the old guard in this House to get those opinions. The committee held eight major public forums. It sought supplementary written contributions. There was, of course, substantial public comment throughout the Press. Because of this I do not think it can be said that the report is not representative of Australian attitudes. It should be remembered that the report was commissioned by the former Government. Judging by the contribution of the Opposition to this debate today, which is in contrast to the conclusions reached in this national consultation, one can only assume that had the former Government been returned to power on 5 March 1983 this report would have been well and truly pigeonholed. It shows how far the Liberal and National parties are out of step with Australian public opinion today. It is interesting to note the similarities of views of the Australian Labor Party in its policy on immigration and community relations as put forward before the last election. I will not read those out tonight because I do not want to waste the time I have to speak. However, the similarity of views is very close. I think that is something which the Australian people recognised in the election . The disaster of the return of the Liberal-National parties to government was clearly avoided and therefore the conclusions of the report can now become law in this country. It has not been a difficult task for the Government. As I said, the report is well in line with Australian Labor Party policy. It is a great pleasure for all of us on this side of the House to support this Bill and to support the clear opinion and desires of Australians. Frankly, I cannot understand why the Opposition seems to be so offended by the Bill. The changes in this Bill represent a revaluation of the honour of Australian citizenship, not a devaluation. In regard to the residence requirement, if people spend two years in this country and are so significantly impressed that they take what I would consider to be a huge step and change their citizenship, I believe that we as a nation should feel honoured. What right do we have to deny it? Do we consider ourselves better than people born in other countries who wish to take Australian citizenship? The relaxation of the English language requirements from the definition of adequate to basic and the provision enabling those persons over 50 years of age to be exempted from the requirement is a humane recognition of the difficulty that some people have in picking up a new language. I am glad to see that the honourable member for Dundas has recognised that. In the case of other honourable members opposite that has not been the view expressed here tonight. Members of the Opposition would do well to put themselves in the position of a migrant, especially an elderly migrant, coming to a foreign land. How many honourable members opposite could cope with a new language-in many cases a new alphabet-a new culture and new laws? How many members of this House can speak basically or adequately in another language? There would be very few. Does this detract in real terms from their real value as citizens? I do not think it does. Clearly the Opposition feels that it should detract from their rights as citizens. The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) drew a red and white herring in the debate in expressing his fear that we would become bilingual like the Canadians. There is not one predominant non-English speaking group in Australia. There is no predominant language other than English in Australia. Last year we accepted people from more than 50 lands. I really feel the honourable member's contribution to this debate in that respect was meaningless. Recently I was alarmed by statements from some Australians who I believe should know a hell of a lot better. These statements have served only to arouse racial intolerance, to seek racial scapegoats and to try to turn public opinion by raising the old fear and prejudice so prevalent years ago. What are these people all about? Some make pretences of racial tolerance. But one does not have to scratch too deeply to find that they are really espousing the thoughts of King O 'Malley, who said, during the white Australia debate: We are here upon a continent set apart by the creator exclusively for a southern empire-for a southern nation-and it is our duty to preserve this island continent for all eternity to the white race, irrespective of where they might come from. Anyone who listened to this debate today or who reads it in Hansard tomorrow would do well to reflect upon those words and upon recent Press statements and reports. The recent statements of Professor Blainey and the response statement of the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), have certainly done nothing for racial harmony, to say the least. In fact the contribution of the Opposition to this Bill does nothing for racial harmony. There has been a clear distortion of the statistics and it is a sad distortion. The shadow Minister was asked by the interviewer on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation PM program on 20 March 1984: What proof do you have that there is a bias against British and European immigrants? The honourable member responded: Oh well the figures of course speak for themselves. It's not very hard to prove the case when I simply say that in the last year, the year in which the Hawke Socialist Government has been in power, the number of British settler arrivals to Australia have been reduced by 33 per cent the number of European settler arrivals to Australia in the same period of time has been reduced by 22 per cent . Those figures have been clearly misrepresented and misinterpreted. One would think that as the alternative Minister the honourable member would be aware enough to realise that it is not a direct manipulation of the Government's policy which produces those raw figures. It is a fact that major influxes over the past 10 years have come from non-European countries mainly in Asia. What we are seeing now is the natural response of any individual, that is, the desire to have his close family with him. The shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs should not have to have pointed out to him the fact that the Government' s migration emphasis is on family reunion and that most family reunion now results from the Asian refugee program of the former Government. It is not the reunion of the families of European migrants. That peaked long ago. Successive Australian governments have clearly and well realised their obligations to the refugees of the Vietnam war because of our role in creating that shocking war and the aftermath refugee problem. It is about time the Opposition realised that, through the efforts of our fine Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and our fine Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West), the Government is seeking to wind down the Asian refugee intake by finding solutions in the form of orderly rather than disorderly and illegal departure from Vietnam. It is because this Government has taken enlightened steps to develop dialogue with Vietnam that this can occur. But the Opposition wants it both ways. It wants us to avoid reasoned contact with Vietnam and it wants us to stop our Asian intake as well. But that only leaves many people floating around the Gulf of Thailand at the mercy of pirates and