Wednesday, 2 May 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to: Undermine civil liberties and religious freedom; 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 moral development of their children. Deny to parents their rights to have their children enjoy single-sex sporting activities e.g., boys cricket team, boys football team, etc. Your petitioners humbly pray that the 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 all priciples involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cowan,Mr Dobie,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Maher and Mr Peacock. 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 ones'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 utilizing 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 chiropratic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Drummond,Mr Maher and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House re-apply than ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Brumby and Mr Carlton. 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 oppositions 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 out Australian Constitution, which commences with the words ''Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God'', and the Standing Orders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives which prescribe that Parliament each day shall open with a special prayer to Almighty God and the Lord's Prayer. We also call on the Parliament assembled to re-affirm our genuine loyalty to our Head of State, the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II-'God save the Queen'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton and Dr Everingham. 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 undersigned, having great concern at the way in which children are now being used in the production of pornography call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To prevent sexual exploitation of children by way of photography for commercial purposes; 2. To penalise parents/guardians who knowingly allow their children to be used in the production of such pornographic or obscene material depicting children; 3. To make specifically illegal the importation, publication, distribution and sale or of such pornographic child-abuse material in any form whatsoever such as magazines, novels, papers or films; 4. To take immediate police action to confiscate and destroy all child pornography in Australia and urgent appropriate legal action against all those involved or profiting from this sordid exploitation of children. Your petitioners therefore humble pray that your honourable House will protect all children and immediately prohibit pornographic child-abuse materials, publications or films. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr John Brown. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows: That the reference to God in the Oath of Allegiance be not deleted or removed. An alternative form of allegiance is presently available to those persons who may object to taking the form of oath containing the reference to God. That deletion of the reference to God in the Oath of Allegiance will deny to persons who desire to make such an oath in the presence of God, the opportunity of exercising that right. That Australia is recognised as a Christian Nation and as such, it is paramount that a continuing reference to God in the Oath of Allegiance be maintained so that our New Australian Citizens will be aware that Australia professes a Christian Way of Life. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should ensure that the reference to God in the Oath of Allegiance as it is presently worded is not removed or deleted. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: Whereas the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation has sat in Launceston, Tasmania, and taken evidence on the problem of aircraft noise over that city, and Whereas that evidence has established that a prima facie case does exist on the matter of encroaching aircraft noise on the lives of people living under the existing takeoff flight paths; Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; Request the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation to bring down an interim report on the matter of aircraft noise at Launceston, Tasmania as a matter of urgency, as; (a) The situation is becoming worse and, with the expected introduction of a Boeing 727 on the night freight services, the position will become intolerable for those living under the northerly takeoff flight path. (b) There will be more jet aircraft flights at night than experienced in the day. (c) That the present measures planned by the Department of Aviation to alleviate the noise are totally inadequate and fail to recognise the basic causes of the problem. (d) The increasing noise problem affects the well being of the patients in five major hospitals, the aged in five aged home complexes and children in fourteen major schools and colleges, all under the mandatory flight path as laid down by the Department of Aviation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impracticable. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of 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 $80.00 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 showeth: That: 1. Certain sexual crimes including rape and murder have been linked by the courts to the viewing of 'pornographic' printed material, films and video tapes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that these types of material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives should- Not adopt the 'X' classification for films and video tapes, nor Category 2 for printed material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to 'R' rated films and video tapes and Category 1 printed material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck. 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 Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs ( Cinematographic Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth law the power to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography (e.g. X- rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; the power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy; the power to require imported video tapes/discos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure that the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; that Censors more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes; that further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that the Soviet Union continues to violate human rights in Latvia. This is clearly demonstrated by the recent case of Janis Rozkalns, a practising Baptist who, on January 6, 1983, had his house forcibly entered into by K.G.B. agents searching for various religious publications. The K.G.B. confiscated 40 Bibles. Mr Rozkalns was charged with ''anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda'' and now faces a sentence of seven years deprivation of freedom plus five years internal exile. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled condemns the religious and human rights persecutions within the Soviet Union. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Peacock. To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament 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 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 Humphreys and Mr Moore. 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% 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 and Mr Maher. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Paterson's Curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Paterson's Curse. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Canberra shows that Whereas the Platform on which the Government was elected states that Labor will develop comprehensive community health services and whereas the citizens of North Canberra have been campaigning since July 1974 for the provision of such comprehensive community health services Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament make provision for the building in the financial year 1984-85 of the second stage of the community health centre for North Canberra to include general practitioner services And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fry. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors in the Division of Lowe respectfully showeth: We object to the proposal by the Department of Veterans' Affairs to channel traffic to and from Concord Repatriation Hospital via Currawang Street, Concord West. We object to the proposal because the street has been a quiet cul-de-sac for many years and the nature of the area will be changed through traffic movements and parking problems. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that there be no access to Concord Repatriation Hospital from Currawang Street, Concord West. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Maher. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned electors of the Division of Ballarat, request that the Australian government: 1. Recognise the a-political nature of the International Committee of the Red Cross in its humanitarian work to people regardless of race, nationality, creed, sex or culture. 2. Recognise the ICRC reports that their activities on the main island of East Timor have been suspended owing to the refusal of the Indonesian authorities to grant their delegates access to all villages requiring assistance. 3. Recognise the breach of the internationally accepted Geneva Convention of 1949, which states that the occupying power ''shall agree to relief actions on behalf of the population and facilitate them by all means at its disposal by authorising in particular the relief activities of the Protecting Power, the neutral state, and the ICRC, or any other humanitarian body''. At present the ICRC is confined to visits to the island of Atauro. 4. Approach the Indonesian Government to give assurances which will allow the ICRC to extend its humanitarian work of distribution of food, provision of medical assistance, and visitation of prisons throughout the whole of East Timor . And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Mildren. Petitions received. Mr Donald Cameron proceeding to give notice of a motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I issued a warning yesterday with regard to the content of notices of motion. I invite the honourable member to resume his seat and reword his notice of motion so that it is within the guidelines. Mr DONALD CAMERON —For the guidance of all of us, Mr Speaker, do you want us to eliminate any preamble and descriptive material? Mr SPEAKER —The question allows me to reiterate what I have said before. The honourable member will find that clear guidelines are set out in the House of Representatives Practice. The information supplied must be just sufficient for a definitive substantive motion. The practice of introducing argument has crept into the giving of notices of motion which has meant that they have become overly long. It is not intended that such argument should be in such notices. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Beddall) will second: That this House applauds the Government's determination to pursue a non- discriminatory immigration program and the priority it has accorded (a) family reunions and (b) acceptance of refugees in that program. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with regret the Prime Minister's inability to report fairly on foreign affairs and trade matters; (2) expresses its concern that the Prime Minister is unable to discern reality from fantasy; (3) deplores demonstrations of personal aggrandisement which prejudices national goals and objectives, and (4) condemns the Prime Minister for making false statements in response to the future of the Australian steel and beef industries. (Notice given 2 May 1984). Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) the Government's decision to allow publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs to go on sale in the Australian Capital Territory under Category 2 of the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983, and (b) that the Prime Minister accused the Member for Moreton of being stupid for expressing concern about the decision and denigrated him on 5 April 1984, and (2) is of the opinion that by his response, the Prime Minister has shown himself to be a promoter of the use of hard drugs and, despite some of his better qualities, he is an unsuitable person to determine the standards of and to lead this nation. Mr GROOM(Bass) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) that this House notes with regret attempts by the Minister responsible for sport to use the authority and influence of his political position to place unreasonable pressure on sports administrators, and (2) expresses the view that the Minister should concentrate his energies on those matters which are properly within his ministerial responsibilities. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and my colleague the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) will second: That this House- (1) notes the assurances by the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, Datuk Musa Hitam, that Malaysian students abroad, whether private or government sponsored, were free to criticise and, in fact, were encouraged to make constructive criticism of their government, and (2) congratulates the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia on his support of, and commitment to, free speech and shares his view that free speech is the cornerstone of all human liberty. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : Apple and Pear Levy Amendment Bill 1984. Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill 1984. Debate resumed from 5 April, on motion by Mr West: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Hodgman had moved by way of amendment: 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: (1) 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; (2) its deliberate devaluation of the importance of the honour of Australian citizenship, and (3) its overall failure to consult properly with the people of Australia before bringing into this Parliament such radical republican legislative proposals'. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.10) —I wish to speak to the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill, debate having been adjourned from 5 April and previous debate having taken place on 2 April. A reading of Hansard of that previous debate shows an unusual viciousness on the part of government. Perhaps that is not so unusual; matters of social legislation are characterised by unnecessary vitriolism on the part of Government. Government members have sought to portray members of the Opposition who sincerely hold strong beliefs on immigration matters as being out of touch with the Australian electorate. I suggest that quite the opposite is true. Members of the Opposition more properly represent the traditional values and views of the overwhelmingly majority of the Australian electorate. Before I examine more closely the specific measures of the legislation I will say something about the multiculturalism of Australian society. Members of the Government are delving into the realms of the ridiculous if they do not think that members of the Opposition support and encourage in every way possible the great multiculturalism of Australian society. We are proud and very supportive of the changes that have taken place in Australian society since the end of the Second World War. We are proud to have members of the ethnic community on our benches and we are proud to mix with and have friends in the ethnic community. Such communities form a large part of our electorates. Certainly in the electorate of Gippsland there are a great many immigrants of every nationality. Mr Hunt —And they all vote for you, too. Mr McGAURAN —They do tend to vote for the National Party, as the honourable member for Gwydir interjects, because they know that their views will be properly represented by the Coalition, which is not dominated by self-serving minorities as in the Australian Labor Party. Looking more specifically to the provisions of the Bill, we see that the first thing this amendment Bill does is reduce the qualifying period for Australian citizenship from three years to two years. I expressed concern about that reduction in the qualifying period. I understand that we are the only Western country in the world to have a qualifying period of three years. Certainly to reduce it further is of concern. Mr Hand —Why? Mr McGAURAN —The reason is that the conferring of citizenship is the greatest honour a country can bestow on an immigrant. Therefore it is of the utmost seriousness and a measure of the greatest respect that a country can bestow on an immigrant. That immigrant in turn must demonstrate a commitment to Australia, its heritage, its traditions, its government and its system of justice. Therefore, to reduce the qualifying period to two years strikes me as watering down to some extent, not totally, that sense of commitment. Thus, I express concern, as have other members of the Opposition. Mr Lloyd —Some of the migrants in my electorate are opposed to it. They say it is making it too easy for other migrants to come here. Mr Hand —Oh, come off it! Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Murray and the honourable member of Melbourne should not have an across-the-chamber conversation. The honourable member for Melbourne will cease interjecting. Mr McGAURAN —I appreciate your intervention, Mr Speaker, but the honourable member for Murray interjected in a very constructive way which contrasted very markedly with the irrelevant interjections of the honourable member for Melbourne. Mr SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member for Gippsland that under the Standing Orders all interjections are out of order. Mr McGAURAN —I am indebted to your guidance, Mr Speaker. The second matter worthy of reference in this Bill is that it will amend the requirement that an applicant for citizenship demonstrate an adequate knowledge of the English language. I suppose we could debate for some time what is meant by an adequate knowledge of the English language. Without delving into the technicalities, I suggest that we all have an understanding of what that means. It means, surely, that an immigrant is able to communicate at the day to day level, to travel throughout the country, to obtain lodgings, food and all of those mundane matters. One would not expect an immigrant, under the definition of 'adequate knowledge', to be able to deliver a speech in this exalted chamber, although I suggest that an adequate knowledge of the English language is not always a criteria for some Government members. Certainly I suggest that if an immigrant is to assimilate properly and be able to communicate properly with others in his or her new country, proper knowledge of the English language is required, otherwise we run the risk-and no Government member has addressed this-of keeping immigrants apart. Surely it is the bipartisan agreement of this chamber that we should not create ghettoes. I do not mean ghettoes in the sense of those in America, where there is great poverty , but the separation of communities and ethnic groups. That is of great concern. If immigrants are not required to have a proper knowledge of the English language, we do run that risk. I ask any Government member who follows me to address himself or herself to that aspect, because nobody has yet done so. Of course, this Government is not concerned about creating a separation of ethnic minorities because of its divisive and discriminatory treatment of land rights, but I will save that argument for another day. The third matter which is of great concern in this Bill is the treatment of those of British origin. The present Australian Citizenship Act allows the automatic acquisition of Australian Citizenship by British subjects resident in or with close connection with Australia in 1949, when that Act came into force. That provision has been removed because the Bill provides for the repeal of the definition of British subject status from the Australian Citizenship Act at a date to be proclaimed following further examination. That is of concern because in recent days debate has been conducted in the public forum about whether this Government is placing too great an emphasis on immigrants from Asian countries rather than from Europe and, in particular, the United Kingdom. Yesterday a very worthwhile contribution to that public debate was made in the Sydney Morning Herald, by Mr Jock Collins who is a senior lecturer at Kuring-Gai College of Advanced Education in New South Wales. In that article Mr Collins set out at length the history of post-war immigration in Australia. He reached no conclusions but was able to set out a number of facts for the public, some of which are of concern and some of which would dispel the irrational arguments of those who argue for greater Asian immigration and those who argue for greater European immigration. I will not dwell on that as I do not believe today is the proper time-- Mr Hunt —What about the Pommie shop stewards? Mr McGAURAN —The Pommie shop stewards, as the honourable member for Gwydir has said, have created great concern in Australia. They have been very destructive. The English system will not tolerate the Pommie shop stewards, and unfortunately we have had to cope with them. Not surprisingly, they have found their way largely into the Australian Labor Party, and they are responsible for doing great damage to many aspects of Australian life by their prolonged strikes and their disruptive industrial tactics. The fourth matter which concerns me and my colleagues in the Opposition, and which is probably the crux of this debate, is the deletion from the oath of allegiance of reference to the Queen of Australia. My friend and colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who is the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, addressed himself extensively to this aspect of the amendment Bill in his speech of Monday, 2 April. Mr Speaker, let me read for you just what this amendment Bill will set up in place of the traditional oath of allegiance. The new pledge of Australian citizenship will take two forms. The first form-the affirmation-is as follows: 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 alternative form of the pledge-the oath-is: 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. Neither form of citizenship pledge has a reference to the Queen of Australia. Yet the Constitution, the cornerstone of our parliamentary democracy, sets out that the Queen is the constitutional monarch. If we are to delete from the citizenship oath reference to the Queen, I suggest that this Government put to the Australian people an amendment to the Constitution. We would welcome such a referendum because we know there is no doubt that the Australian people would reject out of hand the removal of the Queen as our constitutional monarch. It cannot be surprising that the Government seeks to remove references to the Queen ; after all, the Governor-General is her representative in Australia. We know the bitterness and, quite simply, the hatred that so many members of the Government have towards the Governor-General who, in 1975, properly exercised the powers conferred on him by the Constitution. What mandate does the Government have to delete reference to the Queen from the citizenship oath, given that the citizenship oath is the most important aspect of a migrant's new life in Australia? It is the symbol of that migrant's acceptance of the traditions, the parliamentary democracy and the system of law and justice in Australia. If reference to the Queen is deleted from that oath, that migrant, that new Australian, is not bound in any way to the protection of the institution of the Queen. Deletion of reference to the Queen from the oath of Allegiance is a further attempt by this Government to move down the road of republicanism. What clearer evidence could come before the Australian people than that by stealth this Government, over a period of time, has become committed to republicanism. Mr Hunt —A republican dictatorship. Mr McGAURAN —A republican dictatorship, under the leadership of the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). After all, it is a dictatorship. It is interesting that members of the socialist left are in the chamber. They have been reduced to political irrelevance by the Prime Minister's dictatorship. So, Mr Speaker, it is not surprising that for that reason the socialist left supports the Prime Minister in removing reference to the Queen to allow him at another time to assume the responsibilities and office of the head of a republic. Mr Cowan —What will happen to the flag? Mr McGAURAN —The honourable member for Lyne asks what will happen to the flag. Mr Hollis —Change it. Mr Lloyd —Who said that? Mr McGAURAN —The honourable member for Macarthur interjected that the Government will change the flag. Mr Lloyd —It is out now. Mr McGAURAN —It is out now, as the honourable member for Murray said, but it is no surprise; it is simply a matter of coming out of the closet. If deletion of reference to the Queen in the oath of allegiance is a sure indication of the Government's commitment to a republic, the alteration of the flag is definite proof. There can be no doubt. That would be conclusive. There is every indication that this Government intends changing the flag. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young), who sits in the House at the moment, has given a very clear indication that that will be the result. My colleague the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), on behalf of his electorate, recently wrote to the Minister asking for assurances that the flag will not be changed and that the traditions which we so value in Australia and which are represented by our flag will not be overturned in an arbitrary, dictatorial manner. The reply that the honourable member for Murray received was equivocal, hinting that the Government was looking at altering the flag. The Minister is in the House. If I am misrepresenting him, I invite him to dissociate himself from moves to change the flag. If he does not choose to dissociate himself from such moves, he stands condemned and his proper purposes will be abundantly clear. Representing rural electorates, my National Party colleagues and I are very aware of the need to maintain traditional values based on a Christian ethic. The people of Gippsland, like other people in National Party electorates, have been over the years the salt of Australia. They are sensible people. They do not believe in change for the sake of change. I have put before the House their view that any alteration of the respect and commitment to the constitutional monarch, the Queen of Australia, and to the flag, the symbol of our nationhood, is absolutely abhorrent. Furthermore, at the risk of stating the obvious, let me impress on the members of the Government what the flag represents. It represents our heritage. It represents the sacrifices that so many Australians have made in lives as well as in toil towards building this country into a great nation. Mr Hollis —I take a point of order. There is no reference to the Australian flag in the Bill being debated. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr McGAURAN —I well understand the sensitivity of members of the Government in regard to the flag. The suggestion that it be changed is causing more and more disquiet throughout the community. I realise that Government members will attempt to gag such debate, as last night they gagged debate on the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2), to prevent anybody from trying to raise such matters. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis) has a particular sensitivity. It was he who interjected no more than five minutes ago that he and members of the Government were committed to altering the flag. Mr Hollis —It was not me. Mr McGAURAN —The honourable member for Macarthur denies it now. This shows the duplicity of members of the Government on matters such as this. It shows the duplicity of the Prime Minister and of the Special Minister of State. When will the Australian people get a clear and unequivocal statement as to the Government 's intentions? In conclusion, I reaffirm my commitment to the multiculturalism of Australia. On a personal note, citizenship ceremonies are amongst the most enjoyable electorate functions I have to attend. They often take place throughout Gippsland and I enjoy those occasions because every person taking the oath portrays a commitment to Australia. We are very proud of that commitment. Certainly, from my discussions with them, they do not want to see a weakening of that commitment. When they take the oath of citizenship they want it to mean something. They do not want it to be based on some false premise. They do not want it to be watered down in any way; they want it to be a clear statement of their commitment to the Australian values, traditions and way of life. This legislation and this Government seriously hamper and weaken that commitment. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(10.30) —One would imagine that there would be no need for debate on the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill. However, there has been extensive debate over a lengthy period. The sentiments expressed in the Bill are supported by the overwhelming majority of Australians. Certain members of the Opposition, especially those from the more backward parts, have somehow tried to portray this Bill as anti-Australian. Some have even gone so far as to portray the Bill as a socialist ploy to turn Australia into a republic. What utter rubbish! Mr McGauran —What about the flag? Mr HOLLIS —I will come to the flag. I will deal with the flag later in my speech . Part of my electorate has a large ethnic population. These people welcome the Bill as do the majority of Australians. Unfortunately, those who shout loudest will always find a few people who believe what they say. Our opponents have seized on one clause of the Bill. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) mentioned this. It is always a pleasure to follow him in debate because he usually speaks such utter rubbish that it makes one's own speech, no matter how bad, sound so good. That clause relates to the proposed changes to the oath of allegiance. That is only a minor part of a wide-ranging package of amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act. Among groups in my electorate that have seized on parts of the Bill are, sadly, the Country Women's Association and parts of the Returned Services League. Mr McGauran —Oh, the old bogy men. Mr HOLLIS —Yes. I assure members of the CWA for whom I have the greatest respect that reference to God will not be taken out of the oath of allegiance. Even the CWA must admit that many people have questioned the appropriateness of the current oath of allegiance. Another group that has been rather concerned is the Bowral Senior Citizens Association which, in the period of a month, wrote to me four times on the topic . Each letter received a reply from me pointing out that references to God would remain in the oath for those who so wished but those who did not wish to swear allegiance to God could make an affirmation. The group finally wrote to me saying that it was disgusted. I can only guess why. This Government is not forcing its particular brand of religious belief on the whole population. That is what the Opposition wants us to do. Members of the Opposition talk about democracy. They are trying to force one form of narrow religious belief on the whole of Australia. The days of the Inquisition are over. Opposition members should not try to force their narrow political and religious views on the whole of Australia. I finally suggested to these people that there were more important concerns facing Australia today. From their comments in the local newspaper I do not think they accepted my argument. However, they have not been able to convince me that this is the most important issue facing contemporary Australia. Nor could they convince the unemployed or those pensioners facing hardship that this is the most important issue facing contemporary Australia. The views of the Opposition on this matter show how bankrupt its policies are. It is talking this matter up and trying to make out that it is the most important issue facing Australia. I turn now to the opposition by the RSL. This is part of a campaign being waged by the RSL in New South Wales about the flag. I raised a point of order during the honourable member for Gippsland's speech-it was overruled-that nowhere in this Bill is the flag mentioned. This is not a Bill about the flag. The flag has not been mentioned anywhere in the Bill. I know that there is debate in the community about the flag. However, this legislation has nothing to do with that. I do not know whether we will have a new flag. I do not particularly care; I am not worried. I do not think it is an important issue. If we decide to have a new flag there will be extensive debate in the community about it, and rightly so. However, I do not think it is the most important issue facing Australia. There are far more important issues. I sent copies of the statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) concerning the Bill to every RSL sub-branch in my electorate. Unfortunately, some deliberately distorted it. Recently I was invited to address a meeting of the south-east region of the RSL sub-branches. At that meeting I outlined again the Government's thinking on the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill. Even before the meeting, two sub-branches gave to the media details of motions that were to be moved at the meeting. The information in those motions was wrong, and I said so at the meeting. Later I was shocked to read a statement by the Port Kembla RSL Sub-Branch Secretary, one Mr Charles Rose, that the Government's move to alter the oath of allegiance and eliminate references to ' God and Queen' was pandering to people who had come from undemocratic and underdeveloped countries. He went on to make the outrageous claim that if one is against law and order one does not swear allegiance to the Queen. What utter rubbish! Mr Hodgman —Ha, ha! Mr HOLLIS —I get a little tired of the RSL and others, including the honourable member for Denison, who is at the table and is laughing, and the honourable member for Gippsland, who has now left the chamber, trying to impose their narrow definition of loyalty on everyone. Diversity of views is part of the democratic process. The right to live in a democratic society is one of the things, we are told, that members of the RSL fought for. The amendments contained in the Bill follow extensive national consultations during 1982. In relation to the existing oath, the report on those consultations stated: 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. I share that view. The report continued: This view was shared by persons from a variety of backgrounds, including holders of imperial awards and persons who maintained that they were not republicans. One does not have to be a republican to believe the oath should be changed. Despite the advantages of Australian citizenship, over one million people in Australia who are residentially eligible to become citizens have not applied for citizenship. Many such people have made it clear that their reluctance to become citizens results from their unwillingness to swear the oath in its present form. I know that from personal experience. The honourable member for Gippsland talked about some of the migrants, the new settlers, in his electorate; I think I have more in mine. People in my electorate have told me that they will not take out Australian citizenship and swear the oath in its present form. The pledge of allegiance now proposed for new citizens captures the key elements of becoming an Australian citizen. As is now the case, new citizens will be able to choose between a religious and a secular form of pledge to their new nation. The wording of the proposed pledge states: I renounce any current citizenship, and all allegiance to any State other than Australia. I pledge- or 'swear by Almighty God'- that I will faithfully uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen. The Government believes this pledge of allegiance is distinctly Australian in character, expressing a clear commitment to Australia, its laws and Constitution , and avoiding what is for many people a confusing requirement to swear allegiance to a sovereign resident elsewhere. While there are legitimate differences of view on the monarchy, they should not be invoked in an Australian citizenship ceremony. The proposals bring everyone together, allowing all of them to make a full commitment of allegiance to Australia. The argument put by the honourable member for Denison so long ago, on Monday, 2 April, about why people come to Australia is absolute rubbish. One wonders whether he has any contact at all with the communities for which he purports to speak. Why is the honourable member for Denison always prophesying the end of the Hawke socialist Government? One thing of which we can all be sure is that the honourable member for Denison will keep making this prophecy. The other thing that is for sure is that it will not come to pass. Mr Groom —Want to bet? Mr HOLLIS —We will see after the election, will we not? Mr McGauran —When is the election? Mr HOLLIS —You will be told in good time. In case those opposite think that I am anti-British, nothing could be further from the truth. I must admit that I would not go as far as my colleague the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) when he spoke, and the sentiments he expressed, but I differ from many in the Opposition ; I lived in the United Kingdom for 11 years. I have two university degrees, both from British universities. Few in this House have greater respect or affection for Britain than I have. But, above all, I am Australian, despite my 11 years in the United Kingdom. I want to cast off the colonial cringe that those on the Opposition benches revel in so much. Do those opposite really think that this is the most important issue facing Australia today? As I said before, of course it is not. I actually beg those opposite to get out of the 1880s and move in to the 1980s. I ask them to show a little bit of national pride and stop talking this rubbish that they talk in his House. They should be Australian, think Australian and support this Bill. I conclude by paying tribute to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I have the great privilege in this House of representing the people of the Illawarra region, this great ethnic centre, as indeed does the Minister represent his great ethnic centre. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(10.42) —I am pleased to follow the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis). I did not realise that he had been to the United Kingdom and obtained two degrees from universities over there. Perhaps that explains his problems. I recall that a year or two ago the honourable member for Macarthur led a mob into Parliament House. He was great in front of the mob which bashed down the front door of Parliament House-- Mr Hollis —You are always accusing me of that. It is not true, you know. I was in the mob; I didn't lead them though. I was part of them, but not leader. Mr GROOM —He was very strong in the mob. But this is an important debate. It has been an emotional debate at times, but that is not such a bad thing. But it is important because it goes to the very heart of what this country is all about. The Government seeks to change the nature of citizenship in this country. I thought the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) made an excellent speech, as he always does. He made the point that we should recognise the importance of multiculturalism in this country. I have some doubts about that concept although I think we are very fortunate to have in Australia people from all parts of the world. It is great that we have people from all over Europe, from the Indian sub-continent and from Asia. These people coming to Australia have given us a vitality which has enriched the Australian community. But it is important to recognise that we have to understand that people have their different cultures. They have different heritages and backgrounds and they should be able to practise those things within Australia. That is great. But we are one country and there has to be this unity. There should be some diversity, certainly. It would be a terrible place if we all did the same thing. But also there must be a strength and a unity. We must be one nation. It would be a tragedy for this country if we became divided up into a whole lot of quite separate ethnic communities. Let us recognise the heritages and the cultures of these people, and the culture of our Aboriginal people also. Let them practise those cultures and even develop them within Australia, but also let us be one nation together. The honourable member for Macarthur said that there are people in his electorate who have come to Australia but who will not have a bar of this idea of swearing allegiance to the Queen. Mr Hollis —I did not say that. Mr GROOM —Yes, the honourable member did. He used words to that effect. He said that they would not swear allegiance to the Queen. That is what he intended to say. Why did these people come to Australia? Many people have come here because they thought there would be a better way of life in Australia and a better future for their kids. Mr Griffiths —Why did your forebears come to Tasmania? Mr GROOM —They came as free agents. They wanted to come to Australia, like anyone else, to better their lives. People do not come here for a worse existence. They come here because we have a very good standard of living and very high standards of education, health and welfare. These are the sorts of things people have come to Australia for. But when people come to Australia they also have to recognise something of our heritage and history, and the Queen is part of that history. I think we can get carried away with the idea of the monarchy. Let us recognise that we have a constitutional monarchy but the Queen, Her Majesty, does not make the decisions. I think the arrangements are very sound. They have worked very well so far. What is wrong with Australia? Why do honourable members opposite want to change these fundamental things and break down the structures and institutions that have made this country so great? Why do they want to change them as they obviously do? The honourable member for Macarthur did not say that he did not want to change the flag. He avoided that issue. Mr Hollis —The honourable member for Gippsland raised the matter of the flag. Mr GROOM —The honourable member for Macarthur raised it too, and I will reply to him. Members of the Australian Labor Party all around Australia are saying: 'Let us change the flag. Let us have a new flag by 1988.' They have not got the guts to say so in the Parliament. They are using sneaky methods to achieve their aims . The Government pretends to be a government of moderation. It has endeavoured to create an image of moderation but behind this moderation, if one looks into the depths of the Government, one sees that there is a very radical element. Some members of that radical element are in the House at the moment. This issue has dragged them in. They are trying to change a number of things. No one could suggest that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is not an avowed republican. He is on the record as saying that he is an avowed republican. A significant number of members on the Government benches are avowed republicans. The honourable member for Macarthur said that God has not been taken out of the oath. But what has happened to the oath? The word 'oath' has been removed. If the honourable member wants to know what the word 'oath' is all about, he has two university degrees from England and he ought to look up the dictionary, read it carefully and see what the word means. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) does not have the decency-I do not know where he is; he is hiding somewhere-to be in this House. What is he up to? He is following the same line as Al Grassby. He initiated all this in 1973. The same sorts of things were attempted in 1973 and they were knocked out. The word 'oath' has been replaced. I ask honourable members opposite seriously why they have replaced the word 'oath' with the word 'pledge'. What is a pledge? What is the difference between a pledge and an oath? I suggested that the honourable member for Macarthur look at that issue carefully and then he would understand why we are concerned about these moves. There is no doubt that we are moving down the prickly path towards republicanism. The people opposite may want to put this to the test. I note that the Minister has had the decency to come into the chamber at last. I would like him to say whether he is a republican. Does he want to change the flag? He is the man behind this Bill. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I suggest that the honourable member speak through the Chair and not directly to the Minister. Mr GROOM —Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I put those questions to the Minister at the table. Is he a republican? Does he want to change the flag? Is he against the Queen? He is the leader of the left-wing element in the ALP. He is the great leader of the radicals. He is the man behind this Bill. That makes us very suspicious of what is contained in the Bill. The national anthem has been changed. That is very relevant to this Bill. There was no reference to the people of Australia. There was a referendum a few years ago. People were asked what national song they preferred. Three choices were given. I think the choice should have been Waltzing Matilda but the people chose Advance Australia Fair and I accept that decision. They were asked to choose a national song. Is that correct? Mr Hodgman —Tune. Mr GROOM —A national tune. I thank the honourable member. He has corrected me. Recently, without any reference to the people, in a very arbitrary way, this Government said that the national anthem will now be Advance Australia Fair. The name of the Crown Solicitor has been changed to the Australian Solicitor. Photographs of the Queen are now being replaced in public buildings around Australia. There is a continuous attack upon Her Majesty, the Monarch of Australia, the Queen of Australia. I do not refer to her as the Queen of England . She is the Queen of Australia. Why is this happening? This is an insidious move down the track towards republicanism and it is about time the people of Australia woke up to what this Government is really all about. We have seen all these radical moves. I will not get on to sex discrimination. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I would not if I were you, under this Bill. Mr GROOM —I said that I will not. I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are going down the track toward republicanism. I think the people of Australia should be most concerned about these moves. I ask again: What is wrong with our present institutional arrangements? What is wrong with the Queen? Why are honourable members opposite against the Queen? Has not our system worked very well so far? What are the hangups of honourable members opposite? The Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) said a short time ago: 'Look at President Reagan.' Do honourable members opposite want an American system? Do the left-wingers want a American system with a president? I think this is the aim. There is some evidence of this. The aim is to have by 1988 a new flag, a republic and a president of the Australian Republic. No doubt, the man who has that ambition is Bob Hawke, the present Prime Minister. I think it is arguable that he is now the President of Australia but I will not develop that argument at this stage. Let us look at the oaths that we have had to this point. I refer to an excellent speech by the shadow spokesman for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). He referred to the existing oath of allegiance. It was brought in by Whitlam and the Labor Government in 1973. It 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. What could be more Australian than that? It is dinky-di Australian talk. That is a very appropriate oath of allegiance. Of course, a person can make an affirmation 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. These amendments were brought in by the Hon. E. G. Whitlam, Prime Minister of Australia. I believe those words remain most appropriate. However, as I said before, the Government wants to change this arrangement by requiring people to make a pledge. A pledge might be all right for someone who wants to take himself off drink or something like that, but why is a form of pledge appropriate in this instance? An insidious anti-God approach has been adopted in this legislation. The man behind the legislation, the creator of the legislation with his colleague, Mr Grassby, is the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, who is at the table. He is the leader of the left wing of the Australian Labor Party. We should be suspicious of this legislation because the Minister comes from the left wing of the Labor Party. I shall put something to the Minister at the table and I want a sincere answer. The Minister made an affirmation when he became a member of this Parliament. Who knows whether he will be a member of the next parliament. When he affirmed his obligations as a Minister he affirmed that he would bear allegiance to the Queen and that he would serve her faithfully. I wonder, as a matter of conscience, whether the Minister would be honest enough to say that he did not give a damn about that affirmation, that he has no allegiance to the Queen and that he has no allegiance-- Mr Hand —He has lasted longer than you did as a Minister. Mr GROOM —He has not yet. A week is a long time in politics. I was a Minister for three years. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I invite the honourable member to ignore interjections. Mr GROOM —I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I could not refrain from answering that interjection. What do we mean when we make an affirmation or swear an oath? Is it meaningless? Is there some importance in an affirmation? If there is importance in the affirmation and if the Minister meant what he said-I very much doubt it-why does he breach the solemn affirmation he gave and attack the Queen in every way he can? Why does he try to get rid of her from this country and make Australia a republic? That is what he wants to do; that is what it is all about. Perhaps he should come clean and admit now that that is what he wants to achieve. This Bill is also concerned with citizenship. How important is citizenship? It is very important for a person who wants to become a citizen of Australia. Such a person is declaring his desire to be part of Australia, to live in Australia and to become a true citizen. He wishes to indicate his true allegiance to the country and what it stands for. Citizenship conveys a sense of belonging. Of course, citizenship carries heavy responsibilities as well. I am disappointed when people who come to Australia and who want the best things that Australia can offer in terms of material gain are not prepared to become citizens of this country. Freedom has been mentioned in this debate and this is a great thing. We are probably freer than any other country in the world. United States of America surveys indicate just how free we are as a nation. People come from strife torn parts of the world to enjoy our freedom, our material wealth and our standard of living. They come to enjoy the good life that we have in Australia. However, according to the honourable member for Macarthur, some of them say: 'But I do not want to be part of this thing called the constitutional monarchy', which has made Australia great. People over a short time have worked to change these fundamental things. These people have had an influence on the Minister. I think it is tragic that we have downgraded the value of citizenship by reducing the residential period of three years in the previous eight years to two years in the previous five years. A person can reside in Australia for only two years and then become eligible for full citizenship of Australia. In fact, he can be here for two of the past three years. He could be here for two years, fly to some other country and be absent for 12 months and, under this piece of legislation if passed by this House, become an Australian citizen. He will be required to live here for only two years of the previous three years. Mr Steedman —Hear, hear! Mr GROOM —'Hear, hear' we hear from the left wingers. People can flit into Australia, be here for a short time, nick off again and become full Australian citizens. I think they should have to do more than that. If we look round the world we will see that in many countries people have to be resident for five years, eight years and 10 years. I believe that in some countries they have to be resident for as many as 12 years. But in Australia the period is only two years. I think that this requirement tends to undermine the true value of Australian citizenship. The explanation given by the Minister in his second reading speech is that we are living in a mobile world, that we have to understand that people travel around the world regularly and they should not have to stay here long to be able to qualify for Australian citizenship. Mr Goodluck —You have got them thinking, Ray. Mr GROOM —I hope that I have got them thinking. We are all Australians and we should fight for what we believe is right. I believe that we are fighting for good things. I am not an Anglophile like the honourable member for Macarthur, who went to live in England for about 12 years. I have lived in Australia all my life. I did not abandon Australia and try to get a better life in England, as the honourable member for Macarthur did. I can understand where he got his union training. He got it from the Pommie left wing unionists, or was it in Moscow? People should be required to stay here for a reasonable time before they can become full Australian citizens. This is a sly way to republicanism. This is what the legislation is all about. It is a step by step move along the path towards republicanism. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) clawed his way to power. He kicked poor old Bill Hayden in the teeth and knocked him down. He crawled over him to satisfy his own ambitions and his real ambition is to become the President of the republic of Australia by 1988. This legislation is designed to help him along the way. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the Minister wish to make a personal explanation? Mr BEAZLEY —I do indeed. The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom), during his remarks, implied that by way of interjection I advocated establishing a situation which would have President Reagan effectively President of this country. What I did do in the course of my remarks was ask honourable gentlemen opposite what they had against President Reagan rather than the situation to which the honourable member alluded. I, of course, have sworn an oath of allegiance to the Queen as Queen of Australia. I was able to swear that oath of allegiance because Gough Whitlam made her Queen of Australia. Prior to that point she was not Queen of Australia. For 71 years persistent periods of Tory government never got around to doing that, though the Tories loyally wish to defend it now. Ms FATIN(Canning)(12.03) —First of all, I would like to address my remarks to some of the comments made by the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom). I also want to thank the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) for reminding us of the changes that the Whitlam Government made to the status of the Queen in this country. The honourable member for Braddon has asked this House why the Government wants to change the legislation. I wonder whether the honourable member ever reflects on the fact that this country in terms of settlement is less than 200 years old and that this Parliament is less than 100 years old. Because of that we will be changing many things. We are in the middle of constant change. If this country did not change we would not be looking at bringing in people from overseas and we would not be learning and advancing so that this country could change for the better. Of course we are going to be involved in change. This Parliament should be involved in legislative change. There would not be much point in having a parliament if we did not change the legislation, introduce new legislation and rescind other legislation. Before I address my remarks to the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1983 I would like to read briefly from the second reading speech of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West). In that speech he said: The Government is committed to ensuring that the Act reflects the national identity of all Australians; that it does not discriminate between persons on the basis of their sex, marital status and present or previous nationality; that it provides for review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of decisions to deny or deprive persons of citizenship under the Act; and that it is thoroughly Australian in character. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to those commitments. I suggest also that the purpose of this Bill is to give effect to these changes. As the honourable member for Braddon should be aware, the Australian Citizenship Act as it exists today did not exist prior to 26 January 1949. In fact, citizenship has changed in status from 1788. We have had a variety of citizens of this nation. In the State of the honourable member for Braddon, as in mine, we have had a different history of settlement. We had free citizens and we had convict citizens. They were not citizens then, but they eventually became citizens. People have come from over 250 nations and settled in this country. The nature of this country changes every five to 10 years. I suggest to honourable members who ask why we want to change this Act that we want to change it to make it fairer and more just and to reflect the current thinking in this country. Before I address myself to some of the changes in the Bill itself, I comment briefly on some of the statements made by previous speakers, not necessarily during the debate today. As has already been mentioned by some of my colleagues, this debate has now been going on for a month and we have addressed ourselves to it at various times in this chamber. I make some comments about some of the things that have been said here because I think many of us should reflect on some of these remarks and be rather ashamed of them. I might add that such remarks come from the other side of the chamber. We in the Government have spent the greater part of this debate trying to spell out in the clearest possible way what the Citizenship Amendment Bill entails. We have done this because we believe that the Bill is important both to the Parliament and to the people of Australia. One would have thought that the Opposition also would have concentrated on clarifying the various aspects of the Bill which have been discussed in the community. Looking back over the debate, however, I have found that the opposite has been the case. We have just heard the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), say that Australia will become a banana republic because of this Bill. The honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) agreed with him and added that the Government is motivated by resentment of Britain and all things British. I suggest that that is utter nonsense. If the honourable member for Wide Bay thinks that Australia's acknowledgement of its British heritage depends on whether migrants swear an oath of allegiance to the British monarch, I suggest that he is demonstrating a complete lack of understanding about what it means to recognise a cultural, social, economic and political link. Unfortunately, the honourable member for Wide Bay did not confine himself to giving the House his rather quaint version of Irish history and Anglo-Australian associations. He also gave us his definition of multiculturalism and his views on racial equality. I was truly appalled to hear a member of this House associate himself so unashamedly with such a blatantly racist position. In relation to people discharging the duties of Australian citizenship, the honourable member said that some people lacked the capacity to educate themselves directly on Australian issues. To illustrate his point he chose the Aboriginals, the Australians who have been here for generations, for thousands of years. He said: They became 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 understanding. They became simply an echo for the opinions and ambitions of others. He goes on to make his point absolutely specific: 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. My colleague the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) was moved following that speech to remark on the disgraceful performance by the honourable member for Wide Bay. He hoped that Al Grassby never reads the Hansard report of this debate . I add to that that I hope that no one of Aboriginal descent ever sees the way the Aborigines were referred to in this debate. The offensive attitude displayed in this House by the honourable member for Wide Bay is a blot on this House. I suggest that it reflects some of the minority views at the moment being expressed in the community in an endeavour to whip up an issue. Many politically motivated people in the community who look at this Government today cannot find any other issue than one such as racism on which to attempt to stir up some form of sympathy for their position in the political system. The honourable member for Wide Bay dared to talk about not undermining the status of Australian citizenship by accepting second and third class citizens. It is not very hard to understand what the honourable member means by a first class citizen. One of his colleagues, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) talked about traditions which had made Australia great. We know some of the traditions of old-style conservatism in Australia, the old divisive ethnocentric traditions that were tearing Australia apart before the people of Australia woke up and threw out the party which even now cannot get over the fact that it was not born to rule. What kind of attitude does the honourable member for Moreton have towards migrants in general? He said: Many people play it quietly until they get Australian citizenship and then resort to what may be bad habits. What on earth, I ask, could he mean by that? Many people? Bad habits? This really is the language of bigoted paranoia. I comment very briefly on the amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) in which he refers to the 'overwhelming majority of Australians'. I suggest that this is another demonstration of the terrible difficulty the Opposition seems to be having in counting. In my view a small number of people either have failed to acquaint themselves with the actual terms of the Bill before rushing in here yelling about abolishing the Queen-we have heard that again today-or their capacity to understand what it means to acknowledge a rich and diverse heritage is so limited that they are content to base their criticisms on the distorted, alarmist reports which circulate in certain quarters every time a change of any kind is proposed. Let us face it, some people, for their own reasons, cannot admit that Australia is a free and independent multicultural society. To turn this small number into an overwhelming majority is, I suppose, worked out according to some mathematical logic that keeps the Opposition from recognising how little support there is in the community for its outdated attitudes. I would now like briefly to address myself to some of the proposed changes. This Bill reflects the Government's four basic principles relating to the provision of Australian citizenship. All of us have spent many evenings in our electorates at citizenship ceremonies. We recognise the importance of these ceremonies and the fact that they are held in high esteem by people in the community who are either performing ceremonies for the Minister or who are there to become citizens of this great country. Firstly, the Bill ensures that the Australian Citizenship Act reflects the common national identity of all Australians. Secondly, it removes from the Act discrimination between persons on the basis of sex, marital status and national origin. Thirdly, it provides for review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of the Minister to deny or deprive persons of citizenship under the