sharks. Racial tolerance and harmony have developed in this country to a remarkable degree in the last 30 years. I remember during my time at school the racial intolerance which was shown towards European immigrants. The conservatives in this country have never been slow to bash even British migrants in their references to British unionists and the so-called British disease. It makes one ask: What are they all about? When all the camouflage of concern is stripped away we are left with some ugly Australians, Australians who rely upon their jingoism, racial slurs and an active resistance to the humanising of our migration and citizenship laws, Australians who under the charade of concern for racial harmony, make statements and inflame the immigration argument and activate unnecessary fears and deep-down insecurities, the bigotries and the biases of the ages which are deep down in all of us somewhere. The Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill will bring the Australian citizenship legislation of 1948 well into the 1980s. It is well in line with the current attitudes of the Australian public. Although the words of King O'Malley may give warm inner glows to some people, they are rejected today by most Australians, despite the sad attempts of the 1984 King O'Malleys. This Bill is humane. It is reasoned and in touch with Australia's multiculturalism. One would expect it to be so. It has been put together by a humane, reasonable and in touch Minister. This Bill is committed to ending discrimination on the grounds of marital status , sex and present nationality. The changes to the pledge of citizenship proudly reflect our national identity, our integrity and our national autonomy. The qualifying period gives us the opportunity-- Debate interrupted. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(10.30) —I was approached some weeks ago by Mr Peter Wilkinson, a producer from the 60 Minutes program, and asked whether I had an opinion on unemployment benefits. I said I had enormous sympathy for families surviving on the unemployment benefit, particularly in situations like Wollongong. However, I said I was concerned about abuse among those unemployed who were not prepared to accept work and I thought the benefit should not be so high that there was no incentive to get back into the work force. Mr Wilkinson said 60 Minutes saw value in producing a program which would canvass the problems of life on the unemployment benefit. Although such a program would be worth while, unless there was a focus that would raise the community awareness, people would see it as depressing and tend not to be interested. I saw a video-tape of a segment produced by the United Kingdom World in Action program in which a conservative member of parliament had lived on the unemployment benefit for two weeks. It was clear that the United Kingdom segment did not come to grips with the issues and dealt too much with the member of parliament himself. I agreed that a program which more effectively exposed an Australian member of parliament to the unemployment environment could focus community attention on unemployment benefit problems. Such a program would provide an opportunity for the unemployed to put their case on national television. Equally, it would face up to the questions of abuse and incentive. My belief was that by eliminating the abuse that exists among those unemployed who put themselves outside the system, and who will not accept work, and who appeared to be getting along comfortably, we should be able to do more for the genuine work seekers and particularly those with families to support. With that attitude in mind, and knowing that 60 Minutes would treat such a subject responsibly, I agreed to participate in the program. I accepted the challenge to move into an area of high youth unemployment, live on the single unemployment benefit, talk to people and see just what developed. In effect, I was prepared to throw myself in at the deep end. I was prepared to test my prejudice. And why would I not? Let me quote from an editorial in the Cootamundra Herald: It's a poor reflection on society when a politician is criticised for being open enough to say what many people in the community have been saying in private for a long time: That some people in receipt of social service payment should ( and would) be working if it were not for the level of payment. Stand up all those people who have never questioned in their own minds the level of dole to that element which is obviously flouting the system? Mr Hand —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Do we have to sit here and listen to this hypocrisy from this person? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Hume. Mr LUSHER —The quotation continues: Hands up those who do not know of at least one person who has given up or refused permanent work because 'it is not worth it' when compared with dole money and what they can make on the side? Perhaps reflective of these widely held community views the platform of the National Party provides for payment of unemployment benefit to persons willing and able to work but genuinely unable to find unemployment. During most of my parliamentary life I have demonstrated concern with waste and abuse of public funds. I was a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts for six years. I have been a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure since its establishment in 1976. I was Chairman of that committee in the last Parliament, I am Vice-Chairman in this Parliament. I see the protection of taxpayers' funds as one of the principal responsibilities of a member of parliament. Why else is the Government unable to spend $1 of taxpayers' funds without specific authorisation from the Parliament and strict accountability to the Parliament? Far from being a publicity stunt, my agreement to be involved with the program was based on an expectation of exposing abuse, and improving the lot of a needy section of the community by cracking down on those who are demonstrably not fair dinkum. At no stage have I, and for that matter, 60 Minutes, sought to trivialise this experience. The fact that so much attention has been focused on the production is the result of totally irresponsible media treatment of what has been, and will be seen to have been, a serious attempt to deal with a serious subject. Amongst other things, I have been variously accused of enjoying breakfast at a four star Canberra motel; attending a $35 dental appointment; being on the point of going to hospital; owning a flat in one of Canberra's better suburbs and visiting it; attending a plush business lunch at a major hotel in Canberra; comfortably furnishing my accommodation for the week; being paid by 60 Minutes for participating in the program; being censured by my National Party colleagues; running away from journalists; and having a bodyguard . Not one of these claims is correct. Individually they are not perhaps important, but taken together over the course of the week they have fuelled the media trivialisation. In addition, a long series of inaccuracies about my personal lifestyle have been bandied about the media and some people who perhaps should have known better have been quick to climb on the bandwagon, expressing their views about something of which they were virtually totally ignorant. I accept that for the Press Gallery, which was unable to get a line on the intent of the program, the knee-jerk reaction is to trivialise or discredit what little they do know. I object to the creation of a series of untruths to support the media preconception that there could not be a worthwhile intent in the concept of the program. I have put up with the treatment I have received over the last week in the knowledge that the outcome would be beneficial, but ultimately that is for others to judge. My purpose tonight has been to put some aspects of the record straight. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(10.36) —I rise tonight in the short period available to me to speak on an issue which I hoped I would not have to raise again so soon after the election of this Government. I concerns building a second Sydney airport in place of a second runway at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. I raise the matter again because of the demonstrably poor timing, and what I believe to be the pursuit of a repudiated policy, by the New South Wales Branch of the Liberal Party and its spokesman, Mr Max Smith, in the recent State election. It is discredited policy which has been put before the people in the electorate time and again and it has been rejected time and again. Mr Howard —You want to sell out Sydney. Mr PUNCH —I take this opportunity tonight, if the blimp accountant will let me finish, to call on the Liberals, particularly the New South Wales Liberals-the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) and his henchmen-to abandon this discredited policy and to work in harmony with the State and Federal governments on the siting of a second airport for Sydney and to get on with the job now. The Hawke Government's response, in conjunction with the Wran State Labor Government, has been all along a positive response. It created the National Airport Consultative Committee and established a joint Commonwealth-State committee on a second airport site. By contrast, the Opposition is adhering doggedly to an out of date policy that has been repudiated time and again. It is probably worth while at this point to reflect on a few things: Why was this policy thrown out of the window long ago by the Australian Labor Party? Why do the people of Sydney, and New South Wales in general, agree with our Government and the Wran Government ahead of those opposite? First of all, our argument undoubtedly is sustainable on a cost basis. On 15 April 1981 the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, expressed the following point of view to the Premier of New South Wales: There must be a long term development of a new airport associated with a much more immediate expansion of existing airport facilities. The result of that, in 1982 prices, would have meant a total outlay of $1.48 billion. In 1982 prices the alternative for a new international airport, completely operational, including the addition of a $60m rail network, was a mere $845m. Mr Spender —Where did you get those figures? Mr PUNCH —From the report of the Major Airports Needs of Sydney Committee. The honourable member ought to read it. In short, our argument is cost sustainable. The feasibility of constructing that runway at Kingsford-Smith Airport, which doubtless the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) will harangue us about in a few moments, is unquestionably on the side of those opposed to expansion of Kingsford-Smith. For a start, 20 million cubic metres of fill have to be found to build the land on which to put the runway in the bay. There is no known source of such a requirement. The airport itself, in terms of space, is too small to add that sort of capacity to it. When we consider airport capacity, let us think for a moment about what it will add to Kingsford-Smith. At the very best, in theory, the total additions to Kingsford-Smith, with another runway, would add only 15 per cent to the overall capacity. That is at the very best and in theory. That would be at the expense of a 60 per cent increase in plane movements over the surrounding suburbs- suburbs that are already dogged by the most remarkable health problems associated with aircraft movement. Honourable members opposite and their State colleagues want to add to plane movements by 60 per cent. That is another 20,000 planes a year. The lead time to construct that runway is an estimated seven years. The lead time for a second airport is 10 to 12 years. On top of that is the very real human cost. Honourable members opposite while in government received a report dealing with aircraft noise and fly-over and their relationship with mortality. They sat on that report from the Rockdale Council for two years and covered it up, knowing full well that the migrant kids at the southern end of my electorate were suffering, that old age pensioners throughout the area were suffering due to the decreasing values of their homes, and that young people were being driven out of my electorate and the electorates of the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison) and others. I make a final sincere request to honourable members opposite and their State colleagues, who have been so discredited once again- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.41) —I rise tonight because, thanks to the generosity of the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) and the grace of this House, I was able last Friday, 30 March, to represent the Opposition at the commissioning of the Rufus River groundwater interception scheme. Government members interjecting- Mr ANDREW —One of the things that frustrate me in this House is the lack of opportunity for free speech. As soon as a word of wisdom is uttered, there is a tirade of abuse from Government members. The Rufus River is located in the electorate of the very able National Party Whip, the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Hicks). It is an area which will be most familiar to the present honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), who is a former Premier of South Australia. Mr Fisher —It is also close to my electorate. Mr ANDREW —That is quite so. As honourable members will, I hope, be aware, prior to 1927 Lake Victoria was a natural depression which was filled with water to become a major River Murray storage. The result of Lake Victoria being filled with water from Lock 9, which is well to the east of Lake Victoria, is that the level of water in Lake Victoria can be up to seven metres above the level of water in the River Murray system. The hydraulics of that simply are that the pressure in Lake Victoria forces ground water salt into the River Murray system as it flows from Lake Victoria, through the Rufus River and into the Murray. The Rufus River groundwater interception scheme is designed to be a series of well holes east and west of the Rufus River that intercept and pick up the saline water and pump it to an evaporation basin 4.5 kilometres north-west of Lake Victoria. The result of this scheme will be to lower the salinity in the River Murray at Morgan, which is below all the major irrigation areas in South Australia, by 18EC units. This is of major significance to every South Australian, including the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott), who is trying to interject and who happens to use that same River Murray water. This scheme was pioneered by the South Australian Engineering and Water Supply Department. It was part of a River Murray Commission scheme and cost the Federal Government and the governments of South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales $3.5m. This Parliament ought to be proud to have been part of such a scheme. The interception scheme was commissioned by Mr Allan O'Brien, the President of the River Murray Commission. It is part of a series of steps designed, as a result of intercepting natural saline inflows, to improve the quality of the river. I rise tonight because I was both amazed and disgusted to be at Rufus River last Friday and to discover that I was the only member of the Federal Parliament present. Where was the Government? The Minister for Resources and Energy ( Senator Walsh) was invited to attend. Why did the Minister not trouble to send someone to deputise for him? Is this a measure of the scant attention that the present Government gives to the interception of salt for the River Murray? Are honourable members aware that the scheme is only one of a series of schemes designed by the former Government in co-operation with the State governments of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia and at the initiative of the present member for Chaffey, the former Minister for Water Resources in South Australia. Mr Hand —All Labor governments. Mr ANDREW —Of course, all Labor governments. Where were they when the commissioning took place? They were absent. If this absence reflects the interest of the Parliament, if this absence more directly reflects the interest of the Government in schemes such as this, God help South Australia. The reality is that we will only have quality water in the Murray and we will only have quality water available to South Australia while we have a government committed to salt interception schemes such as that as Rufus River. It is essential that this Government pick up the task that was initiated by the Fraser Government in the interests of all South Australians. I commend the Parliament for being a part of that funding and condemn the Government for its lack of interest in this essential scheme. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(10.46) —Madam Deputy Speaker, with 1988, the year of the bicentenary, looming large on the horizon and the suggestion that a new flag be chosen for the next 200 years, there is still one irksome matter that links us in Australia to our colonial beginnings. When one looks at the sails of an Australian yacht racing in international competitions one will find that the letters on them showing the nationality cause quite a shock as the 'K' identifies Australia as a vessel of the United Kingdom. Not being the greatest sports follower who ever entered this House, I was unaware of this until a constituent of mine, Mr J. L. Stomps of Kiama, raised the matter with me. I believe that next time we compete overseas there should be different letters on sails to identify Australia as a proud and independent country. After the recent win in the America's Cup at Newport, when pride of country and nationalism came to the surface, how many people would realise that the insignia KA5 or KA6 harks back to our colonial ties? If we must have an identification, why not have 'AUS' or 'OZ'? Every yacht of an international class recognised by the International Yachting Racing Union shall carry on its mainsail when racing in international waters a letter or letters showing its nationality. Thus 'A' stands for Argentina. But the UK is 'K'. Australia is 'KA'. Bermuda, for example , is 'KB', Gibraltar is 'KGB'-I am not sure what that means-Jamaica is 'KJ', Kenya is 'KK', Hong Kong is 'KH', Canada is 'KC', British Guiana is 'KG' and India is 'KI'. It seems to me that there is no need to keep the letter 'K' on our sails because of history as the time of the colonies is long gone. It is time that this vestige of the colonial cringe was changed. Of course, some honourable members opposite will oppose it, linking it to God, Queen or whatever else they want to. Australia usually performs well in international sporting events. I remember that when I attended the Olympic Games in Tokyo in 1964 I felt embarrassed- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. There is a lot of hilarity in the House tonight, but it makes it very difficult to hear the speaker. I ask that the level of noise be lowered. Mr HOLLIS —Madam Deputy Speaker, honourable members opposite are more to be pitied than condemned, I suppose. I remember that when I attended the Olympic Games in Tokyo in 1964 I felt embarrassed when a foreign national anthem was played at Australian victory ceremonies. Slowly this has changed. Australia is being seen as an independent sovereign state, and at least now we play our national song at such events. There are still a few trappings of colonialism which I hope this Government will eliminate. Given the interest in sport of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), along with his interest in many other topics, and the excellent performance and dedication of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), I hope that this, one of the last vestiges of cultural cringe to a foreign power, can be changed. I have written to both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism on this topic. I am proud to be a fifth generation Australian and I want no more colonial trappings. I hope that before Australia defends the America's Cup action will be taken to have the letters on the sails distinctly Australian, that we will not have letters that hark back to our unfortunate colonial ties and are part of the colonial cringe. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.50) —It is always interesting to hear from the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) on the subject of airports. It is a subject very dear to his heart. He thought he won the last election on his 'We will not do anything in Sydney' program. Immediately after the last election he took the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) into his electorate. He led him by the nose and had him ambushed. The honourable member said to us that the notion that one should do anything with Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport is discredited ; that it has been repudiated. Discredited by whom and repudiated by whom? The honourable member has given us some quite marvellous figures. He tells us that to build a third runway, if I heard him clearly, would cost $1.48 billion and that we could not get the fill anywhere in Australia to do this. On the other hand, if we were to get ourselves an area somewhere outside Sydney-we do not know where; only the Minister and the Government know-and if we were to set up a high speed rail system and, I suppose, a high speed road system, and if we built the airport there and moved Qantas Airways Ltd and the other internationals out there-that is all inherent in his proposal-it would cost a mere $800m. From where does he get those specious figures? I would like to see those figures. Mr Punch —In the MANS Committee report. Mr SPENDER —I would like to see those figures. There is no way in the world that he can sustain or justify those figures outside his electorate. He referred by interjection to the report of the Major Airport Needs of Sydney Committee. The MANS report made it perfectly plain that the logical thing to do was to extend Sydney Airport. What happened? As it came to the time when recommendations had to be made the State Government members dropped off that group, leaving only the Commonwealth Government members to make recommendations. Let us have a look at the logic inherent in this marvellous parochial proposal which would relegate Sydney airport to a second-rate status. First of all we would have to dismantle the international carriers. Does the honourable member have any idea of the value of Qantas's investment? What would the honourable member do? Would he move Qantas? Would he move the international carriers? Would he move the major domestic carriers, the commuters and the whole lot? Does he have an answer? Does he have a view and has he thought it out? The answer is that the honourable member has not. Has he looked at Qantas's establishment at Sydney Airport? Has he thought of the vast cost it would take to move it, and who will interline? If one comes from Melbourne, for example, and goes to an airport which is an hour or an hour and a half outside Sydney, who will interline from that airport and what about the convenience? The honourable member talks about his own area, about Kingsford-Smith, as though it were the only part of Sydney and the only part of the State that had any justification for consideration. The honourable member well knows that noise studies have demonstrated that aircraft these days are very much quieter. The honourable member well knows that the patterns of noise are such these days that with appropriate management and control of planes we will not have the kinds of problems to which he referred. If we establish a second airport it does not even penetrate his consciousness that we are doubling the problem; we are spreading the noise problem from one area, by Botany Bay, to two areas. It might have occurred to the honourable member that Botany Bay has water on one side of it whereas he wants to put an airport inland. If the airport is placed inland it means that we will have a noise problem for 360 degrees rather than for 180 degrees. Does the honourable member care about that? No, he does not. Where will he put this airport? Will he put it in the Blue Mountains, Bathurst or Canberra? Where else would he put it? Honourable members interjecting- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Honourable members will cease interjecting. It is impossible for Hansard to take a record. Mr SPENDER —My apologies to Hansard, but the interjections, Madam Deputy Speaker , are at the best peripheral and at the worst inane. What will we do to the passengers? What will we do to the airlines? When will we make this decision? What will the cost be and what does the Minister really think? Somebody says: ' Put it in Launceston'. The Minister for Aviation breezed in here blithely to hear what the honourable member had to say, but he does not really believe in the proposal that the honourable member has put forward. The Minister is putting it off until after the next election. Does the honourable member know what will happen then? There will be a decision, regardless of what government is here, to establish a third runway because it is the only logical and sensible thing to do , regardless of the honourable member's parochial pork barrelling. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(10.55) —Rooming houses have been an important form of accommodation in the Melbourne electorate for many years. The reason is clear. The inner urban communities have a social network to cater for the rooming house population. Although those needs are often minimal, they are not available in other suburbs. It would be ludicrous to suggest, for example, that the occupants of the Fitzroy rooming houses move to North Balwyn or like suburbs. Yet at the moment there is a crisis in rooming house accommodation in Melbourne and the number of rooming houses is declining dramatically. In the city of Melbourne apartment house accommodation has decreased by 50.4 per cent in the past five years. As at last December, there were 83 registered apartment houses with a capacity to accommodate 1,086 persons. In 1978 there were 164 registered apartment houses. The number of boarding houses, which are generally larger, has declined by 17.7 per cent in the same period, from 34 to 28. In Fitzroy the large rooming house stock has declined by about 50 per cent over the past 10 years and continues to fall at a rate of about 100 rooms a year. This is an alarming rate when one considers that, as the amount of accommodation decreases, the rooming house population has nowhere to go. The reasons for the rapid loss are twofold: The age of the buildings and the spectacular inner urban residential valuation increases in recent years. The houses have reached the point where substantial spending is required to meet insurance, often fire requirements, and when this occurs owners find it more rewarding to sell on the open market. In most cases they are sold to private residents who renovate them for private use and they are lost to the most needy section of our community. As the stock is decreasing, our need for this type of accommodation is increasing. The economic climate has led to an increase in the number of people relying on inner urban rooming houses and their accompanying social networks. Today's rooming house client is not the stereotype older male often envisaged as a heavy drinking and dishevelled person. Today's client is the young, the single parent, the older woman and the middle-aged male. It is a spectrum of society that is suffering from a capitalist crisis. Osborne House in Fitzroy claims that it turns away about 15 to 20 people per day. Osborne House in fact is a good example of how rooming houses can be saved. About six years ago a fire rating report meant that extensive works were required and the owner, St Vincent's Hospital, threatened to close down or demolish the building. Negotiations between Fitzroy City Council and the State Housing Ministry obtained a lease on the building for the City of Fitzroy and loan from the Ministry to do the essential renovations. The building is now managed by a local committee and the income from the rooms repays the loan and employs a manager. The State Ministry also maintains a limited buy-back program of rooming houses, but funds are limited. Inner urban purchase and renovation prices are so high that the program is but scratching the surface of a major social problem. I raise these matters because of an urgent need for an injection of Federal funding to alleviate the problem. I am optimistic that the problem will be addressed in the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement currently being negotiated . There is an urgent need for funding to be earmarked so that a realistic buy- back program can be undertaken in the Melbourne electorate. Unless the matter is seen and treated as urgent, an integral part of our inner urban network and community will suffer increasing hardship and literally homelessness. Mr Hodgman —Shame on Cain. Mr HAND —It is a shame on the capitalist system because it is under that system that this decline in the number of rooms has occurred. So the honourable member should not try to blame it on this Government. I am hopeful that the new Housing Agreement will bring about sufficient funds to allow the State Government to buy back these properties to enable needy people to be accommodated. I fail to understand why, when we talk about the needy in our society, honourable members opposite attack those honourable members who try to defend people in our communities. I acknowledge that the previous Liberal Government was involved in this. I acknowledge that the current Victorian Labor Government is involved. I am asking for more money to be made available. I do not see the necessity for those opposite to attack me when I bring an issue such as this before the House. Those opposite are not fair dinkum. They do not care about such people. That is why they interject with their smart, snivelling sidecracks whenever honourable members talk here about the oppressed people within our society. I am appalled that every time that occurs in this place those opposite try to score a cheap political point. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Beazley —Madam Deputy Speaker, I require the debate to be extended. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation)(11.00) —I thank the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) and the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) for their comments on the second Sydney airport, though certain features of the comments of the honourable member for North Sydney disappointed me from several points of view. The first was that the honourable member for North Sydney is on record, as was my predecessor as Minister for Aviation, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife), as being in favour of the selection and acquisition of a second airport site for Sydney. Mr Carlton —In addition to. Mr BEAZLEY —I agree they announced that in connection with their support for a close spaced parallel runway system which would have added very little to the capability of Sydney airport at very considerable expense. Mr Carlton —Nonsense. Mr BEAZLEY —If the honourable gentleman has the opportunity to serve at some point in time as either a Minister for Aviation or an aviation shadow spokesman, which opportunity I doubt he will have, he will know that the principal purpose of establishing a parallel runway at an airport is effectively to create a second airport within the same airport. The objective of the parallel runway is effectively to get separate operations going. If that cannot actually be achieved, the sorts of benefits that would accrue from a parallel runway, effectively a second airport within the same airport, do not accrue and the sort of expense that we are looking at in constructing a parallel runway at Sydney would involve an inordinate amount of money for very little purpose. For those sorts of reasons this Government has undertaken as effectively and as systematically as it can the oft-promised search for a second airport site in Sydney. The situation is complicated by the fact that we are under a variety of contradictory and odd pressures from people in areas that have been identified as potential areas by the Major Airport Needs of Sydney Committee. For example, one of the things I became determined about when I first started to examine this problem was that we were not going to go through a process whereby the MANS survey was accepted purely at face value and the two sites identified by the MANS study as suitable sites for an airport were accepted automatically by the Government. There are many reasons why we did that. The first reason was that substantial development had taken place in both those areas since the report of the MANS Committee. I do not know about anybody else, but I felt myself under some sort of moral obligation to the people of those areas to take seriously the problems they raised with me. The second reason we have done that is that the type of airport we are looking for is in dimensions somewhat different from that implied in the MANS study where the search was for a total replacement of Kingsford- Smith. We have accepted the possibility that the airport may well operate not as a total replacement for Kingsford-Smith but in addition to Kingsford-Smith. If we are able to achieve that in the second site selection, the airport we select will be considerably different from that predicated in the MANS study and probably will require an area of about one-half to 60 per cent of that originally envisaged to be acquired. As honourable members would appreciate, that is a very substantially different problem for the Commonwealth Government than seeking a total replacement. The third feature of that is that in attempting to identify a suitable site, given that we may well require a lesser area, the opportunity is there for an examination of sites to the south of Sydney. In going through an examination of sites to the south of Sydney, we shall have to do, on those sites, engineering studies of at least a reasonable amount of detail if we are to be able to make an appropriate judgment on them. The engineering studies that were done by the MANS Committee took a considerable period. The studies that we shall do will take considerably less time, but they will, nevertheless, be thorough. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. If no other Minister rises to speak, the Minister for Aviation may continue until 11. 10 p.m. Mr BEAZLEY —Our objective in achieving that is to give ourselves a reasonable choice when we finally come to determining what our position will be on the total aviation needs of Sydney. The propositions put forward by the honourable member for North Sydney, without actually moving to the acquisition and development of a second Sydney airport-and he undertook to do that when he was in government-would not have achieved a permanent solution to Sydney's problems. At best it would have achieved a very temporary solution. The honourable member for North Sydney implies that the Government has somehow reached a position where absolutely no development of any sort improving operations of Sydney will take place under this Government. If he really believes that, he has forgotten the detail of the last Budget. We included in the last Budget provision for the development of fast taxiways at Sydney, which will increase and improve the traffic flow there, and we shall also look at other technical developments. However, we shall not proceed, as was suggested, to the inordinate expense of going into the construction of a close-spaced parallel runway which alleviates not all-or it does marginally, but not permanently-the problems that are confronted at Sydney Airport. To give honourable members some sort of comprehension of the dimensions of this matter, the lowest estimate of the cost of a close-space parallel runway at Sydney, which would require considerable fill in Botany Bay-and a very considerable argument would ensue over the environmental impacts of that-is an amount of $400m to $500m. It would probably be a great deal more than that. To build in my own electorate, for example, a runway that does precisely the same thing would cost about $20m to $30m. Extra runway development at Sydney must be considered very carefully from a cost point of view when one looks at an expense such as that. If we are able to select a site that does not, for example, require that degree of fill and that can effectively be operated on the plain that is there, the cost saving of that particular site simply over the development of a single runway, as opposed to what would be done in a close- spaced parellel non-permanent solution runway at Sydney, is an amount of, say, $ 30m stacked up against a minimum of $450m. So the process through which the Government is going, unlike the sorts of processes that honourable members opposite are obviously used to and therefore they automatically assume that what one has on one's hands is merely a political rather than an aviation problem, is very considerable. If we are able to arrive at a satisfactory second site for a second Sydney airport-not a replacement Sydney airport-what we shall have achieved is an assurance of a permanent settlement of the aviation requirements of Sydney. In getting that extra site, we shall be looking at a capability for a 24-hour operation. No matter what one does at Sydney Airport, whether one goes for a close-spaced parallel runway system or a wide-spaced parallel runway system, what one will never get there politically is a 24-hour airport, and that is what is required at Sydney, as the major aviation centre of Australia. If Sydney cannot get a 24-hour airport, that will be the thing that is placed in jeopardy. One will not have just the honourable member for Barton up against one; one will never get a 24-hour airport on the current site of Sydney. So if Sydney is to maintain its reputation and its position, as I believe it should, as the principal aviation centre of Australia, it requires a second airport. It requires a second airport that is acceptable to the Sydney community. I shall not be pressed by honourable members opposite, including the honourable member from the area of Scheyville, into making a hasty decision, because I do not wish to do his electors or others the disservice of arriving at a conclusion that is not based on a full comprehension of the facts. A second airport site selection will receive the best shot and we shall be looking at the matter responsibly. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! It being 11.10 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11.10 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 2 April 1984: Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 44 Copyright Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 43 Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations-Statutory Rules 1984, Nos 41, 42, 45 Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 48 Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 49 Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 51 Migration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, Nos. 46, 47 National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 50 The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 709) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 November 1983 : (1) How many mobile phone subscribers have been connected in Melbourne and Sydney each month since the new service began. (2) When is it anticipated that the service will make a profit in each of the cities. (3) Are there insufficient base stations to provide adequate geographic coverage in Sydney; if so, what is being done to remedy this problem. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) Monthly figures are not available but the following four weekly figures show the connection rate in Melbourne and Sydney from the period the service was available in both cities: Period Ending Number 30.12.81 180 27.1.82 82 24.2.82 123 24.3.82 155 21.4.82 194 19.5.82 213 16.6.82 147 15.7.82 27 12.8.82 104 9.9.82 81 7.10.82 39 4.11.82 47 2.12.82 62 30.12.82 63 27.1.83 74 24.2.83 104 24.3.83 141 21.4.83 85 19.5.83 161 16.6.83 108 13.7.83 98 10.8.83 76 7.9.83 116 5.10.83 140 2.11.83 124 30.11.83 101 28.12.83 140 (2) 1984-85. (3) Additional base stations to improve radio coverage in the Sydney area are being installed at Hurstville and Chatswood. (Question No. 710) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 November 1983 : (1) Is it a fact that (a) other countries have lower installation but higher call rate charges for mobile phone services than those charged by Telecom Australia and (b) this is a reason for the greater success of the service in those countries. (2) What are the installation and call charges in the United States of America, Canada, United Kingdom and Australia. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) (a) Installation and call charges vary between countries (see reply to Part (2)). (b) The only countries Telecom is aware of which have greater penetration of the service, proportional to telephone services in operation, are the four Scandinavian countries (which together provide the Nordic Mobile Telephone Service) and Japan. The charges for the service in these countries are not believed to be a significant factor in the number of services in operation. (2) The latest available installation and call charges for comparable automatic mobile telephone services in Australia, United Kingdom, United States of America (Chicago) and for the Nordic System referred to in (1) above (Canada not available) are as follows: Purchase (P) or Rental (R) of Service Connection (C) Call Country Unit Charge Installation (I) Charges Australia P-$3,990 R-$84/month $67/month C-$100 I-Private Companies 20c/min United States P-$2,000 to $3,000 $70 to $85/month C&I-$200 25 to 90c/min Nordic System (4 Scandinavian Countries) P-$2,860 $133/month C-$43 I-Private Companies 45c/min Japan No purchase R-$97/month $143/month C&I-$380 43c/min United Kingdom P-$3,860 (Plus VAT) $105/month C-$157 I-Not Known 51c/min (Question No. 786) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 16 November 1983: (1) What (a) nuclear research facilities and programs and (b) nuclear medicine programs, are being undertaken in the Australian Capital Territory. (2) Is it a fact that these nuclear related activities are incompatible with the concept of a nuclear free zone. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) I am advised by officers of the Capital Territory Health Commission ( CTHC) which is the body responsible for monitoring such activities, that nuclear research programs are undertaken at three facilities in the ACT: two are associated with the nuclear medicine departments of the Royal Canberra and Woden Valley Hospitals; the other is at the Research School of Earth Sciences, where strategies to treat high-level wastes are being investigated by using simulated experiments-note that no radio-active materials are used for this purpose. (b) Nuclear medicine programs undertaken by the Capital Territory Health Commission consist of radionuclide therapy, radionuclide diagnostic imaging and development programs using radionuclides. (2) I believe there is no question of incompatability. The Australian Nuclear Free Zones Secretariat which is responsible for fostering the declaration of nuclear free zones, has stated that its aim is not to seek to restrict the use of radio-active materials for medicinal purposes or basic research which is not aimed towards the development of nuclear weapons. Many of the local government areas in Australia which have been declared as nuclear free zones contain medical and tertiary institutions which conduct similar nuclear programs. The existence of these activities in the Australian Capital Territory is therefore not inconsistent with the concept of a nuclear free zone. (Question No. 849) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Special Minister of State, 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 Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) and (b) (i) Inter-departmental Committee on Commonwealth Advertising in the Ethnic Press; Inter-departmental Working Group on Information Services for Migrants; Passports Committee; Coordinating Committee on Drug Strategy; Inter- departmental coordinating Committee on the Stewart Royal Commission Recommendations; Committee of Officials-Agent Orange; Academic Salaries Tribunal Inter-departmental Committee; Permanent Heads Committee on Intelligence and Security. (1) (b) (ii) Nil. (1) (a) (ii) and (2)- Special Inter-departmental Committee on Protection Against Violence (SIDC-PAV)- To provide at Commonwealth Government level contingency planning and coordination of policy in relation to counter terrorism and protection against violence. Standing Advisory Committee on Security of the Official Establishments (SAC-SOE )-To keep under continuous review the protective security measures at the Official Establishments in the light of threat assessments and prepare associated reports and recommendations. Inter-departmental Committee on Grants-in-Aid-To recommend to Ministers the level of Commonwealth financial assistance to be provided to organisations outside other formal programs of assistance. Inter-departmental Committee on Grants to International Conferences-To make recommendations to Ministers on applications for Commonwealth financial assistance towards international conferences held in Australia. Inter-departmental Working Group on the Security of Ministers' Offices-To oversight all matters relating to the security of Ministers' Offices. (Question No. 995) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 December 1983 : (1) Further to his answer to question No. 606 (Hansard, 30 November 1983, page 3121) if rural automatic telephone exchanges will not be completely digital before the end of the century, does this mean that many of the newer information and communications technologies will not be available to many country people until that time and thus many years after city people receive it; if so, what can be done to accelerate the conversion of RAXs to digital rather than initially to newer analogue equipment. (2) Is the replacement rate of RAXs adequate to maintain a first class service for country people as an accelerating percentage of these exchanges are no longer able to do so. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) The program for installing digital switching equipment in the country will aim to provide a digital capability within economic reach of as many country customers as quickly as financial and manpower resources will allow. Past experience has shown that the demand for improved facilities such as automatic service, STD, ISD, has been stronger in the higher population centres, where customers with active commercial interests predominate. In country areas, this means that the demand appears earlier in the larger towns than in the rural communities. It is expected that, with future enhanced facilities, a similar pattern of demand will prevail, and this pattern will, to some extent, determine the program for installation of modern equipment. That is, in general, the larger country centres will have new digital equipment installed at an early date, but this does not mean that the rural areas will be excluded from the program. From the earliest date at which suitable digital equipment for the small rural exchanges can be made available (estimated to be 1987), there will be a very rapid phasing out of analogue equipment installations (as will also be the case in urban areas). Digital rural equipment will be installed: (a) to replace the remaining manual exchanges; (b) to replace the obsolete RAX step-by-step exchanges; (c) side by side with the more modern crossbar (ARK) exchanges to provide for customer growth requirements. Because of the rapid spread of digital equipment, the new facilities will be available as an option to a high percentage of customers with a change in number . Customers requiring new facilities in areas where it has not yet been practicable to provide digital equipment will usually be able to be given the facilities by connecting them to the nearest centre where digital facilities exist. The rural program will, therefore, be devised to provide the new facilities over as wide an area as possible, within the limits of available capital works funds, taking care not to jeopardise the program of converting the remaining manual exchanges to automatic working. The actual level of demand for the new facilities is most difficult to predict at the present time. It is foreseen, however, that once the larger centres, and a selection of small exchanges, have received digital equipment, there will be an initial build up of the use of these facilities which will form a reliable base on which forecasts of on-going demand can be made. (2) See answer to Question 1. (Question No. 1023) Mr Hunt asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: What is his understanding of the 'relevant period leading up to an election' in respect to public funding for election advertising. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Under the provisions of Division 3, Part XVI, of the Commonwealth Electoral Act , registered parties, candidates and groups of candidates will be eligible to apply for public funds in respect of expenses incurred for their election campaigns. Entitlements will be based on first preference votes received but the amount of a payment to the agent of a registered party, candidate or group will not exceed the electoral expenditure in relation to the election incurred by or with the authority of the party, candidate or group. The Australian Electoral Commission has advised that a claim for payment must be supported by evidence relating to electoral expenditure incurred in relation to the election. For this purpose, 'electoral expenditure in relation to the election' includes all expenditure in connection with the election irrespective of when the expenditure was incurred. This means that the expenditure may have been incurred outside the election period so long as the Commission is satisfied that the expenditure was incurred in relation to the election. Electoral expenditure for this purpose is not limited to those items which must be disclosed in a party's or candidate's return of electoral expenditure under Division 5, Part XVI. (Question No. 1062) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 2 March 1984: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the community employment program, in each of the months December 1983 and January and February 1984. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Temporary staff employed under the Community Employment Program is as follows: (i) Department of Industry and Commerce, Nil. (ii) Statutory authorities (Albury Wodonga Development Corporation) Males Females December 1983 Nil Nil January 1984 1 4 February 1984 7 1 (Question No. 1068) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 March 1984 : How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the community employment program, in each of the months December 1983 and January and February 1984. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No temporary employees were engaged in (i) my Department or (ii) any statutory authority reporting to me, under the community employment program in the months December 1983 to February 1984.