Act. Fourthly, it amends the Act so that it is thoroughly Australian in character. In applying these principles to drafting the proposed amendments it became necessary to include measures to eliminate various anomalies, reduce subjectivity in criteria for citizenship, clarify and simplify administrative requirements, and remove redundant provisions. I once again remind the honourable member for Braddon that that is why we are changing the Act. I now briefly address myself to a rather contentious issue, which seems to generate a lot of antagonism across the chamber, and I refer to the nature of the pledge. During national consultations-initiated, I might add, by the previous Government in 1982-a number of points emerged about what people wanted the pledge to express. I remind the House that there was strong support for a pledge which is distinctly Australian in character, which expresses full commitment to Australia, its laws and Constitution, and which avoids the requirement to swear allegiance to a sovereign resident elsewhere. It may come as some surprise to the Opposition to know that the report of the consultations made it clear that these views were expressed by people from a variety of backgrounds, including holders of imperial awards and people who thought Australia should retain its links with Great Britain. The Bill proposes two forms of pledge. One pledge contains a reference to Almighty God, in recognition of the fact that many people want to swear an oath before God when giving allegiance to Australia as they become a citizen. Mr Groom —Which one? Ms FATIN —Is the honourable member for Braddon asking which god or which pledge? I suppose it depends on which country these people come from. A Buddhist who came from China might take that up with me and say that he or she does not necessarily believe in a god. A Moslem may come here and wish to take the oath and swear to his or her god and a Hindu to his or her gods. One pledge contains a reference, as I have already said, to Almighty God, in recognition of the fact that many people want to swear an oath before God when giving the allegiance to Australia as they become citizens. Both pledges incorporate the same three basic elements. The first is the renunciation of former allegiance, the second is a commitment to observe the laws of Australia, and the third is a declaration of new allegiance to Australia. I am sure many of my colleagues in this chamber have been to citizenship ceremonies and have seen the numbers of people who affirm at those ceremonies. I suggest that my electorate is very similar to many others in terms of mix of people and their religious or other beliefs, and I find that there are quite substantial numbers of people who do affirm. So I do not see that there will be any problem. There are a number of people in this community who do affirm. Mr Hodgman —Three out of ten. Ms FATIN —That is a substantial number, I would suggest. A number of people have made representations objecting to the possible deletion of references to God from the oath of allegiance. Their feelings have been taken into account in drafting the two proposed forms of the pledge of Australian citizenship. Likewise, some people have expressed their concern about the removal of reference to the Queen from the oath of allegiance but, just as the new forms of pledge will allow people to express their full commitment to Australia, whatever their religious beliefs, so neither form differentiates between Australians on the basis of their attitudes to the monarchy. By this change I suggest we have removed the possibility of discrimination in that respect. As the Government has stressed throughout this debate, a citizenship ceremony is not the appropriate forum for a discussion about the relative merits of republicanism and the monarchy. I also comment on the change relating to the responsible parent. This Bill removes the present discrimination between men and women by giving equal rights to both parents. Under the present legislation the father is the responsible parent. The mother is the responsible parent only if the father is dead, or the mother has custody, or the child is born out of wedlock. The Bill removes any distinctions between the mother and the father and between children born in or out of wedlock. Instead it defines 'responsible parent' in terms of having guardianship or custody of the child, whether jointly or otherwise. I acknowledge that the Opposition is also pleased with that amendment. The Bill amends the present requirement that applicants for citizenship have an adequate knowledge of English. The Government believes that, rather than bringing people down because of their lack of English, we should be encouraging them to improve their English. With the new requirement of a basic knowledge, applicants will still have to understand enough English to be able to go through the citizenship ceremony, unless they are over 50 years of age. Even members of the Opposition admit that this latest amendment is a humane proposal. I congratulate the Minister for his commitment to these changes. Since I have been in this place he has indicated to us, both here and in committee and party meetings that he is totally committed to changing the Act and introducing this Bill, and I commend him for that. I wish not only to congratulate him but also the Government for the changes. I have to say that I have been horrified and at times disgusted by some of the racist comments from the other side of the chamber. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(11.23) —Time after time this Government claims that it is a government of reform. It claims it is healing the divisiveness within our community. What humbug and hypocrisy that is. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) opened his speech on the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill by saying that the Bill is 'thoroughly Australian in character'. Obviously the Minister has a different understanding of what is Australian. Perhaps it is from a socialist left factional perspective that the Minister believes it is Australian to pillage the rightful role of the Queen of Australia . Perhaps from his myopic Labor view it is considered Australian to downgrade the Queen, God, our language and our democratic system based on the Westminster principles. This Bill is a well planned move towards dragooning Australians into republicanism. Members on the opposite side may scoff, but let us not forget the comments made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's world today program as recently as 26 January 1984. He said: I believe that this-- that is republicanism-- is something that ought to and will happen. The Prime Minister has merely converted the immature 'little Australian' nationalism of earlier decades into an artificial ocker nationalism of the 1980s . I can happily and confidently tell this House that the people do not want a republic and will not accommodate the Prime Minister's ambition to be President. The people do not want the changes proposed in this Bill to the oath of allegiance, as the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has resolutely told this House time and again. I know this from the reaction within my electorate and the gallup polls, and the hilarity which has greeted the offer of a portrait of the Prime Minister to Commonwealth departments and units of the defence forces. Australia has a proud history as a constitutional monarchy. It joins the ranks of many other such countries, all of which have stable governments and are democracies that are an example to new emerging nations. Let me remind the House that the real significance of a monarch is in the power the monarchy denies to others and not so much in the limited power the monarch has. It is a safeguard that has worked well throughout our history. The Queen of Australia is recognised by all residents in this country. It is malicious to suggest that new settlers are confused by the role the Queen plays. Even if one accepted an argument that initially some new settlers are unsure of the role of the Queen of Australia then surely they should become aware of that role before they seek Australian citizenship. I remind this House that citizenship should be seen as a privilege and an honour, and not be demeaned to the level of a driving licence. Citizenship places certain rights on the individual but also demands certain duties in return. I will come to that later. Yet the Minister proposes in this Bill to do away with any reference to the Queen. I note that he did not have the courage to eliminate God. Is that because in the gallup polls God still outrates the Prime Minister? If I recollect correctly, the Prime Minister is well behind God in the gallup polls. This Bill proposes to abolish the oath and replace it with a 'pledge'. What does the Minister mean by a pledge? To whom is this pledge made? Mr Deputy Speaker, let me read the proposed 'pledge'. It says: I renounce any current citizenship and allegiance to any state other than Australia. I pledge that I faithfully uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen. This is foreign to Australians. Perhaps the Minister has been watching too many American television shows. As I said earlier, the Minister has purposely eliminated any reference to God. I agree that a new citizen will be able to specially request the so-called pledge with reference to God, but again I ask why this change is necessary. There has always been a provision for those people who wish to make an affirmation. To do so, why is it now necessary, by legislation, to place the onus on the new citizen to have to make a request for an oath to God? I remind the Minister that again he is out of touch with the community. In the last census an overwhelming percentage of the population identified themselves with a religious denomination believing in a god, Christian or otherwise. Why has the Government decided to ignore the majority? Why is there such a manical desire to abolish, to tear down, the values that are dear to so many Australians? What will be next to go-the national flag? This obsessional desire to water down the basis of our heritage is continued by the proposed changes in English language requirements. Again there is no logic in the Bill. The Minister says: Knowledge of English is essential to full participation in Australia's social, cultural and political life . . . I agree with what the Minister says. But then the Minister continues and says that the Government does not wish to deny citizenship to those with limited English. Then, a few words later, the Minister says: . . . applicants for citizenship must have only a basic knowledge of English. What does the Minister mean by his words 'limited English', 'basic English' and 'knowledge of English'? It is my understanding that the English language requirement has been conversational ability. Does the Minister propose to lower the standard already set by the previous Government? If that is the intention of this Government, the Opposition is totally opposed to such moves. I said earlier that citizenship not only provides certain privileges but also demands certain responsibilities from a citizen. One of the responsibilities is jury service. It is the obligation of every Australian citizen to serve on a jury when required to do so. If we lower the language criteria we are making a mockery of the jury system-but perhaps this Government plans to abolish that institution of our lifestyle, too. How can citizens who have a very limited knowledge of the English language fulfil this duty? Does the Minister propose to establish two classes of citizens-English speaking and non-English speaking? Let me also refer to the question of exercising one's constitutional rights of voting. A lowering of the English language requirements will contribute little to encouraging the casting of a valid and thought out vote. I cannot fathom the purpose of this move. It is especially difficult to understand when we find that the number of applicants meeting current standards is increasing. I cannot understand, when 1.2 million residents meet citizenship requirements and do not wish citizenship, why a lowering of requirements is needed to attract these people. They have made their choice not to seek citizenship. Why should we either try to buy their interest by lowering standards or entice them in some other way? Again the Minister aims to demean the status of citizenship as an integral part of our heritage. I now turn to a very serious matter that will emanate as a result of this Bill. The Minister, in his headlong rush to attract more people, proposes to reduce the residence eligibility period from three years to two years. He says one reason is 'increased international mobility'. For once the Minister is right but has he considered the security aspects emanating from the increased mobility? Australia, like most other countries, faces the ever-increasing dangers of terrorism and drug trafficking. In such a climate security checks are most important. One need only talk to members of the forces protecting this country to realise how difficult this increasing mobility makes establishing proper and accurate security checks. One need only read the report of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking to realise the importance of passports and citizenship to the international drug trader. Yet in the face of all that the Minister proposes to relax the continuous residence requirement from the 12 months immediately preceding the application to 12 months residence in the previous two years. Mr Hodgman —Aggregate. Mr ALDRED —Correct. Again the Minister has exhibited his desperation to attract new citizens to Australia at any cost. I again emphasise that citizenship is not a right that can be automatically acquired. It is a privilege and an honour and I know from my own experiences at citizenship ceremonies and in dealing with ethnic groups that our new citizens see Australian citizenship in that light. This Bill does nothing to enhance citizenship. This Bill has not been thought out clearly and fully and, more importantly, it is being used as a veil over this Government's intentions to force Australia to become a republic. I sincerely hope that in that institution of considerable Australian history and heritage, the Australian Senate, wiser counsel prevails and appropriate action is taken. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(11.34) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I go back to a couple of comments made by previous speakers. The content of the debate so far on the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill has been a judicious mixture of analysis of the existing provisions of the Australian Citizenship Act and also a lot of hyperbole. That is to be expected, having regard to the history of inactivity of those on the other side of the House. We have heard a lot about the new national anthem and proposals about a new flag for Australia, but we have heard very little from the other side about what the Bill comprises. Let me go back to a couple of comments relating to the new national anthem that are deserving of some further attention. A poll recently taken in Queensland indicated that some 84 per cent of those polled actually supported Advance Australia Fair as the new national anthem. In the next few months that may be cause for some reflection on the part of the Queensland Premier who, I think, assumes that there is widespread support for the old anthem. I certainly do not think that is the case. The poll tends to confirm that is indicative of the lack of touch of the coalition parties not only on this issue but also on a whole range of other issues. I think they ought to give some consideration to leaving behind views that are firmly entrenched in years gone by and have a review of what they are about. The coalition parties apply the same sort of argument to the issue of the Australian flag. Let me say that I am on record as indicating my view that it is premature to think about changing the flag. Nevertheless, a flag is simply a material representation, if you like, of what Australia is all about. If at some stage in the future the Australian people take the view that the flag in its existing style no longer reflects adequately what they believe Australia is all about, no doubt at some stage in the future the flag will be changed, as flags have been changed in many countries during their history. I reiterate that my view is that it is premature to go down that road at this time, but certainly the public debate engendered on this subject is to be encouraged. The Australian Citizenship Act did not exist prior to 1949. Many speakers, in the comments they have made here today, have assumed that there has been some long history of people having a fixed attitude to the requirements of Australian citizenship. That is simply incorrect. Australian citizenship was allowed to British subjects and also to Australian residents but we also had another ugly category of 'aliens'. It seems to me that the perception of that category has really continued as an implicit part of what some members of the Opposition parties have put to us today. The attitude to those aliens-we call them ethnic Australians or Australians of ethnic origin-seems to be something that is implicit in a whole range of policy areas and I think the history of the attitude of the coalition parties which are now in Opposition is such that it really cannot be held up in this House as being one of care for ethnic Australians. The subject of the treatment of Aboriginals was raised here earlier by my colleague from Tasmania the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom). I hope he has dissociated himself from the current activities of the Tasmanian Government with respect to the burial of Aboriginal remains. Mr Groom —You are not up with the latest. Mr GRIFFITHS —Nevertheless, your Government put a position and I did not hear you dissociate yourself from it. Mr Groom —Things have changed. Mr GRIFFITHS —Things have changed, but that reflects no credit upon you or your colleagues from Tasmania. Mr Groom —You would be surprised. You should deal with the facts. Mr GRIFFITHS —You raised the issue. We also have the shameful treatment-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! I ask the honourable member to direct his comments through the Chair. Mr GRIFFITHS —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In Queensland we also had the shameful treatment of Senator Bonner. I refer to the dumping of the only Aboriginal representative in the Federal Parliament. Again, the honourable member opposite raised the issue. I could go on, but I shall not. I will return to the contents of the Citizenship Act. In this debate the honourable member for Braddon also talked about people raising the flag. My only comment is that the honourable member for Braddon has raised the flag-the flag of surrender. He is mindful of what will happen to a party which is absolutely out of touch with the aspirations of the Australian electorate and he has now announced his resignation. Mr Goodluck —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I ask the honourable member to withdraw that remark, because the honourable member for Braddon, one of the finest members that this House has ever had, is resigning from Parliament for family reasons. I ask the honourable member to withdraw that statement because if he does not he will face a concerted attack from here on. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not debate that point. Mr GRIFFITHS —The Labor Government has taken a range of initiatives to encourage -- Mr Hodgman —Are you going to withdraw? Mr GRIFFITHS —With respect to the Deputy Speaker, I have not been asked to withdraw. I shall but the point was worthy of being made. The Labor Government has taken a whole range of initiatives which I think will go some considerable way towards encouraging the 1.2 million people currently residing in Australia who have lived here for more than the existing three-year period required under the current Act and who have yet to take out citizenship to do so. This range of initiatives will help such people to see themselves as part of the Australian community and will go a considerable way towards encouraging them to take out Australian citizenship. The theme of the Government's involvement in these areas is to break the common nexus between ethnicity and disadvantage. It is a common theme but it had not really been addressed by governments in the post-war period until perhaps the beginning of the 1970s. Certainly, in the short months since March 1983, this Government has taken a number of initiatives to assist ethnic Australians. These initiatives have had a significant impact on the views of people as to whether they ought to participate more fully in our democratic process, and it is a common theme. I represent the electorate of Maribyrnong. It is an electorate which comprises very large numbers of people of ethnic background. A common theme that I have heard in discussions with my constituents is a view that things are happening. It may be that because my seat is part of the western region of Melbourne, an area that hitherto has been relatively neglected by a number of governments, my constituents have a greater perception of government involvement in areas that assist them directly. Through that perception they may come to the conclusion that they want to participate because they are being given a fair go. They are being treated as Australians are on other sides of Melbourne. Let me give the House a few examples of areas of government involvement which I know have encouraged people to come to my office and inquire about taking out Australian citizenship. For example, in the western region of Melbourne the adult migration education program has had a major impact on people's perception of their standing in our community. They believe that progam is giving them a fair go and it is encouraging them to take out Australian citizenship. Expenditure for this program has increased by 14 per cent in the last year and there are provisions for a significant increase in the number of permanent teachers in that area of education. Another example of the Government's initiatives is the development of a new materials and syllabus centre to increase the effectiveness of English language teaching through better professional support. This goes to the very issues raised by the honourable member for Braddon in regard to the basic English requirements. Funds have been allocated to expand and improve occupational English classes for migrants in the work place. Again, this is a significant step towards addressing the very issues raised by my colleague. Priority will be given to needy schools under the Commonwealth education programs. These schools, of course, contain a disproportionately large number of ethnic children and such schools are substantially represented in electorates such as mine. The participation and equity program is designed to improve the number of children completing full secondary education either in school or in the area of technical and further education. I refer also to the review by the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs of post arrival programs. The Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts is conducting an inquiry into a national language policy. Of course, we await with some interest the results of that inquiry. Another Labor Government initiative is the develpment of a National Advisory and Co-ordinating Committee on Multicultural Education to advise the Government on the cultural resources available and the changes needed to the education system so that it better reflects the ethnic composition of the Australian community and provides for equality. The Sex Discrimination Act, adverted to by a number of previous speakers, will provide redress for migrant women who suffer discrimination in employment, housing and access to services, or who suffer from sexual harassment in the work place. The Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill of course, also encompasses anti-discrimination provisions and is an added incentive for the ethnic communities to participate by taking out citizenship. A migrant women's desk has been established in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. That is, hitherto, an area which has been relatively neglected by that Department. Provision has been made for substantial funding for child care facilities in association with English language classes to help ensure that migrant women are able to attend those classes. It is, of course, of the utmost stupidity to provide resources that people cannot utilise because of their own particular circumstances. Funding has been provided for the women's emergency services program to employ ethnic workers in women's refuges. This provision, while not affecting a wide range of people, has had a significant impact in my area. Migrant women, because of their cultural backgrounds, are often in a more vulnerable position than Australian women. Initiatives like this go a long way towards encouraging migrant women to see themselves as full members of the Australian community. Migrant women are now represented in the Government's new arrangements for consultation with women's organisations and interest groups. That area, again, has been relatively neglected in the past. I see my colleague, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) nodding his head in agreement. I thank him for that. An immigration policy was introduced in 1973 that does not discriminate between nationality, race or creed. Of course, that was an initiative of the Whitlam Government. The thrust of that policy I must say, in all fairness, was essentially maintained in terms of the current Bill. Of course, we took into account the policy review which was initiated by the now Opposition parties, if my memory serves me correctly, in about June 1983. That review was a significant acknowledgement by the now Opposition that there needed to be change in the context of the Australian Citizenship Act. Of course, we ensured that our own policy commitments have been reflected in the Act in its final form. No one would expect us to do otherwise. I shall not go through, ad infinitum, initiatives that the Government has taken in respect of ethnic communities. I believe, as I have already indicated, that those initiatives are an integral part of encouraging ethnic individuals or people with ethnic backgrounds to take the step to become Australian citizens. As has been previously indicated, that step should be accorded the utmost respect by anyone taking it because of its important and sensitive nature. However, there are a number of things that I would like to comment on that have only been touched on in passing. The qualifying period for citizenship has now been reduced from three years to two years. I think that is a fundamentally important decision. I have always felt that a real step towards becoming an Australian citizen is the decision to come to Australia and to make Australia one's home. I think that a period of two years, if the applicants accord with the other eligibility requirements, should suffice. However, a particularly important provision of the Bill is the section that allows for appeals on a number of grounds to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. In the past there has always been a sneaking suspicion in some immigration cases that political clout is a more important criterion than merit for people seeking a change in their citizenship status either by applying for Australian citizenship or to matters such as deportation or deprivation of Australian citizenship. I think the Government has taken an important step in that regard. It reflects well on the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) that, in future, those sorts of decisions will be placed before a proper judicial tribunal and will not be subject to the executive whim of a Minister who may or may not be influenced by criteria other than those of the merits of the case. I have already adverted to the initiatives taken by this Government to improve knowledge of the English language by all new Australians of ethnic backgrounds. Recently a detailed study was conducted in the western region of Melbourne. It showed that a lack of knowledge of English was a significant impediment to young Australians of ethnic backgrounds getting employment even though they had been born in Australia. So, for goodness sake, how we could demand that people, for example, over the age of 50 who have only been here for five years should have a knowledge of English that exceeds that of young Australian born people in their mid-20s is beyond me. I think it is an unjustified demand and, in terms of the number of Australians who have not taken out citizenship, certainly a demand that demonstrably, has not been able to be met by a whole range of people who would consider it a very high honour to take out Australian citizenship. The Bill amends the requirement that an applicant for citizenship should demonstrate an adequate knowledge of the English language. Of course, that excites some passion in people who take that provision at face value and who do not go on to read the other qualifications. For goodness sake, I think that if there was a harsh enough judge had the Queensland Premier arrived from New Zealand today rather than some years ago he would not pass that test. A knowledge of the English language is essential to full participation in the Australian social, cultural and political life. However, the Government does not wish to deny citizenship to those with limited English who have lived in Australia for some time and who would take pride in becoming Australian citizens . The Bill proposes that applicants for citizenship must have only a basic knowledge of English. Applicants over 50 years of age will be exempt from the new requirement of a knowledge of basic English recognising the difficulty that many older people have in learning a new language. Everywhere I go in my electorate I talk to older members of the various ethnic communities. They are no less a people than other Australians. In my view they have equal rights. Indeed, many of them, in my subjective view, would make better citizens of this country than many of those who were born with that right. For example, only recently I spoke to the Chief Commissioner of the Victoria Police, Mr Miller. We were talking about the ethnic group which had invited us to a Returned Services League function, of all things. The RSL sub-branch comprised solely Italian returned soldiers. In talking about that community we recalled a number of interesting statistics. The Italian community has the highest rate of home ownership in Australia. It has one of the lowest rates of criminality of any group in Australia and because members of that group happen to be over 50 and have a lack of understanding of English I do not think we should preclude them from becoming Australian citizens. I am mindful that my time is running out. I thank the House for its indulgence and commend the Bill to the House. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(11.53) —When introducing the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill into the House, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West), in his second reading speech, said: This Bill is the outcome of the most extensive review of the Citizenship Act since it was passed by Parliament in 1948 under the Chifley Labor Government. There is no doubt that this is a most extensive review and change to the Australian Citizenship Act. That is beyond question. However, I question the reasons why there has to be such an extensive change to the Citizenship Act. There is no question that any legislation of this Parliament or any other parliament needs to be constantly reviewed to ensure that it is still appropriate to the Australian community. But why are these extensive changes being made at this time? During their contributions to this debate, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) and the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) suggested that this Bill is part of a much wider plan by the present Government to turn Australia into a republic. I suggest that the honourable member for Braddon and the honourable member for Gippsland were quite correct in their observations. When we debate the Bill I believe we need to look beyond its parameters to find the direction in which this Government is taking Australia. I believe the Bill represents one part of a much more extensive master plan to break down the very social fabric of this country. Mr Milton —Nonsense! Mr BURR —My colleague the honourable member for La Trobe, who is a member of the socialist left in Victoria, suggests that that is nonsense. Perhaps I will inform him of a few other facts as I go along in my contribution. There is no doubt that Australia has an Anglo-Saxon background. That is our heritage and our history. That is the very origin of this country and its social fabric. What this Government is about is a very purposeful attempt to break down the Anglo- Saxon origins, traditions and history that have surrounded and built this country into what it is today. I do not believe the Government alone is the perpetrator of this master plan. I believe it is the innocent fool, if I can put it that way, which is being led by others of a more sinister nature. For the benefit of the Minister and the House I will quote from a book entitled Red Over Black, written by an Aboriginal named Geoff McDonald. Perhaps I should inform the House of Mr McDonald's background. For 20 years he was a member of the Communist Party of Australia. He was trained by the Communist Party at its special training camp in Minto New South Wales to be a communist activator within particular organisations in this country. After 20 years in the Communist Party Mr McDonald realised the error of his ways and decided that, for the sake of Australia, he should expose what was happening within the Communist Party and how its activists were operating in various organisations. I quote from Mr McDonald's book: However, the history of this century has demonstrated time and time again how Communists have been sucesssful in adopting Lenin's famous teaching of exploiting those whom he described as ''useful idiots''. During my own days in the Communist movement I learned how relatively easy it is for Communists to exploit the idealism and misguided views of non-Communists. Many politicians are , unfortunately, just as easy to mislead as others. The steady global Communist advance over the past sixty years has been achieved primarily by Communists exploiting gullible and mis-informed people. Mr McDonald makes it perfectly clear that the Communist Party considers that there are 'useful idiots' in this community. He also makes the point that members of parliament are just as easily exploited, just as much useful idiots, as people who might be involved in various organisations in the community within either the academic world or other spheres of influence. I believe those communist activists are treating the Parliament and members of the Australian Labor Party as 'useful idiots' in bringing this Bill into the House, and also in some of the other actions that are being taken by the Government, to undermine the social fabric of Australia. There is no question that the best way to undermine the economy and the social fabric of Australia is to distort our history and origins and the things we hold dear which we can pass on to successive generations. Mr McDonald earlier in his book stated: . . . the issue is largely one of the need for a society to be homogeneous if it is to be stable. If one accepts that theory then obviously, by distorting the homogeneous structure of our society, one has the very basis of making a society unstable. I believe that in part, that is what the Bill is all about. It is not an attempt to bring nationalism to Australia. It is an attempt by communist activists to undermine and distort the social fabric of Australia. They are using the Government and members of the Labor Party as useful idiots in achieving that objective. Part of the Bill's function is to change the oath of allegiance, to take the word 'God' out of the oath of allegiance. Who in this place would suggest that Australia is not a Christian country? Who would suggest that? My friends on the other side of the chamber are notable by their silence. Who would suggest that Australia is not a Christian country? Who would deny people who are Christians the right to make their oath in the name of God? That is what this Government is doing. It is taking away the right of people who come to this country to pursue their Christian belief by swearing an oath to God. At the moment the Act provides that people of various religious backgrounds can make an oath in the name of God or an affirmation, if that is their wish. But by taking the word ' God' out of the oath of allegiance we are giving those people a choice of making an affirmation or an affirmation. There is no choice. Mr Griffiths —I raise a point of order. The honourable member is misleading the House insofar as he is indicating that the Bill does not provide for swearing to God. I refer to the second alternative: 'I swear by Almighty God that I will faithfully uphold . . .'. The honourable member is misleading the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —There is no point of order. The honourable member for Maribyrnong is debating the issue. Mr BURR —I go further in outlining what the Government is trying to do in changing the social fabric of Australia, and these matters were referred to by my colleagues in their contributions. I impress on the House that we need to look at the Bill in the context of what is taking place by action of the Government. For instance, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) used his autocratic decision-making powers to tell Australia that it had a new national anthem. Even Mr Whitlam, in his halcyon days, did not attempt to do that. At least he had the courtesy to Australia to conduct a referendum. But not the present Prime Minister. He did not even show that courtesy to the people of Australia. He simply informed them, by way of a Press release, that suddenly we had a new national anthem. I would have thought that, if the symbols of Australia are to be changed, at least the Australian people should have some say in how those symbols are to be changed or whether they should be changed. That was not the case with the present Prime Minister. He decided that he knew better than the people of Australia and told us that we had a new national anthem. We understand also that plans are afoot to change the style of the Australian flag. I ask why the Government should be considering changing the Australian flag. It is the flag under which this country was brought together in 1901. It is the flag that has held this country together since that time. Yet these people want to change the flag and the symbols that have held this country together. I believe there is a purposeful attempt to break down and distort the very social fabric that has held this country together since its formation. Mr Hodgman —They want the hammer and sickle. Mr BURR —I believe my colleague the honourable member for Denison is right; they want the hammer and sickle. On the first sitting day of this Parliament we were reminded by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) that we on this side of the chamber do not have the numbers to do anything. Government members believe that, because they have the numbers, they have the right to change Australia. But why did they not take this to the people as part of their manifesto and see if they could get a mandate to change Australia? Why did they not tell people before the last election that they wanted to change the flag? Why did they not tell people that they wanted to change the oath of allegiance? Why did they not tell people that they wanted to open the doors of Australia for a flood of Asian immigration ? No, they did not mention any of these things. But now it is being exposed that this is what they are on about. This is what the Government is doing and all we on this side of the House can do is to try to expose its actions to the people of Australia to allow them to make a judgment whenever the Government dares to go to the polls on the next occasion. I believe that what we are witnessing at the moment is a sinister program to undermine completely the social fabric of Australia, to change the very nature of this country, to move away from our Anglo-Saxon background, to remove any history that has held this country together and, in part, to turn it into a country that will be nothing resembling the country we have known in the past. This will be terribly disruptive. I believe it is part of the communist plan to help to bring Marxism into this country. Unless the people of Australia are alerted to what this Government is about, it could very well be successful. I do not claim that I have the numbers over here to stop the Government but what we have got are voices to warn people of what the Government is about. This is not just a Bill to change the Citizenship Act. It is far more sinister than taking God out of the oath of allegiance It is a program to break down Australia. I can assure Government members that, while they might consider themselves to be useful idiots who can be used by communists, there is not one honourable member on this side of the House who is a useful idiot. We will not allow ourselves to be used by communists in the way those people have been used. Nor will we allow this sort of thing to be done that will undermine Australia. We will not allow the Government to get away with it without our at least forewarning the people of what the Government is about. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(12.08) —I was amazed to hear the remarks of the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) who has just sat down. I cannot help feeling that somebody else must have written his speech for him because it is quite out of character for him to charge that the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1983, which is before the House, has resulted from the work of communists and people working against a Christian society. These comments represent communist bashing of the worst kind. It was a most uncharacteristic outburst of nonsense and we can see from the comments he has made who the idiots are in this chamber. As an English migrant who has been resident in Australia for 23 years, it gives me a particular pleasure, and indeed a pride, to be a member of a Labor Federal Government which is introducing mush needed amendments to the 1948 Citizenship Act. The Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1983 reflects the multicultural nature of today's Australian society and has my overwhelming support. In February 1961 when my wife Joyce and I, with our three children, Stephen, Ivan and Janet, emigrated from England to Australia we had the good fortune to be supported by the assisted migrant program. For the total sum of #20 or $40 we were able to travel from London to Melbourne on the Fair Sky of the Sitmar Line- - Mr Brumby —We got good value. You are a great member. Mr MILTON —I thank the honourable member. This ship was manned mainly by Italian sailors, who were particularly kind to the hundreds of young British children aboard, and was captained by an Argentinian. I think it was a good bargain and obviously the electors of La Trobe, having put me in this place to represent them on two occasions so far, believe that the $40 was cheap at the price. In fact there are a number of distinguished members on this side of the House who ware also born overseas and who have made some very valuable contributions in debates in this House. Judging from some of the ribald comments from members on the opposite side of the House when I first joined the Parliament in October 1980, they had other ideas. Mr Beazley —They didn't like your English accent. Mr MILTON —I will say something about that in a moment. I notice that there have been comments in the media about whether the term 'Pom' is offensive. I understand that the acronym 'Pom' stands for Prisoner of Mother England and in that sense it certainly is not offensive because many of those early migrants from England were convicts because they had rebelled against a system of harsh and exploitative oppression. Of course, it really depends on the tone of the voice whether being called a 'Pom' is offensive or friendly. There was no doubt of the intention of members of the Opposition when they jeered at my accent. They also jeered at my honourable friends and colleagues the honourable members for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) and the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent). The intention of honourable members opposite was to mock us because we had distinct overseas accents. Even the honourable member for Burke ( Dr Theophanous) was mocked, not because he had a foreign accent but because he had a Greek name. This latent and sometimes blatant racism is a hallmark of some members of the Opposition and that is why they are maliciously and irresponsibly attacking the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) on the implementation of what previously has been seen as a bipartisan immigration policy. I was most surprised to read in the newspapers and listen on the radio to the comments of Professor Geoffrey Blainey on Asian immigration. I was surprised to find that a man who was a one-time colleague of mine at the University of Melbourne, and whom I know to be a man of humane disposition, cannot see that his remarks are inflaming the latent racism of a minority of ignorant and insecure Australians. Professor Blainey has stated quite correctly that in 1983, 40 per cent of our migrant places were filled by Asians. However, what he fails to say is that the present immigration policy is based on humanitarian principles of which genuine refugee status and family reunion are essential ingredients. As the Minister has explained, one of the main reasons for the high percentage of migrants from Asia in 1983 was that other migrant groups were not taking advantage of the family reunion program. Another reason which I will come to later arises from the large influx of refugees from Vietnam and Kampuchea, many of whom came to Australia as economic refugees and were given easy admittance to Australia by the previous Government. In a period of eight years the Fraser Government was responsible for some 78,000 Indo-Chinese refugees settling in Australia. The greater majority of the refugees were from Vietnam, with about one-fifth from Kampuchea and Laos. To say the least, I am appalled at the standard of debate which has been raging in the media about the so-called Asianisation of Australia. Surely we are not going back to the dark days of 1901 when Australians were told by a writer in the Bulletin that the Anglo-Saxon must be preserved in his pure state if he was to retain his position as the best and most intellectual on earth. Apart from anything else, it is ridiculous and ignorant to lump all Asian nationalities together in a campaign which advodates a return to what amounts to a white Australia policy with discrimination against family reunion and refugee status for prospective migrants from our neighbour Asian countries. Sri Lankans, Thais, Malaysians, Vietnamese, Indonesians, Filipinos and Chinese, to name a few of the Asian nationalities involved, are as diverse in colour, culture and racial characteristics as it is possible for the human race to be. It seems that what the critics of our immigration policy are saying is that, because in the last half of 1983, 40 per cent of total sponsorships under the family reunion program was from Asia, we should discriminate against such applicants. In practical terms this means that one has to say to perhaps a Sri Lankan, who is probably a Tamil and whose family is suffering the racial violence that is going on in that country at this very time: 'No, I am sorry, your brother cannot migrate to Australia because there are too many of your people taking advantage of our migration program'. Is that what the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Denison ( Mr Hodgman), who is at the table, wants us to say? If any honourable members of this House have had to sit and listen to these applicants and the human anguish which such a restriction would cause, they would change their minds. If some of the critics could actually become involved and could hear the kinds of human problems that are encountered by these people and the reasons they want their family here, they would change their minds. As a result of the necessity for refugees to flee their country of birth because of religious and political persecution it is essential that we maintain our refugee program. The Fraser Government's refugee program had many defects which are not present in the programs of the present Government. One particular defect was its failure to screen properly the Vietnamese boat people, many of whom landed illegally on Australia's northern shores. A small proportion of these people were thugs and extortionists who had learned their trade in the back streets of Saigon. In contrast to the humanitarian policies of the present Government, honourable members opposite would choose to allow the entry of these criminal types. The majority of Vietnamese are law-abiding people but I experienced at first hand the menacing behaviour at the hands of these thugs when I attended an anniversary commemoration of the ending of the Vietnam war. I was also involved in helping an Australian, a German migrant, who almost lost his life in the Eastbridge ex-migrant hostel as a result of a machete attack by three men of Vietnamese origin. Local police have been unsuccessful in preferring charges because although one of the assailants was known, the many Vietnamese who witnessed the attack were too frightened to give evidence to the police. The Opposition stands condemned for allowing such people to enter Australia. However , let me make it clear that I consider that media reports which attempt to brand all refugees as latent terrorists are, in my view, slanderous and irresponsible. I want to highlight the fact that the present attitude of the Opposition, which when in government allowed people with criminal backgrounds to enter Australia, is hypocritical in the extreme. I turn now to Schedule 1 of the new Bill, the pledge of Australian citizenship, which replaces the pledge contained in Schedule 2 of the principal Act. Opposition members, particularly the honourable member for Denison, have been almost hysterical in their condemnation of the proposed change. In the earlier debate some four weeks ago the honourable memer for Moreton accused the honourable member for Lowe of being a humbug and he also made other slanderous comments which he was forced to withdraw. Why did the honourable member for Moreton become so excited? It was because the honourabe member for Lowe referred to the fact that United Kingdom nationals resented, for a variety of reasons, making an oath of allegiance to the Queen. In fact, the honourable member for Lowe was correct. I was one of those United Kingdom nationals who considered it meaningless, as a national of the United Kingdom and an ex-member of the Royal Air Force, to take such an oath. In due course I and my wife both took advantage of the opportunities given by the Whitlam Labor Government to United Kingdom nationals to take up Austraian citizenship without formality in 1974. I can also well understand the resistance of nationals from other royalist countries or from republics to swear allegiance to an English Queen. It is time members opposite realised that we are now close to the twenty-first century and not still in the artistocratic era of the nineteenth century. Similar to their Herbert Spencerian philosophy their ideas on royalty, so obsequiously expressed by the honourable member for Denison, are 150 years out of date. Another important amendment is proposed new section 13 which has been substituted for the old section in the principal Act which, amongst other things , reduces the minimum period of residence from three years to two years before a certificate of citizenship can be granted. I applaud this amendment as there is no doubt that two years is quite long enough to establish a relationship with Australia which is deserving of citizenship status. In my own case I experienced a graphic realisation that I had adopted Australia as my permanent home when the 1961 Australia versus England test match was being played. As a Pom I was constantly ribbed when the Australians were winning but when I had to admit to myself that secretly I wanted the Australian team to win I realised that I had well and truly adopted Australia as my country. This was despite the fact that around that time when I was out shopping a shop assistant on the Myer store ground floor sent me up to the horticultural section on the top floor after I had asked where I could buy some light bulbs. Of course, I should have referred to globes. I was also involved in another embarrassing incident in the Collins Street accountant's office where I worked when one of the female members of staff who had been talking to a male colleague about a difficult pregnancy ended the conversation by asking whether she could use his Durex. My amazement at the frankness of the conversation was allayed a little later when I found that the term was not the name of a contraceptive in Australia. Of course, one has to remember that this happened 23 years ago and no doubt such conversations are quite commonplace these days. There is no doubt that a knowledge of the English language is not always the advantage that it appears to be when one newly arrives from England. Even now I sometimes find myself at a loss to understand some 'strine'. I was very glad to note that the proposed new section 13 provides that the English language requirements are to be reduced from an adequate knowledge of English to a basic knowledge. A basic knowledge means that the applicants for citizenship will be required to use only simple English to respond to simple English questions and when taking the pledge. I was also pleased to notice that persons over 50 years of age will be exempted from the English language requirement. A recent visit to Latin America convinced me how difficult it is to absorb a new language when one is over 50 years of age . About the only Spanish word I managed to remember without any difficulty was cerveza and I have to admit that the beer compared favourably with Australian beer. The point is that it is difficult enough for older people to adjust to a new way of life without having to struggle with a new language. But a lack of knowledge of English does not mean that a migrant does not appreciate the need for good government or have the desire to cast a vote to achieve that government . The greater majority of migrants voted for the Hawke Labor Government. This basic democratic right should not be denied to our older migrants because they lack a knowledge of the English language. It is interesting to recall how we have progressed in the past 83 years. The Barton Government of 1901 prohibited the entry into Australia of: any person who, when asked to do so by an officer, fails to write out and sign in the presence of the officer a passage of fifty words in length in the English language by the officer. In this way the Government was able to ensure that any undesirable migrant be excluded. The Attorney-General of that time, Alfred Deakin, made it clear during the second reading of the Immigration Restriction Bill on 12 September 1901 exactly who those undesirable people were. He said that Australians wanted to be one people and remain one people without the mixture of races. Other races could not blend with Australians; there must be one race, a united race, which could intermix, intermarry and associate without degradation on either side. He saw no evil in white Australians declaring themselves superior to the many uneducated races of Asia and untutored savages. In those days, unfortunately, the Labor Party was equally as prejudiced against coloured people, if not more so, than the conservatives. Unfortunately, the media debate which has been whipped up by Professor Blainey carries shades of that second reading debate in our first Federal Parliament. I trust that the conservatives on the other side of the House will declare themselves opposed to the strident calls of racist groups in Australia who are calling for discrimination against migrants from Asia and not emulate their predecessors of 83 years ago. It is, of course, interesting to note that in the debate of so many years ago honourable members had some problems in defining those Asiatic people they wished to exclude. Thus, both Government and Opposition members were at great pains to make it clear that the language test was not intended to cause offence to the Japanese. The Hon. F. E. McLean, the member for Lang, a member of the Liberal association and the last speaker in the debate, gave a good indication of the essence of that early debate. Mr Beazley —They were a bit embarrassed by the Anglo-Japanese treaty. Mr MILTON —That is quite correct. I noted that when I read the debate. I ask honourable members to listen to this. He said: I believe there would have been no danger either in the direction of Imperial veto or of any considerable delay had the Government adopted the more courageous course of introducing a Bill which would have excluded the Asiatic races without the roundabout educational test which is now provided. Is this the sort of thing that the honourable member for Denison wants to see added to the Bill? Mr McLean went on to say: At the same time I sincerely hope that the administration of this Bill will be effective. I credit the Government with the sincere desire to carry out the intentions of the people of Australia and to exclude coloured aliens from our midst. That is what the Hon. F. E. McLean had to say on 9 October 1901. As I said before, I trust honourable members on the other side of the House are not supporting those views of a society which was rooted in the nineteenth century. I notice that all honourable members opposite are very quiet now. Before I conclude my remarks in support of the Bill I would like to say a few words about the citizenship ceremony itself. Over the past 3 1/2 years since I have been the member for La Trobe I have attended a large number of citizenship ceremonies conducted by the Shire of Sherbrooke, the City of Knox and the Shire of Lilydale, the three municipalities which are situated in my electorate. Unfortunately, in recent months the ceremonies have been held on days when I am required to be present in the Parliament. I have, accordingly, written to the municipalities concerned requesting that the ceremonies be scheduled for the weeks when I am not in Canberra as I believe it is most important for Federal members to be present on such an important occasion as the conferring of Australian citizenship. I take this opportunity to express my regret that the Federal Government has not provided funding to support local government in its hosting of these ceremonies. I consider it is most inequitable for local government to have to provide the necessary finance for what is primarily a Federal responsibility. Municipalities are required to pay for the overtime for council officers who are needed to provide services in support of the ceremony and to pay for the refreshments which help to make the occasion friendly and hospitable. Many of the ceremonies I have attended are imaginative and colourful and are a credit to local government. However, if funding were provided by the Federal Government, citizenship ceremonies could be made even more memorable as one of the most important events in the life of Australian migrants. I have also been most impressed with the fact that one of the officials of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in my area, Mr George Mohrene, has been prepared to give of his free time to officiate at citizenship ceremonies in the City of Knox and the Shire of Lilydale. I trust that the Minister will look into the funding matter as the amount of necessary finance would not be large and would serve to improve the quality and character of citizenship ceremonies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I call the honourable member for Franklin. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(12.29) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Steedman —Five generations of inbreeding produced this. Mr GOODLUCK —I am trying to be nice about the subject of this debate, but when one hears the honourable member for Casey remark that all Tasmanians are descendants of convicts, that their forebears went to Tasmania in chains and that Tasmanians are all inbred one feels that it is apt to count to 10. I know that sometimes the honourable member only says these things in jest. But really, Tasmanians can be upset when they hear that sort of thing. I do not want to get onto that subject at all. I have firm views about the subject of this debate. I have been most interested in the parts of the debate that I have heard. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), represents the electorate neighbouring mine in Hobart, and I never seem to have any problems with this subject. To be quite truthful, I do not like using the word 'ethnic' and I do not like using the word 'Anglo-Saxon'. I do not even like talking about the Asians any more because I think we are all Australians. Both sides of this House will never agree philosophically on certain aspects. But I think we should start to think and talk about everyone in Australia being the same. Is not one of the Commandments: 'Love thy neighbour'? But a lot of the people in Australia are very confused at the moment. We are all not the same and do not treat people the same. We all say nasty things about people and so on. That attitude seems to have intruded into this debate. We seem to think that we can be better, we can run people down, we can hide under a shroud of hypocrisy, we can say things to hurt other people and then back off when it suits us. I do not think that that is the making of a very good Australia. I think it is the making of a bad Australia. If we treat everybody in Australia the same, if we treat all Australians the same, the people who come to this country will understand what it is all about and want to mesh into our way of life. They have very little difficulty in doing this. But there are a heck of a lot of people in Australia at the moment who are trying to say that we are all different. They are saying: 'We believe in that and you should believe in this'. We are all starting to create a real problem for ourselves. Before we know where we are, there is going to be real hatred. I think we should try to stop this hatred from developing. We have talked about change in this debate. We all want change and changes are occurring every day. Some of us, as we get older, do not like the sorts of changes that are occurring. Sometimes changes can be for the better and sometimes they can be for the worse. Unfortunately, members of the Australian Labor Party- Mr Hodgman —Socialists. Mr GOODLUCK —All right, the socialists are an unusual group. I found during the campaign about South West Tasmania that they love to take up causes. One can see it in their eyes. They start flashing left, right and centre about causes. All of a sudden they are involved in an argument about which they know very little. Before we knew where we were we had changes in Tasmania that we did not want. To be truthful, I get confused about what happens in the Labor Party. I think that we should do what it does a bit more because if we did we would get more publicity. The Labor Party has the Left, the Right, the Centre and the up and down the middle group, whatever that faction is called. There are factions of the Labor Party everywhere. Members of the Labor Party seem to jump on a bandwagon and confuse the rest of Australia. When we start to say that we love Australia as it is, that there have been problems over the years but we have developed our country in the way we want it, we find all of a sudden one group of honourable members opposite jumping up and saying: 'We do not like the flag'. When asked what is wrong with the flag they say: 'We do not like it. We want a change because somebody said we should change the flag'. Then honourable members opposite start talking about wanting to change the oath of allegiance. They want to take this out and take that out. When one asks who wants to do this they say: 'That is what the feeling is out in the community'. I never get that feeling. Does the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) get that feeling? Mr Groom —No. Mr GOODLUCK —They bring up sex discrimination. They talk about the poor Asians. they talk about this and that. Two-thirds of the Asians of the world live in absolute poverty. So we are being a hypocritical nation if we are saying that we will not help them when they need help. That does not mean that we do not want the British people to come to Australia. We, the politicians, and not the people of Australia are dividing this country because we do not have the guts when it really counts to support these people. Australia is a funny place. We talk about importing-I use that word advisedly- 90,000 people to Australia for the purpose of making this country a better place . We abort about 90,000 babies in Australia, then we start talking about what we should be doing. Mr West —I take a point of order. I hesitate to do so but I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the House will agree with me that the honourable member is straying just a little too far beyond the Standing Orders. I do not think he has even read the Bill because he has made no reference to anything whatsoever that is in the Bill since he started his speech over five minutes ago. Mr GOODLUCK —That is quite untrue. I have studied the Bill very carefully. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member for Franklin to confine his remarks to the Bill. Mr GOODLUCK —All right, I will step into the Bill a bit. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) will be the subject of what I am going to say. He is a person who represents a particular group that seems to want that point of view suppressed. To take this a step further, it is proposed that a person who wishes to qualify for citizenship will be required to spend two years in Australia. If migrants want to join in the freedom of Australia and to be part of Australia they should be forced after three years to become Australian citizens. If they want the freedom of Australia they should be forced to become Australian citizens. There should be no mucking around at all. If they do not want that freedom they should go back to where they came from. Mr West —I am supposed to be authoritarian, am I? Mr GOODLUCK —I am telling you my point of view. I am telling you what I think is wrong with your Bill and what is wrong with Australia at the moment. Whether you like it or not I am still going to tell you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Would the honourable member address his remarks through the Chair and cease taking notice of the interjections. Mr GOODLUCK —I cannot help it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is your problem, but that is the Chair's ruling. Mr GOODLUCK —We talk about changes. The honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman ) has developed a change; he wears a leather jacket into the House. We might not like it, but we have to tolerate that change. Mr Steedman —We have the numbers. Mr GOODLUCK —Exactly. The Bill will go through because you have the numbers. I understand that; that is the reason I am saying what I am saying. We have a right to disagree with what you are trying to do. We have a perfect right to disagree and that is what I am doing. Immigration, whether you like it or not, will be a very important part of the next election campaign because many people are starting to talk and to understand that you want changes to suit some minority groups. That is the trouble with your Party. You always jump on a bandwagon for minority groups. That is all I am trying to say. You might think it is right but there are a lot of other people who do not think it is. If you are going to start-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Franklin will resume his seat. I have given an instruction to the honourable member for Franklin to address his remarks through the Chair. If he refuses to take any notice of the Chair the Chair will have to take action. I call the honourable member for Franklin. Mr GOODLUCK —I will be finished in just a couple of seconds. The point I was trying to make is that the Government wants the changes and gets a bit uptight when we say we do not agree with those changes. We do not agree with the change to the oath of allegiance or with the thoughts about Australia becoming a republic. Many people disagree that Australia should become a republic and that is the reason that we are attacking the Government on this Bill. I do not agree with some of my colleagues who have said that there is an insidious group behind all this. I do not go to those extremes, but I do not like the way the Government is changing the face of Australia, an Australia that we have all worked so hard to make and which many migrants have come to Australia to make. I think the Minister is trying to change Australia by starting to develop-- Mr Groom —He will not admit it. Mr GOODLUCK —No, he will not admit it, but we know that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) wants changes. We think this Bill represents just one part of those changes. That is why we are opposing it. We believe that Australia is changing in the wrong way with changes to everything that we thought was good-the flag, the oath of allegiance and the national anthem. We think it would be far better to change some other things, but the Government seems to be concentrating on trying to make Australia a republic. Mr Groom —Unemployment. Mr GOODLUCK —The honourable member for Braddon mentions unemployment as an area for change. I have never called anyone a dole bludger in my life, but as a Liberal politician, I am accused, not personally, of having done so. The point I make is that that is the sort of thing that has developed in the minds of people and is causing divisions in Australia today. The Government should concentrate more on those things than on these changes that will affect Australia. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(12.39) —I support the amendment to the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill moved by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). I join with my colleagues in opposing many, but not all, of the changes proposed in this Bill. This is a Bill about citizenship and fundamentally my objection to it is that it cheapens Australian citizenship. It makes it quicker, after a two-year residence rule instead of three, to become a citizen. It makes it easier as far as the English language requirement is concerned to become a citizen. It also makes it drabber to become one by the new pledge of allegiance. Quickness, easiness and drabness are not in my view desirable characteristics for Australian citizenship. It may be cut-price citizenship, no-frills citizenship, the cheapest citizenship in the world, but not what we traditionally think of as Australian citizenship. Australian citizenship has never been very hard to get for those seriously interested in it. Our requirements have been generous and not particularly strict, especially when compared with almost all other countries in the world. The requirements should be generous in a country built on migration from all parts of the world But is the three-year rule so onerous, so oppressive, that it should be cut by one year? No other comparable country bestows citizenship after two years. Can anyone seriously believe that a person has a feeling for, or a real loyalty to, a country after two years of living in it? The honourable member who last spoke on the Government side, the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), said that he thought it was sufficient time. In effect, he said the quicker the better. I cannot see why if the honourable member is happy to reduce it to two years he does not reduce it to one year or one week for that matter. I do not believe that two years is an adequate test. If we really value Australian citizenship perhaps we should discuss lengthening the three-year rule rather than shortening it. I am not advocating that, but shortening it seems to me to smack of wanting to enrol people as citizens or as voters willy-nilly without giving due weight to what is a desirable period of residence before someone can seriously assume the privileges and the duties of Australian citizenship. Similarly, why dilute the requirement for an adequate knowledge of English to simply a basic knowledge of it? I put to one side the special case of elderly people and willingly go along with the Bill in relation to them. But citizenship surely requires more than a basic knowledge of the common tongue. A basic knowledge is, I suppose, enough to buy food, to find one's way to work and home again; it is enough English to survive. But citizenship is participation in the full life of the country, in its old and deeply established institutions, its political life, and its administration of justice. Even before the new basic English test has been introduced, we have all heard of jury cases where a citizen juror could not understand the evidence yet was trying to pass judgment. Is justice well administered when a juror has only basic English? Surely not! As politicans we have all come across cases of citizen voters who cannot read English well enough to understand the ballot paper instructions or the how-to- vote card and who rely on interpreters. This is surely not what we mean by citizenship, unless we have a contemptuous view of citizens as mere ballot fodder. As for the proposed new pledges, they have about them as much solemnity as a landlord and tenant lease or a bill of sale. The 1973 oath says: 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. The affirmation substitutes for 'swear by Almighty God', 'solemnly and sincerely promise and declare'. This oath and this affirmation have some resonance about them. The language is appropriate to a solemn and moving occasion as should be the adoption of Australian citizenship. It places our constitutional monarchy and its associated institutions at the centre of the matter. Now it is proposed that the applicant pledge: 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. There is an alternative form of pledge corresponding to the old affirmation. These pledges have as much solemnity as a hire-purchase agreement. I think, incidentally, reference to the Constitution is gratuitous, even devious. I suppose it allows the Government to say that it has deleted explicit reference to the constitutional monarchy but that it is still there really because such reference is in the Constitution. There is an American suggestion about it too. We know that American citizenship is a very serious matter, but the American association here is misleading. The American constitution with its famous amendments, the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court judgments is a very different thing from our comparatively bread and butter Constitution. Pledging allegiance to one is quite a different matter from swearing allegiance to the other. The legal basis of our freedoms is expressed in different ways. A migrant interested in citizenship who on reading the pledge of allegiance looks up the Australian Constitution to find out what it is all about is in for a shock as he reads about everything from lighthouses and fisheries to section 92 and section 96. An ordinary citizen, unlike a High Court judge, does not swear to uphold the Australian Constitution in the way an American might swear to uphold the principles of the American Constitution. If this is really meant as a way of implicitly working in the monarchy, it would be better to do it openly as in the 1973 oath and affirmation. Some measures in this Bill have my support. For example, the right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against the Minister's decision is a worthwhile measure. There are others. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m. the debate is inter- rupted in accordance with sessional order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. The Chair will be resumed at 2 p.m. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer him to the report in this morning's Age newspaper that the idea of a censorship hotline being established between his Press office and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation was discussed at a meeting between the Prime Minister and the Managing Director of the ABC, Mr Geoffrey Whitehead. I ask: Who raised the idea of such an obnoxious censorship hotline in those talks? How could the Prime Minister even consider by way of discussion an idea clearly directed at censorship of the Press and the management of news and comment on the national broadcasting network? In view of his previous attacks on the ABC and other media , will the Prime Minister give an assurance to the public that he is not proposing to manage news broadcasts on the ABC and thereby threaten the independence of that body? Mr HAWKE —Here comes another ferocious attack from the Opposition. Mr Cohen —He is up to 37 per cent. It has gone to his head. Mr HAWKE —Yes, it has gone to his head. One always has to get the facts straight , as distinct from the fiction which is put out by the people opposite. The facts are very simple. On Friday of last week, at the request of Mr Whitehead, the General Manager of the ABC, I, together with my Minister for Communications, had a discussion with him. At that discussion Mr Whitehead was good enough to set out in very extended form the future plans-financial, administrative and conceptual-as far as the ABC was concerned. We found them very useful. In the context of that discussion the question was raised of certain criticisms that I had expressed, and I outlined to the General Manager some of the points of view I had. This fiction the Leader of the Opposition is raising about some form of censorship is an absolute nonsense. There has been no arrangement, nor would there be any, for the form of hotline that has been talked about. No such arrangement has been made or contemplated, nor will it be made. The situation is quite clear on the record. This Government in its 12 months in office has done more to assist the ABC and its independence than was done in the seven years of the previous Government. We remain totally committed to the independence of the ABC and we will do all we can to improve its capacity to deliver a very worthwhile service to the Australian community, without fear or favour from this Government and, if it was relevant, I would add 'or this Opposition'. Mr HOLLIS —My question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Can he inform the House what progress the Government has made in meeting its target of creating 500,000 new jobs in its first three years of government? Mr HAWKE —I can say that the Government has made outstanding progress. Since the National Economic Summit Conference last April we have created 210,000 new jobs- that is in 12 months. I know that everyone on this side of the House understands that that is 12 months, but I just explain that those 210,000 new jobs were found in 12 months. That is over 40 per cent of the job target for three years, so we are obviously very well ahead of target. It is very useful in these circumstances to look at the contributions that have been made in this area by the people opposite. Mr Aldred —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Would the Prime Minister clearly indicate whether he is talking about jobs for six months or permanent jobs? Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. Mr HAWKE —The achievements of this Government make a mockery of some of the assertions that have been made by people opposite, and I remind the House of some of the things they have said. The Opposition Leader, that well- known economic genius on the other side of the House, said on 25 November last year: The emptiness of that promise- that is the promise to create half a million new jobs in three years- is now starkly revealed. On 8 September last year the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to that promise of 500,000 new jobs as an empty promise on the scrap heap. The only thing that is on the scrap heap in politics today is the credibility of the Opposition. Mr Speaker, I remind you and the House that on 20 September last year the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had this to say: Government policies will help to worsen unemployment, which will rise significantly during the current financial year. What in fact has happened is this: Unemployment, instead of rising significantly , as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said then and as the Opposition hoped would happen, has fallen from 10.4 per cent last September to 9.3 per cent in March. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, expressing the hopes of the Opposition, said on 8 September last year: The latest job losses put at risk the Government's Budget objective of increasing employment by about 1.5 per cent over 1983-84. The facts are these: A 1.5 per cent increase in employment would be about 90,000 jobs, but between June of last year and the present time we have created 186,000 new jobs, which is more than double the Budget target of 90,000. That is the caper of these people opposite. They do not want to look at the facts or recognise that the people of Australia have benefited from the policies of this Government. They preach doom and gloom and they knowingly sow untruths around this country. The Opposition said that we would not do it, and we have more than doubled the target. What sticks in the craw of these people on the other side of the House, these self-styled economic managers, is that it is a Federal Labor Government which is providing, for the first time, competent and effective economic management. Mr Goodluck —What about Tasmania? Mr HAWKE —Well, I have news about Tasmania for the honourable member that he will not like. The first thing I say about Tasmania is this: The honourable member is one of the few people on the other side of this House to show any sense, because he is getting out before the deluge. Mr Goodluck —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw that remark. I do not know whether that is a reflection on me or my colleague, but my colleague is getting out for family reasons. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr HAWKE —The magnificent achievement of this Government, of creating over 200, 000 jobs in its first year, stands in stark contrast with the performance of the Opposition parties in their last year in government. In that last year they did not create one job. They destroyed 186,000 jobs in their last year in office. Unemployment increased by a quarter of a million. This divided and leaderless Opposition cannot face up to the fact that it could not provide the effective economic management which is being overwhelmingly provided by this Government. Mr HUNT —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In discussions with Prime Minister Nakasone and others during the Prime Minister's visit to Japan, did the Prime Minister receive an assurance that Australia would maintain its share of the Japanese beef market if it remained a competitive and reliable supplier? Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, I want to take the opportunity of putting the Opposition's approach to the Japanese beef market in the appropriate perspective so that even its own members may be able to understand the unbelievable hypocrisy which they are showing in this matter. The fundamental objective of this Government's negotiations with the Japanese authorities has been to maximise Australia's access to the Japanese beef market. That has been our public position; it has been our negotiating stance and all that we have said and done publicly and privately has reflected that concern. That position has been put by me, by Mr Bowen, by Mr Hayden and by Mr Kerin. That position will be maintained by Mr Kerin when further ministerial talks are held in Tokyo on 14 May. It is important to understand that what this Government is doing in negotiations with the Japanese is well understood by the Australian cattle industry, with whom the Government has been in regular contact on this matter. As distinct from this responsible attitude taken by the Government, the Opposition has made every effort to weaken and undermine Australia's negotiating stance and to work against the national interests of this country. I want the Australian public to understand just what was the the achievement of the Opposition parties when they were in government because the problems of this country in regard to the Japanese beef market date back to the Strauss-Ushiba agreement of 1978. That agreement was signed on 13 January 1978. Mr Ruddock —He has to have the notes or he will get the dates wrong. Mr HAWKE —I do not have the dates wrong; it was 13 January 1978. Under the Strauss-Ushiba agreement Japanese imports of high quality beef were increased by 10,000 tonnes on a global basis, beginning in the Japanese financial year 1978. That increased their quota of 6,800 tonnes by another 10,000 tonnes. It is important to understand that the types of high quality beef specified effectively precluded Australian competition with United States suppliers. That has been disastrous for Australia ever since. What happened in those circumstances when this agreement was negotiated between Strauss of the United States and Ushiba of Japan? What was the attitude of the then Government? Not only did it meekly accept what was negotiated between the United States and Japan but also it applauded it. A Press release of the then National Party Minister for Trade and Resources, dated 14 January-the following day-said: . . . welcomed indications of a settlement of a number of outstanding trade issues between the United States and Japan. Furthermore, this National Party Minister in charge of trade said in this Press release: . . . since the Strauss visit was concerned with ways of easing Japan's considerable balance of trade surplus, particularly with the USA, the communique should emphasise hotel quality beef mainly provided by the USA. As a result of those negotiations of 1978 and the subsequent 1979 agreement by which the United States received an increase for its beef exports of a further 14,000 tonnes, which were applauded by the then Government and in particular by the National Party, Australian tonnages shipped to Japan fell absolutely from 100,400 tonnes in 1979 to 92,900 tonnes in 1980 and down to 90,200 tonnes in 1982. That was a result of the negotiations between the United States and Japan which were applauded by the people on the other side of the House. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! It seems that Question Time is being interrupted by an incessant barrage of sound. I would not dignify it by using the term ' interjections'. I ask honourable members to observe the Standing Orders of the House. Mr HAWKE —As a result of those negotiations, applauded by honourable members on the other side of the House, Australia's share of the market declined from 78 per cent in 1978 to 67 per cent. That was an extraordinary attitude to be adopted by the then Government. I come to the key section of the communique. Mr Lusher —Even Mick Young is worried. Sit him down, Mick! Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hume will cease interjecting. Mr Lusher —Even Mick's losing confidence now. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Hume. Mr HAWKE —I come to the key section of the communique which was released by Mr Nakasone and me. It said: The Japanese side confirms that it has no intention of dealing with the trade problems with third countries at the expense of Australia. I therefore reiterate that what we are doing is negotiating for an outcome which will markedly improve the access of Australian beef producers to the Japanese market and which will be satisfactory to the Australian beef industry. We are doing that in all our public and private stances and in all our negotiating. We are doing the best we can for the Australian beef industry and its interests are not being helped by the undermining attitudes of the Opposition in this Parliament. Mr LINDSAY —Is the Minister for Communications aware of a decision by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to phase out its television operations in Townsville and Rockhampton with the introduction of the new satellite in 1986? In view of the fact that this most unpopular decision involves not only Townsville and Rockhampton but also the entire regions of northern and central Queensland, will the Minister as a matter of urgency, firstly, table in this Parliament the full report or reports on which this decision was made and, secondly, table in this Parliament the names of individuals or organisations, if any, consulted in northern and central Queensland before it was announced? Thirdly, will he give an undertaking to ask the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to reverse its decision? Mr DUFFY —I appreciate the honourable member's concern to learn of the ABC's decision with respect to regional television programming at Rockhampton and Townsville. It is an indication of the concern on the part of the honourable member for Herbert not only on this issue but also on all other matters affecting his electorate. I must point out that the decision was made by the ABC Board in the context of its statutory responsibilities. I understand that a report and a recommendation were put to the Board, but these papers are, of course, internal ABC documents. I have been advised that the decision indicated by the honourable member for Herbert was taken in the context of national planning of television. I am further advised that there was no consultation, although the ABC staff organisations and unions were informed before the decision was taken. I am prepared to give an undertaking to seek from the ABC Board the full reasons behind the decision and its implications and to bring to the Board's attention the expressions of concern which have been brought to my notice. In conclusion, I wish to emphasise that the decision is one for the Board of the ABC. That decision taken by the Board was received by me on 26 April. Mr Ian Cameron —Give them some more money. Mr DUFFY —That is a fairly stupid interjection. I hope someone will ask a question on that matter, and I will deal with it. There is no provision in the ABC legislation which requires the ABC to seek my approval for such a decision. Finally, I wish once again to emphasise that because of the independence of the ABC Board, this was a decision taken by the Board and not by the Government. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Prime Minister to reports that the Vietnamese occupying army in Cambodia commenced its dry season offensive in the middle of April by launching a series of attacks against Khmers near the borders of Cambodia and Thailand. Has the Prime Minister noted that the offensive has dislodged some 75, 000 to 80,000 Cambodians from their camps, many of whom have had to flee to Thailand, and inflicted considerable suffering on civilian inhabitants of the border camps? I note that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is now talking to the Prime Minister. I hope that honourable members will note that. This happened yesterday. A question on foreign policy to the Prime Minister had to be handed over to the Foreign Minister. I know the Prime Minister does not have six pages of notes, but I hope he will be able to respond nevertheless. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will get on with his question. Mr PEACOCK —Does the Prime Minister agree that this is a major offensive and not 'a routine military operation to punish criminals', as described by Vietnam's Foreign Minister? Will the Prime Minister dissociate himself from the remarks reportedly made by his Foreign Minister recently in Tokyo that these actions by the Vietnamese forces were 'not unreasonable'? Mr HAWKE —Let me make it quite clear on behalf of the Government that we are disturbed by any actions in the area which are likely to disturb further the situation in that country and in respect of which, as distinct from the noises made by the Opposition, my Foreign Minister has been actively dedicating himself , in discussions with countries in the region, to trying constructively to bring about a more harmonious situation. We have done that consistently from the time that we have been in government. I must say that the efforts which have been made by the Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, have met with universal approbation because they have not been concerned with cliches and platitudes but have been concerned with trying to talk constructively with all the countries in the region. Neither the Foreign Minister nor I welcome any offensive action in that area. Mr Hayden will be going to the region in a matter of two or three weeks, where he will inform himself directly through discussions with people in a position to know of the precise nature of the operation, and I am certain that he will say then, and when he comes back, what we have consistently said as a government-that we do not welcome any offensive action by any groups in this area. But we will not attempt to use the situation of great tragedy for thousands of people in Indo-China as an occasion for trying to score political points. We will use our influence constructively to try to bring about a peaceful resolution of what unfortunately has been a tragic situation. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Honourable Michiyuki Isurugi, MP, Minister of State for Science and Technology in the Government of Japan. On behalf of the House, I extend to him a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Dr THEOPHANOUS —Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the implications of yesterday's excellent consumer price index result for wage movements this year and for the prospects of income tax cuts in the August Budget? Mr HAWKE —As suggested by the honourable member in his question, it was indeed an outstanding CPI result for the March quarter. The Acting Treasurer made it quite clear in his official statements yesterday that the outstanding result in the March quarter did in part reflect the impact of Medicare. Even if we exclude the impact of Medicare, it should be understood that the rise in the CPI on an annual basis-the annual increase-was the lowest for over a decade. The simple fact is that this Government has reduced the underlying inflation rate in this country from the 11 per cent that it inherited to about 7 1/2 per cent a year. Looking to the future in terms of the question that was put to me by the honourable member about the impact of the consumer price index on wage movements , there is still a further impact of the Medicare changes to be reflected in the next quarter. We understand this will be approximately 0.8 per cent. So in the June quarter we are looking at a small increase in the CPI. Quite clearly, the combined result of the March quarter and the June quarter CPI will be minimal. We will probably be looking at no more than about one per cent at the outside. What that means, and I am sure that this was in the mind of the honourable member when he asked the question, is that Australia is looking at a period of 12 months of virtually no wage movement as a result of the operation of the indexation system being related to these movements to which I have referred. It is quite clear that with Australia now looking forward to about 12 months in which wage rises will be minimal, that will provide a very helpful breathing space for business. It will help profits to recover further, it will help new investment plans to go ahead and it will help the creation of even more jobs. Very importantly, and I know this is a matter of interest to the honourable member for Burke with his interest in manufacturing industry, it will mean that in 1984 real unit labour costs, which are a very important element in these considerations, will go back to what they were in the late 1960s and 1970s after having been way out of line in the period intervening. I hope that both sides of the House will welcome the statement made by the Australian Council of Trade Unions yesterday which made it clear that, in line with the accord, the ACTU will not seek compensation for Medicare induced reductions in the CPI. We, on this side of the House, applaud Mr Dolan and the ACTU for the responsible attitude which it has adopted. We will accept our obligation, as a Government, to proceed with income tax cuts in the Budget so that, again in line with the accord, we can ensure that wage restraint continues in this country. It is quite clear when one looks at these facts and takes them into account- that is, the wage restraint that has been achieved, the very significant reduction in the inflation rate which has been associated with it, the very high rates of economic growth that have been achieved generally, particularly in the housing industry, and the significant reduction in non-seasonal interest rates in the period that this Government has been in office-with the significant growth in employment to which I have already referred, one will see that, under this Government, there has been a remarkable turnaround in the Australian economy. I suggest that Opposition members put that on the menu when they go to Thredbo. It will give them something to think about and contrast with their own dismal past performance and the hopelessly irrelevant so-called policies that they have for the future. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon, the Hon. William French Smith, the United States Attorney-General. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister and follows the answer that he gave to my earlier question in which he refused to dissociate himself from remarks made by his Minister for Foreign Affairs that it was not unreasonable for Vietnamese forces in Cambodia to attack Khmers. Mr Leo McLeay —Your foreign policy-- Mr PEACOCK —The honourable member may not be interested in the destruction of human life in our part of the world, but we are. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has refused to dissociate himself from the remarks by his Foreign Minister that it was not unreasonable for Vietnamese forces in Cambodia to attack Khmers, including civilians, will the Prime Minister similarly categorise as not unreasonable the recent Soviet attack on the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan? If not, will he advise the House of his different perception of the two? Mr HAWKE —I would have thought that, if there was any group in this country that had absolutely no mandate to talk about the destruction of life in the Indo- China area, it would be the people sitting on the opposite side of this House who stand condemned for their total misreading of the political realities of that region in the 1960s and 1970s and who, more than any members of any other government in the history of this country, identified Australians with the destruction of life in that region. If there is one group of people which has not got clean hands on this issue, it is the Opposition in general and the Leader of the Opposition in particular. It took the Australian Labor Party coming into government to end the destruction, not only of Indo-Chinese lives, but also of Australian lives in that area. Mr Newman —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask your advice, please. In view of the Prime Minister's vitriolic remarks would it be wise to ask our American allies to leave? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Chair is prepared to accept that honourable members often raise points of order that are not accurately points of order. I think the honourable member for Bass realises that he took it too far. I warn him against a repetition of that action. Mr HAWKE —I make only this observation in respect of that unworthy interjection by the honourable member for Bass: The relationship between Australia and the United States has never been in better shape than it has been under this Government. Of course, the Government and I condemn without equivocation the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the first place and the attacks that the Soviet Union is now making upon so-called 'rebel forces' in that country. Mr Hodgman —What do you think they are? Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Denison. Mr HAWKE —I support them. I am saying that they are referred to as rebels by the Soviet Union. I am saying that that is not a proper way of describing them. If the honourable member had the beginning of a whit of sense, he would understand that. Mr Hodgman —But you-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr HAWKE —I know he is slow-minded. We have to put things slowly to get through to people like him. Mr Hodgman —If he attacks me-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have warned the honourable member for Denison. I have allowed him considerable latitude. Mr HAWKE —We condemn the original invasion and we condemn the actions of the Soviet authorities in that area now. There is no question about that condemnation. It was made from the beginning and we continue to make it. Mr SCOTT —Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of the numerous reports of buried radioactive materials throughout the Maralinga area? Could such radioactive materials be a serious health hazard to Aboriginals returning to the area? Will the Minister be taking any steps to ascertain from the United Kingdom Government the locations of those radioactive dumps? Further, will the Minister press the Australian Government to have the United Kingdom Government identify those radioactive dumps and to accept its responsibility to have them cleared and cleaned up? Mr HOLDING —This matter had been the subject of public comment by my colleague the Minister for Resources and Energy who stated on 30 April that, as far as the Government is concerned, there were no secret atomic tests in Australia in the 1960s. I am also informed that the Government has no information concerning Aboriginals dying as a result of any tests. However, I share with the honourable member his concern about what really was tantamount to a death-bed statement that some four Aboriginals were found dead in that area. I have had conversations with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in South Australia. The South Australian Government is pressing the British Government for the supply of as much information as possible. Currently an inquiry is being conducted by the South Australian Government into the effect of atomic weapons testing on the health of the Aboriginal population. I have provided some $50,000 towards the cost of that inquiry. Today I discussed with the South Australian Minister for Health, Dr Cornwall, the possibility of extending the terms of that inquiry. I assured him, as I assured the South Australian Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, that from the point of view of my ministry we regard these matters very seriously. The South Australian Government will have my fullest co-operation in trying to get an early resolution of these matters. Mr Tuckey —Will the Minister table the document from which he was reading? Mr SPEAKER —Was the Minister quoting from a document on public affairs? Mr HOLDING —No. Mr STEELE HALL —I direct my question to the Special Minister of State. Mr MacKellar —Things have changed. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Warringah repeatedly casts aspersions on the Chair in a sotto voce manner. I have not taken action before, but I ask him to be very careful or I will take action. I call the honourable member for Boothby. Mr STEELE HALL —I ask-- Mr MacKellar —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr SPEAKER —I took particular exception because a remark was made by the honourable member for Moreton that the question regarding documents on public affairs was put in a different manner on previous occasions, which is inaccurate . The honourable member for Warringah said that things have changed. I call the honourable member for Boothby. Mr STEELE HALL —Mr Speaker, for the third time I will try to ask my question. Mr Hawke —You will be trying for longer than that. Mr STEELE HALL —I hope that the Special Minister of State will not take as long as the Prime Minister does to give a non-answer to the House. I direct my question to the Special Minister of State. I ask: Have any departments or government instrumentalities commissioned opinion polls since March 1983? If so, did that polling include questions of a political nature such as a reference to a political party, a political identity or a party policy? Mr YOUNG —I am sure that honourable members on both sides of the House will be pleased to know that I am not in charge of every department. Mr Steele Hall —Did your Department? Mr YOUNG —No. For the information of the honourable member for Boothby, we did try to get some semblance of sanity in the amount of money which government invests in advertising and market research. As members of the Opposition know, when they left office they were spending something like $24m a year on advertising and market research, and on many special programs such as the 1982 Budget, for which I think it was left to the honourable member for Balaclava to carry the can. He had to go out and suggest that the best way to present that Budget was to spend a couple of million dollars on television and radio advertising. I might add that that occurred during the Flinders by-election. Nevertheless, where departments do have claims for carrying out research, which in most cases we insist upon before any money is spent on advertising, so that the money is spent in the professional way in which other people using advertising and market research would use it, their request goes through a committee, which originally consisted of myself, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. A ministerial order has been altered, and the Australian Government advertising has now been shifted to the public information section of my Department. It is basically dealt with by the Minister for Finance and myself. We have agreed to a number of polls, which have been carried out prior to any money being spent on advertising. I have not seen all the questionnaires that have been prepared further to the briefings given by the specific departments. Mr Steele Hall —Did they include any political questions? Mr YOUNG —I do not know but I will find out for the honourable member. I would not have thought so. If anything is available the honourable member can look at it. I know how wise he is. He has been following the fortunes of John Cornwall in South Australia, so one could have anticipated the question the honourable member for Boothby asked. Mr Steele Hall —Are you willing to table the questionnaires? Mr YOUNG —I will look at what material has been prepared. I am not a great one for secrecy. Opposition members interjecting- Mr YOUNG —I think I should have notes! In addition to the matters I have raised in answer to the honourable member for Boothby, I add that many departments do not like the idea of becoming part of a system whereby they have to seek approval. The Department of Defence, the Department of the Treasury and others are very reluctant to become part of that system. In the areas where we do have responsibility to give approval I will find out what questionnaires have been approved for the carrying out of research and give the honourable member a detailed answer. Mr FREE —I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations whether his attention has been drawn to reports that some union officials have stated their intention to campaign for a catch-up of real wage reductions which occurred during the wages pause. Is the Government concerned about the prospects of such a campaign? Mr WILLIS —I am aware of the statements that have been made by some union officials, particularly Mr Clancy of the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia and Mr Carmichael of the Amalgamated Metals, Foundry and Shipwrights Union. Both of these gentlemen have expressed the view that there is a need to catch up for the real wage reductions during the period of the wage pause and that there is a need for some campaign to that effect. The question asked whether the Government was concerned about these statements. We would be if they were to result in a campaign for wage claims outside the indexation system. Such a campaign would be contrary to Government policy. It would be contrary to the policy of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It would be contrary to the wage fixation principles of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and it would most certainly be contrary to what is needed to maintain our extraordinarily high rate of economic and employment growth-the highest rate of growth in the Western industrialised world. I say emphatically that, for several reasons, I do not expect that such a wages campaign outside indexation will eventuate. Firstly, the prospect of a small national wage rise in October has been well known since the prices and incomes accord was finalised early last year between the then ALP Opposition and the ACTU. It has been known since that time and repeated on many occasions that that would be the case. Mr Dolan's statements yesterday and this morning confirm that it remains the ACTU's position that it accepts that outcome. Secondly, the ACTU has stated many times that catch-up considerations can be pursued in the context of taxation relief rather than by way of wages. That concept is built into the accord. It has been reiterated again by Mr Dolan on behalf of the ACTU since yesterday's consumer price index figures came out. Thirdly, as Mr Carmichael has indicated, it is not his union's position to go outside the accord in pursuing a catch-up and that is the ACTU's position. When the ACTU wages committee meets on Friday week I am quite sure that that position will be confirmed once again on behalf of the whole trade union movement. Fourthly, as the Prime Minister said yesterday in Question Time and again today, the Government will be doing all in its power to give significant tax cuts in the forthcoming Budget. The Government will be discussing the scope for tax cuts with the ACTU in the near future. There is every reason to believe that the wages policy of the accord and of the Commission will be maintained and that the wages outcome for the rest of this year will be a very small national wage rise in October which, along with some increases coming through the anomalies aspect of the wage fixation principles, should still result in an overall wage increase in the course of this calendar year of around 5 per cent. It may be slightly more; it may be less. The level of real labour unit costs, as the Prime Minister indicated previously, will be back to the level of a decade ago, for the first time in a decade, by the end of this year. Such an outcome is conducive to a continued decline in our rate of inflation and a continued improvement in our level of international competitiveness and very conducive to the creation of an environment which is highly conducive to an increase in private investment. In short, I say to the honourable member for Macquarie that there is no need to be alarmed by the statements which got much prominence in this morning's Press, or, in the case of the Opposition, to be overjoyed by those statements. The fact is that those concerns being expressed by those trade union officials are capable of being resolved without damaging the accord, the wage fixation system or the economy of this country. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 5 (2) of the Family Law (Institute of Family Studies) Regulations, I present the Institute of Family Studies annual report for 1982-83. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented and I seek to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —The right honourable member may proceed. Mr SINCLAIR —According to the media this morning and a telephone report I have had, the Premier of New South Wales has suggested that it was I who designated the various areas of New South Wales which the Commonwealth Government, in accordance with its constitutional powers, will consider for defence purposes. The areas were not designated by me. They were designated for preliminary investigation-I stress preliminary investigation-as a result of consultations between my predecessor, the Minister assisting my predecessor and the Premier. They were then investigated within the context of determining the requirements of the Department of Finance. The reason there was no release of the Press statement was that I did not accept that they should proceed beyond that preliminary investigation until a number of matters had been concluded, including whether there should be a coincidence of the artillery range with the other facilities required for the purposes of the Department of Defence. I did not accept that the areas, in particular the Bathurst-Orange and the Barraba-Bundarra-Uralla regions should be proceeded with if it would mean that large areas of productive agricultural land would need to be acquired compulsorily. The Premier is totally wrong in his assertion that I had designated those large areas of agricultural land. I restress the fact that the appointment of consultants to proceed with an environmental impact study was a direct result of decisions by the present Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) and the Premier. It was not a decision by the previous Government. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's attempts to mislead the Australian people on the real state of the Australian economy in order to serve its goal of an early election. 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 HOWARD(Bennelong)(2.55) —Over the last two days this Parliament and the Australian public have been treated to the best examples yet of the extent and the degree to which the present Australian Government is prepared to live politically in the short term at a medium and longer term cost to the economic management of Australia. It is worth recalling that a certain political figure in Australia had this to say on 15 February 1983 during the last Federal election campaign: 'Under my government parliaments will run their full time'. They were the words of the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), then the Leader of the Opposition, making it perfectly clear that under governments which he led parliaments would run their full time. Everybody knows how very quickly that particular commitment was thrown by the Prime Minister on to the scrap-heap. Everybody knows that less than a year after that statement was made the Prime Minister was blithely announcing that as far as he was concerned he thought it appropriate that there be an election in Australia some time between December 1984 and March 1985. So in less than a year that particular commitment of the Prime Minister, given unambiguously and unequivocally, was thrown on to the scrap-heap. If one looks at the state of the Australian economy; if one looks at the economic policies of this Government; if one looks at the way in which this Government has manipulated the consumer price index, one is reminded again and again of how short term this particular Government's horizons are. It may be clever politics to claim all of the credit for the improvements which have occurred in the Australian economy over the last year. It may be clever politics for the Prime Minister to come in here, as he did at Question Time, and say that the reduction in the rate of inflation, even if one leaves out the Medicare fiddle, was still a very creditable performance and to lay all the credit for that on the Government's own economic policies. That may be clever politics. It may fool a lot of the people at present but the Prime Minister knows as well as does everybody on this side of the House that the two factors over the last year which have made the greatest contribution to a reduction in the underlying rate of inflation have been the wages pause of the last Government and the natural effects of a recession on prices and costs in the Australian community. The truth is that the prices and incomes accord so far has made no contribution at all to the reduction in either the CPI or the underlying rate of inflation that we have experienced in Australia. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), in defending the prices and incomes accord to the trade union movement, has argued that if it had not been for the accord, wage increases over the last year would not have been as high as in fact they have been. So far from the policies of the Government, far from the prices and incomes accord being the main reason that Australia's rate of inflation has experienced a welcome reduction, that particular element has not played a major part at all. I repeat: It may be clever politics of the Prime Minister to claim that everything that has happened over the last year-including, on occasions when he gets totally expansive, the breaking of the drought-has been due to the policies of the Government. But because those claims are untrue, although it makes perhaps smart political sense in the very short term, in the medium and longer term the Government will rue many of the statements that have been made by the Prime Minister and by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) over the last year. The Prime Minister waxed very eloquent today about the question of employment and unemployment. It is very interesting to look at the speeches of the Prime Minister over the last year and see how little he has spoken about unemployment. One remembers when he was the Opposition spokesman on employment matters in this House. One remembers that every day he was talking about the capacity of a Labor government to reduce unemployment in Australia. Every day the then spokesman on industrial relations was saying that if the policies of the Australian Labor Party were allowed to take effect, they would bring about a sharp reduction in unemployment. The fact is that over the last year, and notwithstanding what the Prime Minister has said, there has been a reduction of only 33,000 in the total number of unemployed in Australia, despite what the Prime Minister and his colleagues so euphorically refer to as Australia's greatest ever economic recovery. This Government is pushing the issue of unemployment further down the agenda of action so far as its policies are concerned. Its only weapon in fighting unemployment is to pump more and more money into public sector job creation schemes. When a report winds up on the desk of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations pinpointing the problems of youth unemployment and the contribution made to it by high youth wages, what does he do? He pigeonholes the report. He does not even supply copies of it to the Premiers of this country at the Premiers Conference because it does not fit his ideology for dealing with the question of unemployment. Again and again we find that the Government is living for the short term and maximising the political advantage of the fortuitous turnaround in conditions resulting from the breaking of the drought and the wages pause. It is taking all the short term political gains at a very considerable medium and longer term economic cost to Australia. If honourable members really want to find a mature, sober and pragmatic judgment on what the investors of this country think about the medium and longer term economic prospects in Australia let me draw their attention to the latest set of forecasts of private sector investment which have been produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Let me remind them in doing this that only 20 minutes ago the Prime Minister of this country said in this House that the March quarter consumer price index increase, even if we leave the Medicare fiddle out of it, is the lowest for almost a decade. I remind him that under his Government private sector investment in the next financial year is forecast by the Bureau of Statistics to be the lowest in Australia for over 10 years. If one looks at those figures one finds a very gloomy and dismal pattern of private sector investment. I remind the Acting Treasurer (Mr Hurford), who is at the table, and the Prime Minister that the Government cannot go on forever creating jobs through the public sector. Sooner or later, if we are to have a lasting economic recovery in Australia and if we are to do other than live completely for the short term the Government will have to bring about a private sector revival. I ask the Minister at the table and the Government why it is, if their economic policies are so wonderful and are bringing about the economic recovery they speak of and if they are presiding over this wonderful economic miracle in Australia, that the investors of Australia so lack confidence in the medium and longer term economic future of Australia. Why is investment in the mining industry in a parlous condition? Why have the mining industry, the National Farmers Federation, the merchant banks and the building societies all gone to the Government in recent days and said that the outlook for private sector investment is very gloomy? Why are they not bedazzled by what the Prime Minister treated us to at Question Time today? Why are they not enchanted by the latest CPI result? Why are they not absolutely persuaded by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations that his wages policy is the answer to all our problems ? There is a crisis of confidence in the medium and longer term economic future of Australia by its investors. These forecasts demonstrate that more than any other statistic that can be produced on either side of the House. Again, we have an example of the Government living for the short term. A report in the Hobart Mercury at the weekend states that the Prime Minister has instructed all his Ministers to push aside any difficult or unpopular decisions until after the end of the year. Of course, the Prime Minister wants to create the optimum political situation for the entirely unecessary premature election that he will have at the end of the year. I was very interested to see the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations wriggle a bit at Question Time today when he was taxed with what Mr Clancy of the Building Workers Industrial Union had said on radio this morning. He said that the left wing unions would start a campaign, beginning next October, to bring about catch-up in respect of the wages that they lost during the wages pause. The Minister in answer to a question on that subject said: 'Do not worry about that, listeners. We will give a tax cut that will buy them out of any opposition'. The only problem with that answer is that the tax cut will come in August and Mr Clancy will start his campaign in October. What will the Government do if the campaign starts in defiance of its wishes? Will it cancel the tax cut it gave in August if the campaign starts in October? The Minister knows quite well that his capacity to control Mr Clancy is no greater than the capacity of many other people in the Australian Council of Trade Unions to control that gentleman. What this Government has done on every political and economic issue over the last 12 months is maximise its short term political advantage to the medium and longer term cost of Australia. It has put off a decision on the assets test but it has not removed the threat of an assets test over the head of every pensioner in Australia. It has not introduced the legislation to give effect to its lump sum superannuation proposals but it has not removed the threat to the non- taxability of lump sum superannuation payments. It has promised a reform of the Australian taxation system but it has not said that it will not introduce a capital gains tax and the Prime Minister continues to allow senior Ministers to canvass publicly and argue for a capital gains tax. Again and again the Government puts off the difficult decisions, hoping the electorate will not be reminded of them and hoping that they will not be in the mind of the electorate when we go to the polls at the end of the year. It knows all along that if it is successful those difficult, unpalatable decisions will be back on the table, back on the Government's agenda for implementation. I will wager that this Government will go to the election at the end of this year without any policy in the area of taxation. In reply to our questions on where the Government's taxation policy is the Prime Minister says: 'We are having a bit of a discussion with the Economic Planning Advisory Council about it. We will talk to EPAC about it. We will talk to everybody and we will produce a fair and equitable taxation system'. That will not be a tax policy or an answer to people who want to know whether we will have a broad-based indirect tax, a capital gains tax or a wealth tax. That will be no answer to the older people of Australia who want to know exactly what will happen with the assets test. Does the Prime Minister know that the elderly in this nation are living in fear of the assets test he has talked about? Does he realise what uncertainty is being created for that section of our community because of his short term political tactics? It would be far fairer to those people to say now what he will do and to tell them exactly what will happen with their pensions rather than adopt the shameful and politically inspired device of empanelling a group of citizens to give a report to the Government. The Government ought to come clean and say exactly what it will do about the assets test. It ought to come clean about all the other things but, as in all its other economic decisions, the Government is living entirely for the short term. The Government has claimed credit for every good thing that has happened with the economy over the last year. It has failed to recognise that the two major contributions to the improvement over the last year have been totally beyond its control or encouragement-the breaking of the drought and the beneficial effects of the wages pause. Neither of those things had anything to do with the prices and incomes accord. In no way did the prices and incomes accord contribute to either of those developments. They have contributed, more than anything else, to the improvement over the last 11 months. The Government knows that it must get to the polls before a realisation reaches the Australian community of the problems that it will have in 1985. In 1985 the Australian community will be forced to pay the price of so many decisions having been deferred in 1984. In 1985 the lack of private sector investment could have a very drastic effect on unemployment levels. In 1985 the level of unemployment will be no lower than it was in March 1983. By 1985, according to the Government's own forecast, the underlying rate of inflation will be going up again. The Government cannot have another Medicare fiddle in 1985 any more than it can break the drought again in 1985 and the Government will face that problem also. In 1985 the full effects of the worst investment strike that this country has had for over 10 years will be brought home to the Australian community. In the manufacturing industry employment levels are lower than they were in March 1983. The honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous) knows better than anybody else in this House that those grim realities will be brought home to the Australian people. It is no wonder that this Government and this Prime Minister are quite irresponsibly and totally living for the short term political advantage and nothing else. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Acting Treasurer)(3.10) —What an appallingly weak matter of public importance this is! The Liberal and National parties failed this country miserably in the seven years of their stewardship. They have egg all over their faces. All the noise of the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the shadow Treasurer and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, does not make up for good argument. Now that the alternative policies of the Hawke Labor Government are working this discredited Liberal- National Party Opposition is retreating into the sort of diatribe we have just suffered in listening to the speech of the shadow Treasurer over the last quarter of an hour. Members of the Opposition are jealous of the fact that this country is on the road to recovery. Let me go briefly through some statistics, which I will later refer to in detail. Gross domestic product is expected to increase by 6 per cent in the 1983-84 financial year. We expected in the Budget only a 3 per cent increase. That was a heck of a lot better than the present Opposition achieved during its seven years of failure in its stewardship of the management of this country. The employment figures from September 1983 to mid-1984 have improved incredibly . Let me go over those figures. In September 1983 unemployment peaked at 10.4 per cent, whereas in mid-1984 we are now down to an unemployment rate of 9.3 per cent. But that is not nearly as good as the figures for the growth of employment itself. From April 1983 to March 1984 we had an increase in the number of jobs of 210,500. Manufacturing production was up 4 per cent in the December quarter of 1983 compared with the March quarter of 1983. In the three months to February 1984 motor vehicle registrations were up 6.4 per cent on those for the previous quarter. We also find that interest rates are generally down on those of last year. Having suffered a few years in which we had an adverse balance of trade, we find that in the nine months to March 1984 there was a balance of trade in our favour of $356m compared with an adverse balance of trade of $944m in the nine months to March 1983. No wonder the Opposition is ashamed of its discredited economic policies. No wonder members of the Opposition come in with the sort of speech that we had to listen to in this House today, trying to make up for the fact that the alternative economic policies are working. They are jealous of the fact that we were able to bring this country together at the National Economic Summit Conference and that we have been able to create more consensus and to get people to work together to a greater degree than we had during the last seven years. We had a period of confrontation under the Fraser Government. All the people now on the front bench of the Opposition are part of the discredited team which gave rise to that period of confrontation. Members of the Opposition are jealous of the fact that we have been successful in funding the deficit-successful to the extent that interest rates have declined over the year of that high deficit. We have been successful in reducing the effect of the deficit. Government spending has provided a stimulus to the economy. As I mentioned, 210,500 jobs have been created. Honourable members opposite are jealous of the fact that nearly all the statistics that one looks at show that this economy of ours has improved over the period in which this Government has been in office. Let me go over the speech, if we can give it that title, of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He commenced by talking about being misled in relation to the term of this Parliament. He overlooks completely that it was the Fraser Government, of which he was a leading member, which decided to go to the polls early and left us with a situation in which we have to have a Senate election before May 1985, causing an early Federal election. He overlooks that completely and suggests that we are going to the polls early. He went on to speak about the so-called manipulation of the consumer price index. That, I would say to him quite unashamedly, is an affront to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which has a job to do and which does that job independently. The Government took a conscious decision, following an election promise, to alter the health insurance charges. Of course the CPI has shown the effect of those health insurance alterations. But the Government does not claim credit just for the adjusted figures contained in the announcement yesterday in relation to the CPI. It claims credit in respect of the unadjusted figures for health insurance. I will also come back to that point later. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition then referred to the prices and incomes accord. Is he, in preaching doom and gloom, as he has today, seeking to break down that accord? Is he so lacking in feeling for this country and desire for it to have further economic recovery built onto that for the first year of our Government that he wants, by his preaching, to bring down that accord? Let him come clean and tell this House and the nation whether he wants that to happen. He is not making any constructive contribution whatsoever to the good government of this country in these difficult times which have been created mainly by the Fraser Government. He is merely taking cheap political points in the way I am now illustrating. There is only one area in which his claims might be able to be substantiated and that is when it comes to breaking the drought. I plead guilty on occasions, in order to try to bring a little lightness into the affairs of this nation, to giving the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) credit for breaking the drought. If that is misleading the nation, that is the only claim to credibility of the matter of public importance before the House. When it comes to misleading the House, I shall point out how the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in his speech misled this House in relation to the employment figures. He is suggesting that there has been a reduction of only 33,000 in unemployment over the last 12 months and that responsibility for that should be driven home to this Government. That is an absolute piece of arrant nonsense. There is no way that the incoming Government could have been responsible for the unemployment levels of this country until about April of this year. The figures that I have given are credible and show that the growth in employment in this country from April 1983 until the present day has been of the order of 210,500. That is the figure that ought to be focused on. That is the only figure that would have given that part of his speech in this Parliament any credibility whatsoever. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition even wants to knock the community employment program. I wonder whether he has ever taken the trouble to look at some of the CEP programs in his own electorate and seen the joy that has been given to young kids, particularly disabled kids, who have been out of work for at least six months and others for many years because at last they have been given a chance to show their mettle. The sort of speech that he made today is typical of the attitude of those conservatives with whom he sits inasmuch as they would want to deny these young kids the benefit that they received from the CEP. I want to quote the sort of knocking words that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition used in his speech. He talked about an investment strike. Everything that this Government has done has been designed to build up the climate for investment to take place. In view of the legacy we were left, there was no way there could immediately be an investment climate. But now the growth in employment, the growth in confidence that has come out of the National Economic Summit Conference, the reduction in interest rates and the sorts of statistics that I have already outlined to this House relating to growth-gross domestic product is up 10 per cent on the minus 2 per cent applicable at this time last year-the growth in manufacturing production over the last few months, the growth in motor vehicle registrations, and the balance of trade turnaround are all necessary background factors to the increase in private sector investment which we can confidently expect. The honourable member for Bennelong even had the gall to mention that building societies were complaining about the present situation. No Minister in this Parliament has had a more continuous relationship with the building societies than I have. There is no group in the private sector in this nation which is more supportive of the housing policies we have instituted and of the way we have funded the Budget to enable them to lend money. This resolution of the Opposition is a sham. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition ought to be absolutely ashamed of himself for bringing it to this Parliament. I will focus on why he, in particular, should be ashamed of himself. It is absolute hypocrisy for this discredited former Treasurer to claim that the Government is misleading the people when his own record is such that in February last year he deliberately misled the Australian people in order to save his Prime Minister's neck. For the purpose of an election he misled the people. He told us that the deficit figure in prospect was $6 billion. We all know that the real deficit inherited by this Government was $9.6 billion; that deficit made all the more difficult the task that we took over. It made our achievements all the more remarkable. When the honourable member for Bennelong was Treasurer the inflation rate was 11.5 per cent; that was the figure for the last quarter for which he was responsible. Only a year later the underlying inflation rate is down to 7.6 per cent. Without any alterations or adjustments relating to health insurance the relevant figure for the last year is 7.6 per cent. When the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer the unemployment figure was 695,300, or 10 per cent. It is now down to 9.3 per cent. I just had the privilege of representing this country at meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The dominant view was that international recovery will strengthen and spread in 1984 . Instead of the doom and gloom we are hearing from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition these are the real facts that are known to people who have some idea of what is going on in the world. The real growth in industrial countries is 3.5 per cent compared with 2.25 per cent last year. The GDP forecast is for a rise of 5 per cent in the United States and 4 per cent in Japan. There is no evidence whatsoever that following from those sorts of results in the rest of the world a real increase in private investment in this country will not take place. The only things that could make that result go wrong are the doom and gloom attitudes which are being spread by this Opposition at present. The good news for Australia is that there has been a strong economic pick-up in the first half of 1983-84. That should be translated into private sector investment. Our economic policy is now totally devoted to making sure that the recovery is not just temporary, but sustained. In summary, since the Hawke Labor Government came to office we have achieved much production and employment and proft figures are up. The rate of inflation and real unit labour costs are down and the economic situation is better than it has been for many years. Even blind Freddie can see that things have improved even if genial John fails to do so. There are so many positive factors. Strong private consumption expenditure ran well ahead of inflation over the last three months. As I said before, but it bears repeating, there is a lowering of interest rates at present. The pick-up in profits provides a very good starting point indeed for the recovery in investment. The growth normally strong in the first year of recovery in 1983-84 has been stronger than is usual and certainly stronger than was expected a year ago. I end as I commenced by saying that this is an appalling matter of public importance to bring to this House. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition ought to be ashamed of himself. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(3.27) —The word appalling is the appropriate word for the contribution of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford). This Government has spent all of its time since the election campaign and the National Economic Summit Conference, squandering the good fortune which has come this country's way in the last 12 months. I refer to the wage pause, the breaking of the drought and the minor recovery in the world economy. It has squandered the opportunities and continued to try to talk up the economy and to accuse us in the process of talking it down. We have a responsibility to the Australian people to ensure that the facts are known. The inescapable facts to come from the Minister's contribution are these: First , there is no need for an early election-the Government could put to the people a referendum for a simultaneous election if it wished and go its full term, something the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has no intention of doing; the second inescapable point is that unemployment is not falling; the third is that there is an investment strike. For all the Government says about having created an environment in which investment can take place it has not created that climate; no one has confidence. I put some more facts before the Parliament to illustrate why that is so. Although jobs are certainly being created that was also so at various stages of the Fraser Government's term of office. The then Opposition said then that unemployment was not falling. The Opposition is now saying precisely the same: Unemployment is not falling. What is happening is that the creation of jobs is keeping up with the natural growth in the work force but, in fact, in its period of office the Government has reduced unemployment by only 0.7 per cent. At the same time Australian businesses had to absorb a compounded wages increase of 8.6 per cent. As well, there has been a dramatic increase in the on-costs in relation to the employment of people. Yesterday's consumer price index figures really show that the CPI is a most inadequate way of measuring inflation. It is misleading to say, as the Government has said, that our inflation is now under the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. In fact, the Prime Minister at least admitted today that it is running at something like 7.5 per cent which is, of course, well above the OECD average of 5.8 per cent. Thus we are still uncompetitive on world markets. Despite what the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) have said today, 17 or 18 unions, led by the Building Workers Industrial Union, are determined to get some catch-up in addition to whatever tax cuts are granted in August. Mr Clancy has said-- Mr Hurford —You are doing your best to help them, aren't you! Mr MACPHEE —The Government has an obligation to make it clear to the people whom it wants to invest that there is going to be certainty, that the Accord is going to stick. Mr Hurford —What on earth was the Prime Minister doing in Question Time other than that? Mr MACPHEE —He and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations were skating over statements such as that of Mr Clancy who said: We want tax cuts which were promised in the Accord- we have been told today they will be delivered- and we want a restoration of the real value of wages which was also promised in the Accord. We were told today that the Government hopes the Australian Council of Trade Unions wages committee will get things in order; we were not told that the Government will support employers in resisting the demands that Mr Clancy and the other 17 union leaders want to make outside the arbitration system in breach of their undertakings to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and in breach of the Accord. Government members cannot talk, as the Prime Minister has done, of reducing real labour unit costs when in fact we know that the on-costs are rising so dramatically. The Labor Government in Victoria recently produced what it called an economic blueprint. It was called 'Victoria. The Next Step', and it showed that labour on-costs, as a share of total hourly labour costs, have risen from 22 per cent in 1974 to 34 per cent in 1983. Of course, payroll tax has been increasing at a rate five times that of job creation in the past three years. This Government is sanctioning breaches of the accord while pretending that it is in place. It actually says that it is creating the climate for investment. It says it is funding its deficit, but it is funding it in such a way that it is deterring investment. Look at what is happening on the industrial relations scene. First of all, there has been a protracted dispute at Broken Hill. It is no closer to settlement than it was a month ago. What has the Government said and what has it done with the Australian Council of Trade Unions to try to bring that to a close ? It has cut production down to 3 per cent. There are 2,700 miners currently out of work, and North Broken Hill Ltd has blamed its quarterly loss of $3.38m largely on the industrial disputes. Port Pirie is likely to have its smelter closed by Friday if that dispute is not settled. That means more loss of jobs and more damage to the economy. We have had a national two-week go slow by waterside workers. Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) indicated that he was unaware of that go slow, yet it is having a very damaging effect on our trade. Twenty-one ships, with cargoes worth an estimated $200m are tied up around the country. This is an extra claim in breach of the accord, in breach of undertakings that the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia made to the Arbitration Commission when it accepted the wage indexation package. In Tasmania seven west coast mines are reported to have closed down over a wages issue. Other local industries dependent on the work and on the consumption of the miners are also being disrupted. There are 2,000 meat workers on strike throughout Victoria. A campaign of picketing and vandalism has delayed the loading of 120,000 sheep at Portland. Again, this is threatening Australia's $ 200m a year live sheep export trade. Mr Curran, the famous Secretary of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union in Victoria, has said that the campaign is aimed at making live sheep exports unprofitable. What will that do to the rural industries which are dependent on those exports? Mr Hurford —What does it have to do with the Government and with misleading? Mr MACPHEE —It has everything to do with the accord because they are in breach of the accord. Mr Hurford —But what has it got to do with our misleading the Australian people? Mr MACPHEE —The Government is misleading the Australian people by trying to tell the public and the investors of this country that the accord is working. It is not working, and the Government is not doing anything to use its relationship with the ACTU in the accord to get those strikes lifted and the breaches of the accord rectified. So much for the self-regulation and the peer group pressure that the Government and the ACTU believe they can exercise. We have had the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association threatening industrial action over a 13 per cent pay claim by public servants. The Government does not appear to have dampened that in any respect, although it is the employer. Then we have the infamous Parliament House project, about which more will be said later. What is important is that we recognise now that even in respect of this so-called superannuation claim for the new Parliament House and elsewhere in the country, the big companies are already being forced to pay $10 or $11 over the award. They are paying in breach of undertakings the building unions made to the Arbitration Commission in accordance with the accord. The unions are now being told that perhaps the Commission will not pass on the 4.1 per cent increase because they are in breach. Mr MacDonald, the Building Workers Industrial Union leader, is saying openly that the workers will take industrial action to get the 4.1 per cent increase if the Commission refuses to grant the rise automatically. He is also saying the is is enevitable that the so-called superannuation claim will flow on, and of course it is. We have seen what has happened with long service leave, which has been granted by State Acts of Parliament. It was meant to be confined to the building industry, but now anyone working on a building site, even if he is simply installing windows, gets long service leave. Of course when he goes back to the factories whence he came, he then has different conditions from other people. It is then a simple matter for the provision to flow through to everybody else. So every maintenance fitter and every electrician on a building site get what the building workers get in superannuation, long service leave or whatever. They go back to their factories and when they are working with their peers they get the same, under the pressures that exist within our structure for comparative wage justice. This is all in breach of the accord. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has received a report for the week ending 13 April. Eighty-five industrial disputes were major enough to be notified to his Department. Twenty- one of those are in breach of the accord and in breach of the no extra claims undertaking signed by the unions. That is how much the written undertakings mean to the trade union movement and that is how much the accord means. It is a phoney. That is where the public is being mislead. The accord is not working. Even if it were, wage indexation is not wage restraint. The Government has not used its goodwill, it has not used the National Economic Summit Conference to get across the message that wage restraint means that wages can be increased only in line with productivity improvement. An increase in price does not indicate a capacity to pay wages, especially when so much of the price increase is due to government charges, federal and State, which themselves are in breach of the spirit of the Summit communique. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke)(3.35) —Can there be a greater example of the panic which has seized the discredited Opposition forces than this matter of public importance? At a time when the economy has shown distinct and positive signs of recovery we have attempts by the Opposition deliberately to reduce confidence in business and in the community by creating false alarms. In this matter of public importance the Government is accused of misleading the Australian people in relation to the state of the economy. That was a cheap remark, unworthy of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) . (Quorum formed) Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not know what the Opposition is afraid of that it has to call a quorum to cut my time. I point out again that this Government has been more open, more consultative and more ready to accept advice on the economy and on industrial matters than any government since the war. I know that this is true because I have been involved in many discussions with industry and trade union leaders in which the Government has been very frank about both the achievements and the problems which remain. It is completely dishonest for the Opposition to claim that we have in any way tried to mislead the people in relation to the monumental problems we have been facing. The question that arises is this: Who created the monumental problems? In one year 250,000 people became unemployed. This is the record of the people opposite. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition had the cheek to mention the manufacturing industry, in which 100,000 jobs were lost over two years under his stewardship. This is the sort of thing that has been happening. He says: 'Well, manufacturing employment has not gone up as much as it ought to have gone up and investment has been slower than it ought to have been'. In regard to both of those matters the fact is, as he knows, that it takes a long time to create confidence and to turn the situation around from the discredited policies of the previous Government. The fact is that any honest person must accept that the Government's record in relation to economic recovery is remarkable. Of course there were certain external factors, such as the drought, but the Opposition has refused to give credence to the stimulatory policy of the Government, to the change in economic policy. One would think, from listening to the former Treasurer, that there has been no change in economic policy and that all that happened was that the drought broke and his discredited wages pause came into effect. The fact of the matter is that the Government has put down a completely different philosophy and policy in relation to the economy from that which existed before, and that policy is working. Has the Opposition learned any lessons from this? Not at all. I see that the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) has left the House. Indeed he might , because he is about the only one left in the Opposition who has any reasonable position left. The rest of them have moved to the extreme right. We have a situation where even the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) had to say publicly that it was time for the Liberal Party to look again because it has moved so far to the right that it has fallen off the precipice. That is the situation, and who has led members of the Opposition into it? This gentlemen here, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who is the real power in the Liberal Party at present. He has led them to adopt even more extreme and more discredited policies than the ones which have failed in the past. We ask for a reconsideration by the Deputy Leader. He is not a foolish man. We ask him to do something which socialists are used to doing, that is, to partake in self- criticism. How about a little self-criticism from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? How about his looking at the suffering which his regime created and asking himself why this happened and whether there is some alternative, instead of giving us this ridiculous Liberal Party policy on the economy document which was described by several editorials as absurd. One said it is an amazing document. Indeed, it is amazing. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you imagine what a solution it would be for the industry problems of this country to sell off the Australian Industry Development Corporation? This is the Opposition's solution to the problems of manufacturing industry. I particularly ask how the policy got through the National Party of Australia, which has obviously lost its way because at least on one point, in regard to giving some support to the manufacturing industry, the National Party did have some basis for a policy. The fact of the matter is that the AIDC was established by Sir John McEwen in order to help plug gaps in industry where private sector investment was down. Mr Howard —It is certainly down at the moment. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I will come to that point. The honourable member says that private sector investment in manufacturing is down, so his solution is to get rid of the AIDC so there cannot be any public sector investment, either. That is the kind of solution to the problems of the manufacturing industry that he puts up. If that were to happen, does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition think business confidence would be re-established? The AIDC plays a very positive role in joint ventures with private enterprise and because of that it gives to private enterprise more confidence to invest. The honourable member for Bennelong talks about getting investment confidence back on the rails but he does not have a clue about how to do that. That is his problem. He seems to think that, no matter what the impirical evidence and no matter what the suffering in this country, he knows all the answers. Even if the facts are staring him in the face he refuses to re-analyse and re-examine his philosophical position. Let me say to him that it does not really matter when the election is held; he will be out of power for a long time while he persists with that position. It is about time he realised that we live in a mixed economy . He talks about the huge public sector in this country but it is one of the smallest public sectors in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, so what is he talking about? Why does he want to reduce the public sector even further? Is it nothing more than ideological blinkered nonsense? This whole policy document is so thin that anyone who objectively reads it would know that any group that pretends to go into an election with it must be the thinnest and most discredited group that has ever tried to put anything before the Australian people. It has nothing in it; all it does is attack the Hawke Government's general philosophical strategy on the economy and make claims which are totally wrong. The fact of the matter is that if there had not been an expansionary Budget we would not have been able to pull out of the recession in the way we have. Even Malcolm Fraser realised that right at the end and overrode the former Treasurer in trying to get something done, but it was too late. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the Minister wish to make a personal explanation? Mr HAYDEN —If it is possible. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr HAYDEN —Today the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) declared that I said it is not unreasonable that the Vietnamese attack the Khmer Rouge, or people in the coalition, including civilians. I have here a transcript of what I did say, which is considerably different from what the Leader of the Opposition said. I regret that it is a somewhat lengthy quote but it is necessary to get the record correct. In response to a question, I said: I cannot see any evidence of that- that is in relation to the allegations in the question- and nothing I said creates any embarrassment or problems for me. What I did say while Thach was there- that is, in Australia, during his recent visit- was at a dinner for him to condemn the continued occupation of Kampuchea by the Vietnamese, to point out as I had done earlier that at least up to that point which I stressed, that there had been no dry season offensive but also added that if the elements of the coalition forces particularly in the Khmer Rouge were to undertake attacks against the Vietnamese one would expect not unreasonably that there would be retaliation and Thach certainly made that clear . I will not go on with the rest of the quote. What I said was that one would expect, not unreasonably, that there would be a retaliation. However, whether the level, the nature and the extent of the retaliation was reasonable is another thing. I have made it clear elsewhere that we condemn aggression. We particularly condemn the presence of the Vietnamese in Kampuchea and I have condemned attacks on civilians. However, that does not resolve the problem of Kampuchea. Finally, I regret very much that the Leader of the Opposition has been reduced to such dire straits that he is now in the business of professionally misrepresenting what has been said and which can be verified from the record. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister has made his explanation. He will not debate the issue. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented. Mr PEACOCK —Indeed. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr PEACOCK —In a question to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at Question Time today, I put to him in the last part of the first question I asked relating to Cambodia: Will the Prime Minister dissociate himself from the remarks reportedly made by his Foreign Minister recently in Tokyo that these actions- Mr Robert Brown —Are you apologising? Mr PEACOCK —I certainly am not, for reasons I am about to state. Mr Hurford —I take a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I draw to your attention the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has not yet shown where he has been misrepresented. I ask you to bring him to the point. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —We are waiting to hear where he has been misrepresented. Mr PEACOCK —There is a great deal of anxiety on the other side of the House. May I put it to rest? I claim to have been misrepresented by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in his own personal explanation. I remind the House of what I said at the conclusion of that question on Cambodia to the Prime Minister: Will the Prime Minister dissociate himself from the remarks reportedly made by his Foreign Minister recently in Tokyo that these actions by the Vietnamese forces were 'not unreasonable'? The Prime Minister did not know what the Foreign Minister had said. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Is that the Leader of the Opposition's explanation? Mr PEACOCK —No, it is not. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The matter is not open to debate. Mr PEACOCK —Hang on a flash; you listened to the Minister for some time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will proceed with his explanation, but he will not debate the issue. Mr PEACOCK —I take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Sydney Morning Herald of 21 April, in an article written by Michael Richardson, contained the following: Questioned in Tokyo on Tuesday, Mr Hayden said it was not unreasonable for Vietnamese forces in Kampuchea to retaliate . . . This statement was also quoted in the Age of 21 April, where Michael Richardson said: Questioned in Tokyo on Tuesday, Mr Hayden said it was not unreasonable for Vietnamese forces in Kampuchea to retaliate against attacks . . . This report was filed by Michael Richardson to the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald. The very words I used in my question were 'reportedly made by his Foreign Minister'. If the Foreign Minister could actually recall what he had said he would have got up at the first opportunity at the end of Question Time and put forward the sort of tortuous and rambling explanation that he gave as he read from his statement. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition is now debating the issue. He will resume his seat. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —I claim to have been grievously and painfully misrepresented by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). Mr Peacock —Impossible. Mr HAYDEN —A feather sometimes hurts; the Leader of the Opposition did it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr HAYDEN —The Leader of the Opposition quoted Michael Richardson as a justification for what he said. Firstly, I did not say 'not unreasonable'-I said 'not unreasonably'-in the context which I have already quoted. Mr Peacock —You said 'not unreasonably', did you? And Michael Richardson had the quote wrong, did he? Mr HAYDEN —No, in the context in which I used it, which was considerably different from the way in which the Leader of the Opposition has quoted it. More importantly, Michael Richardson was thousands of miles away. He was not even in Tokyo. I suggest that in future the Leader of the Opposition should get a copy of the transcripts of what I have said. I give copies to anyone who asks for them. I will post them to anyone I can think of. No one on my side asks for them . As the Leader of the Opposition now wants them, I will put him on my permanent mailing list. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Acting Treasurer)(3.53) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to make two separate amendments to the States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Act 1981. The Act determines the amount of general purpose payments to the States in the forms of tax sharing grants and identified health grants until 30 June 1985 and provides for the distribution of the total amount of those grants among the States. The two amendments proposed in this Bill are designed, firstly, to give effect to an agreement with the States, made in the context of the negotiation of the Medicare agreements, that general purpose payments to the States after 30 June 1984 would be reduced by amounts in respect of the operation of Commonwealth pathology laboratories not taken over by the States; and, secondly, to make provision for continuing the payment of general purpose assistance to the States after 30 June 1985 pending the enactment of new legislation to replace the existing Act. The first amendment corrects an anomaly which goes back to a decision announced by the previous Government at the May 1981 Premiers Conference. At that time the Commonwealth announced its intention to transfer its pathology laboratory operations to the States. As a consequence, an amount was added to the States' tax sharing grants for 1981-82 and subsequent years to compensate them for this additional responsibility. With the exception of Western Australia, however, the States have not taken over the laboratories. The result has been that since 1981 -82 the Commonwealth has effectively funded the operation of the laboratories twice, both by direct funding and indirectly through the tax sharing grants. At the June-July 1983 Premiers Conference the Commonwealth indicated its intention to remove the anomaly and it was agreed with the States that an appropriate adjustment would be made to apply from 1 July 1984. The Commonwealth 's original proposal was for the adjustment to be made to the Medicare compensation grants specified under the Medicare agreements with each State. Some States, however, indicated that they considered the adjustment to be a matter separate from the establishment of Medicare. The Commonwealth therefore agreed that the adjustment would be made instead to the identified health grants and Medicare agreements were subsequently concluded with all States on that basis. The amount of the adjustment to be made in 1984-85 comprises the amounts agreed at the Premiers Conference increased in accordance with the increase in the consumer price index in 1984-85. I now turn to the second amendment. The States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Act 1981 requires that before payments under the Act cease on 30 June 1985 the Commonwealth shall consult with the States to review the provisions of the Act. The States have already been involved in the preparation of terms of reference under which the Commonwealth Grants Commission has commenced a review of the distribution of tax sharing grants amongst the States. The Commission's assessments will form an important element in the negotiation of new arrangements. The Commission is due to report by 30 March 1985. As consultations with the States on new tax sharing arrangements could not be commenced in detail until after that time, it seems highly unlikely that new legislation to provide for general purpose payments to the States from 1 July 1985 could be introduced into the Parliament until the Budget session of 1985. The amendment now proposed will allow the Treasurer to continue the regular payment of general purpose assistance to the States beyond 30 June 1985 until new legislation comes into force. Payments may be made during the six months from 1 July 1985, with the amount payable being limited to half the amount paid to each State in the previous year. Similar provisions have been made in other legislation involving regular payments to the States including the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Act 1983. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Acting Treasurer)(3.58) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to give legislative effect to changes to the income equalisation deposits scheme, first announced in the economic statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to the Parliament of 19 May 1983. Further ministerial announcements on 16 June 1983 and on 23 August 1983 expanded upon the proposed nature of those changes. The income equalisation deposits scheme, as amended, will have no taxation consequences other than the taxation of interest as income . The Government decided to remove the scheme from the tax system to prevent the possibility of its use for tax avoidance and so as to make the benefits accruing from the scheme more evenly available to all primary producers. The old arrangements had a degree of inequity in that producers on the highest marginal tax rate, that is, on the highest incomes, benefited most. As the provisions of the new scheme have been well publicised already and as the details of the Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Amendment Bill 1984 are explained in detail in a memorandum which I have arranged to be circulated, I shall confine my comments to outlining the broad features of the amended scheme. The aim of the scheme is to encourage primary producers to deposit moneys in years when their incomes are high so as to provide funds which can be drawn when incomes are lower. The incentive to make such deposits is an attractive interest rate, set quarterly at two percentage points above the short term Commonwealth Treasury bond rate. The eligibility criteria which determine whether this high rate is received on deposits will be broadly the same as under former arrangements. All primary producers, but only primary producers, are eligible for the higher rate. Deposits can be made up to a limit of a $250,000 deposit stock. Above that, they will not be eligible for the higher rate. In respect of any income year a primary producer may make new deposits which receive the higher rate of interest up to an amount equivalent to the lesser of 60 per cent of gross receipts from primary production in respect of that year and taxable income, other than income derived from property, in respect of that year. A deposit made at the higher rate will continue to receive that rate subject to the Commissioner of Taxation's confirmation of eligibility estimates and as long as the depositor continues in the business of primary production. The determination of eligibility will be a two step procedure. The first step will be taken by the primary producer, self-estimating the eligible deposit level for his or her current income year. This allows primary producers to take advantage of a current high income year to make deposits at the attractive interest rates. Interest payments in respect of new deposits will be based essentially on this self-estimation process. Provision is also being made, however, for the Commissioner of Taxation to provide an accurate assessment of the income of depositors and to provide that assessment to the administrator of the scheme, who is to be known as the authorised person. The authorised person will only need to make an adjustment to the interest entitlement of the depositor if the Commissioner's assessment effectively lowers the depositors' eligibility for interest payments at the high interest rate below the level which would otherwise be payable in respect of deposits actually made. Provision is being included to recoup any overpayments of interest which arise from overestimation by the depositor. Unwitting overestimation of income and deposit amounts will not be penalised, other than by recoupment. Furthermore, deposits made as a result of overestimates by primary producers will be able to be withdrawn without penalty immediately the Commissioner of Taxation's determination is known. However, overestimation and deposit with intent to defraud is an offence under the Bill. The Bill provides for primary producer depositors to retain their ongoing entitlement to the high interest rate if they move in and out of primary production, or change primary production endeavours so long as they are not absent from primary production for a period exceeding 120 days. Of course, new deposits may be made after resumption of primary production beyond that period and they would receive the higher interest rate if the eligibility criteria were then satisfied. The amendment Bill provides that a depositor is required to notify the authorised person of the cessation of primary production business. Withdrawals from the scheme will be possible on a similar basis as in the past. That is, deposits may be withdrawn at any time after 12 months, or within that time on grounds of financial hardship. Hardship will initially be judged by the authorised person. If the depositor who is claiming hardship is dissatisfied with the initial judgment, he or she may approach the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a ruling. The impact of the new arrangements on the future levels of deposits and withdrawals is very difficult to project with any degree of accuracy. Deposits have been continuing to ease since 1982. There may have been some natural pause in deposit intake towards the end of, and immediately following, the drought and also during the period of transition between the new scheme coming into effect on 1 September 1983 and the application of this amending legislation. It will be necessary to observe the deposit performance over some period before accurate projections can be made about the longer term trend of deposits. The level of interest payments will depend on the level of deposits and so they are also very difficult to project accurately. The interest rates applying to the new scheme have been higher than those offered under former arrangements. However unrecouped income tax deductions will be brought to account at the time of conversions and this will offset the cost on the Budget of the higher interest rate. Furthermore, the new scheme has none of the characteristics which enabled depositors to avoid tax under former arrangements. The difference in administrative cost caused by the changed arrangements is expected to be small. The new IED scheme has been designed to allow primary producers to deposit funds with the Commonwealth at interest rates higher, and conditions more favourable, than those on Commonwealth securities offered to the general public. This subsidy is intended to motivate primary producers to prepare for lean years but does not enable the wealthy to benefit more per dollar deposited, as did the former scheme. As such, this scheme should be particularly welcomed by smaller primary producers and those concerned with equity in our community. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Acting Treasurer)(4.04) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is complementary to the Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Amendment Bill 1984 which I have just introduced. In introducing that Bill I outlined the features of the new income equalization deposits scheme which has been developed by the Government and which will operate with effect from 1 September 1983. The new arrangements are far more equitable than the ones they replace and will better serve to encourage primary producers to make due provision for adverse seasons. The provisions of this Bill are consequential upon amendments of the Loan ( Income Equalization Deposits) Act 1976 proposed by the earlier Bill. Their main purpose is to amend the income tax law to make changes to the taxation treatment of income equalisation deposits in harmony with the decision to replace the former tax incentive basis of the scheme with one based on the payment of attractive interest rates on deposits. Accordingly, deposits made after 1 September 1983 will carry no special tax consequences. In particular, the income tax deduction previously allowable for eligible deposits made within specified limits is to be terminated. In outlining the provisions of the earlier Bill, I made it clear that, under the new arrangements, drought bonds and deposits made before 1 September 1983 may be transferred to the new scheme to enable depositors to take advantage of the special rate of interest payable under that scheme. Consistently with the basis on which income tax deductions were allowed under the former arrangements, where drought bonds or pre-1 September 1983 deposits are converted to the new scheme the amount so converted will be included in the depositor's assessable income of the year of income in which the conversion takes place. Depositors who apply to convert to the new arrangements within 60 days after the Bill receives royal assent will, for these purposes, be taken to have done so on 1 September 1983. Of course, no amount will be required to be included in assessable income in respect of drought bonds or income equalisation deposits that did not qualify for deduction. The Bill will also permit the Commissioner of Taxation and his officers to furnish relevant information contained in tax returns to authorised persons involved in the administration of the new IED scheme. This is necessary because eligibility criteria applying to depositors under the new scheme will continue to be based on tax related factors. A technical explanation of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum that is being made available to honourable members. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Acting Treasurer)(4.07) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of the Bill is to amend the Commonwealth Banks Act 1959 to modernise the structure of the constituent banks of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and to substantially improve the capital position of the Commonwealth Trading Bank. These amendments were decided upon following a major review of the financial structure and organisation of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation which was conducted by the corporation board and management and the Department of the Treasury. The structure of the Australian financial system has changed markedly since the Corporation banks were established under the Commonwealth banks legislation passed in 1959. The proposed changes are designed to place the Corporation banks in a position where they will be able to compete on a fully comparable basis with the major private banking and non-banking institutions. The main provisions of the Bill were foreshadowed in the Press release by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 2 April 1984. A major aspect of the Bill provides for the Commonwealth Savings Bank to become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Commonwealth Trading Bank. At present, the Commonwealth Savings Bank and Commonwealth Trading Bank are separate public statutory bodies. Reorganisation on this basis will establish a structure similar to that of the private banking groups and will allow a more effective organisation of the resources of the two banks. This reorganisation will not change the basic functions of the Commonwealth Savings Bank. However, it should allow for an improvement in the range of the services offered by both the trading and savings banks. Following from this reorganisation, the Bill also provides for the name of the restructured Commonwealth Trading Bank to be changed to the 'Commonwealth Bank of Australia'. This re-establishes the original name of the Commonwealth Bank when it commenced operations in 1912. The name of the Commonwealth Savings Bank will not be changed. The Bill also allows for the capital position of the Commonwealth Bank to be bolstered in order to strengthen its competitive ability and profitability. In the 1983-84 Budget, the Treasurer announced that there would be an injection of $15m in additional capital into the Commonwealth Bank. This will be effected through the Bill. The Bill also provides for the transfer of $75m from the reserves of the Commonwealth Development Bank to the Commonealth Bank. The transfer of reserves from the Commonwealth Development Bank will still leave the Development Bank with a level of capital and reserves equivalent to the very high ratio of about one-quarter of its liabilities. I would emphasise that this transfer of reserves will not affect the current or prospective operations of the Development Bank. In addition to these measures, I would mention that the Board of the Corporation has also decided that the Corporation and its constituent banks will revalue premises to reflect current market valuations. This will have a substantial positive impact on the capital position of the Commonwealth Bank. The Bill also provides for the Government to increase the scope available to it in future to add to the capital of the Commonwealth Bank and the Savings Bank through allowing higher retained earnings. The existing statutory provisions require that half of the after-tax profits of the Commonwealth Trading Bank and half of the net profits of the Savings Bank be paid to the Commonwealth. The new provisions will introduce flexibility into the profit sharing arrangements and allow for dividend arrangements more broadly in line with the private banking groups. They provide for the proportion of net profits to be paid by the Commonwealth Bank to be determined by the Treasurer, with a maximum payment of 45 per cent of the net profits of the Commonwealth Bank and its savings bank subsidiary, the Commonwealth Savings Bank. The Savings Bank will pay a dividend to the Commonwealth Bank, and the amount of that dividend in any year will be determined by the Corporation Board. There will continue to be no dividend requirement on the Commonwealth Development Bank. The Bill also includes specific provisions relating to the present financial year, that is, prior to the main provisions of the Bill coming into effect. Those provisions provide that for the year ending 30 June 1984, the dividend payable to the Commonwealth by the Commonwealth Trading Bank and the Commonwealth Savings Bank shall be determined by the Treasurer but shall not represent more than 45 per cent of net profits. Under the present Act, the Commonwealth Savings Bank, the Commonwealth Development Bank and the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, but not the Commonwealth Trading Bank, have been exempt from Commonwealth company income tax. The Bill removes the exemption enjoyed by those banks. However, the Bill does provide for a rebate to be given for any profit sharing payments made by the Commonwealth Savings Bank under the State savings bank amalgamation agreements. Those payments are made on a pre-tax basis and to not provide a rebate would impose an unfair burden on the bank relative to its competitors. The Bill also provides for a more flexible management and board structure for the corporation banks by removing the statutory general manager positions for the Trading Bank, the Savings Bank and the Development Bank and also the statutory executive committees of those banks. The statutory positions of Managing Director and Deputy Managing Director will however remain. The present Act imposes certain restrictions on the Corporation's employment of graduates. The Bill removes the present age limit and the restriction on numbers of graduates, and allows the Corporation to include graduates of colleges of advanced education and other tertiary institutions. I commend the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill 1984 to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Acting Treasurer)(4.14) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. On Budget night I introduced into this House a Bill identical in all respects with this Bill. The Budget-night Bill was a revision of an earlier Bill introduced by my colleague the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). Honourable members will recall that both those Bills were passed by this House but defeated in another place. The Bill I am now introducing is designed, as indeed was the Budget-night Bill, to give effect to this Government's election undertaking to recover personal tax avoided by former owners of companies that were the subject of bottom of the harbour schemes. In addition, the Bill proposes to strengthen and improve in several identified areas the legislation introduced by the Opposition parties in 1982 to recoup company tax that was evaded by the use of those schemes. Mr Deputy Speaker, as I have said, the present Bill does not vary from the Budget-night Bill and I think it will suffice if I draw honourable members' attention to my second reading speech on introduction of that earlier Bill for an explanation of the main features of this Bill. In that second reading speech I also referred to an amendment of an evidentiary provision in the recoupment tax law that was being made for reasons connected with a constitutional challenge in the High Court of Australia to the validity of the legislation. The amendment proposed to vary the evidentiary provision so that a certificate by the Commissioner of Taxation specifying the amount of a company's liability to company tax would be prima facie, rather than conclusive, evidence. Honourable members will be aware that the High Court recently held unanimously that the substantive provisions of the recoupment tax legislation are constitutionally valid. All members of the Court, however, expressed views that the existing conclusive evidence provision might, at least in part, be invalid. The proposed amendment will ensure that the evidentiary provision is constitutionally valid in all respects. By re-presenting the measures contained in the Budget-night Bill, the Government again demonstrates its determination to make every effort to give effect to its election commitments in relation to bottom of the harbour schemes. I now give notice that the Government is resolved to press this matter before the Senate and intends that the Opposition parties should stand and be counted by the Australian public for their obstructive attitude on anti-tax avoidance legislation. The measures contained in the Bill are estimated to yield $270m in total, and they deserve to be given the approval of the Parliament. As is usual with amendments of the taxation laws, an explanatory memorandum giving technical details of the amendments contained in the Bill is being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Acting Treasurer)(4.18) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill, like the one I have just introduced, is identical with the Budget- night Bill by the same title. That Bill was passed by this House but was not proceeded with in another place. This Bill will formally impose a tax, to be called dividend recoupment tax, on the dividend amount determined in accordance with the rules being inserted in the recoupment tax legislation by the amendment assessment Bill. The underlying purpose of the amendments is to recover personal income tax escaped by individual former owners of stripped companies. That will be done in a direct manner wherever possible. However, in cases where former owners held their shares through interposed companies or trusts recovery may in certain circumstances be by way of imposing on one or more of the interposed companies or trusts a tax equivalent to the maximum personal rate of tax applying in the year of income in which the shares in the stripped company were sold. This Bill will impose that tax. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(4.19) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of a Submarine Warfare Systems Centre, HMAS Watson, South Head, New South Wales. The proposal is for the construction of a new building at HMAS Watson for the Submarine Warfare Systems Centre, which provides operator training for the combat system of the Royal Australian Navy's Oberon class submarine force. HMAS Watson is located on South Head, Sydney, and is a training establishment providing advance courses in tactics, navigation, anti-submarine warfare and training on the fleet's weapons systems. The submarine warfare systems centre is located at HMAS Watson but existing facilities are inadequate and are unable to be extended to overcome present shortcomings and to meet the requirements of the latest weapons systems. Functions to be accommodated in the new facility are tactical development, training including simulators, computer facilities, technical support and administration. The proposal involves demolition of an existing structure and construction of a three-level building partly set into the site to minimise its height above ground level and impact on the skyline of South Head. The building will be of concrete construction with external finishes designed to match the colour and texture of the natural rock prominent in this area. The proposal has been discussed with State and local government authorities including the Woollahra Council and the New South Wales Department of Environment and Planning. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $3,340,000 at November 1983 prices. I table plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(4.21) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is twofold: First, and as a consequence of the Government's decision to provide departments with more flexibility in financial management, to enable the Minister for Finance to exercise a degree of discretion over expenditures to ensure that the greater flexibility so afforded to departmental heads is translated, as far as possible, into more effective and efficient management; and, secondly, to effect minor amendments to the Act in relation to the provisions related to the appointment of the Auditor-General, act of grace payments, audit fees and some machinery matters. In connection with the primary purpose of the Bill, in December 1983 I advised the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations and each Senate Estimates committee of the Government's proposals to consolidate certain administrative appropriations from 1984-85 to permit improved and more flexible financial administration by departments. Those proposals were amplified in the paper I issued on 16 April 1984 entitled 'Budget Reform' and I draw honourable members' attention to Chapter 5-'Financial Management of Government Programs'-of that paper. In keeping with the intentions I have foreshadowed, it is proposed that Schedule 2 of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1), 1984-85 will show, for each department, consolidated appropriations for each of 'Salaries and Payments in the nature of Salary' and 'Administrative Expenses'-that is, as a general rule, at the appropriation subdivision level-rather than the sometimes quite fine detail of proposed expenditures by item that has previously appeared. To enable the continued effective parliamentary scrutiny of departmental estimates, information provided to the Estimates committees on these consolidated votes will, for the time being, continue in essentially the same form and at the same level of itemised detail as in explanatory notes previously provided. However, as indicated in paragraph 3.18 of 'Budget Reform', the Government proposes consultations to improve the basis for parliamentary scrutiny of the Estimates, particularly through the provision of more program-oriented information. The springboard for consolidating appropriations is the Australian Labor Party' s policy document on 'Labor and Quality of Government'; the impetus for reforms of this kind, however, has come from such authorities as the Coombs Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration, the report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure on 'Parliament and Public Expenditure' and the Reid report on the review of Commonwealth Administration. The move towards greater consolidation of certain appropriations, bringing with it the capacity for departments to respond more effectively to an environment which is constantly affecting spending priorities, particularly in the area of administration, is an important step towards the goal of departments assuming greater responsibility in their financial management. The Government recognises, however, that this enhanced flexibility will have an impact, if only initially, on the way in which departments have traditionally managed their administrative resources and it is important to ensure that this is translated into more effective and more efficient management. It would, therefore, be sensible to retain, particularly during the transitional stages, the ordinary scope for monitoring the extent to which departments may reallocate expenditures within the consolidated amounts appropriated by Parliament. Thus, it is envisaged that such expenditure reallocations should be subject to the agreement of the Minister for Finance or his delegates. To this end, minor amendments to the Audit Act are necessary. These amendments, which are set out in clause 8 of the Bill, will empower the Minister for Finance to direct that the consolidated amounts approved by parliament be divided into items of expenditure-termed notional items-that accord with the previously agreed estimates; and to approve the reallocation of expenditure between notional items within a subdivision of the Appropriation Act. This process will not, of course, permit the amounts appropriated by parliament to be varied. Moreover, the power to direct notional items will be exercised only to the extent and for the period necessary for departments to adjust effectively and efficiently to the new appropriations. I turn now to the other amendments before the House. The first, being those at clauses 3 to 6 and clause 15, relate to the appointment of the Auditor-General and associated matters. They bring the legislation into line with current appointment practices and drafting policy. The second noteworthy inclusion in these other amendments is that at clause 9 which will permit the attachment of conditions to payments made under section 34A of the Act. Section 34A of the Act deals with act of grace payments, being discretionary payments which may be made by the Commonwealth, notwithstanding the absence of any legal obligation to do so. For example, under the terms of a social welfare enactment, a person's particular circumstances may not qualify him or her for the receipt of benefits, despite the underlying intentions of the statute. In such circumstances, an act of grace payment, or payments, may be considered justified, pending amendments of the enactment. The Government has been advised, however, that, in such a case , if a person had received dual benefits, that is, as an act of grace payment and subsequently in accordance with a new statutory entitlement that, say, had retrospective effect, no power exists to recover the amount of the act of grace payment. Thus, it is proposed that section 34A of the Act be amended to permit the attaching of conditions to such payments, including a condition of repayment where appropriate. In the event of default by the recipient, the Commonwealth will be empowered to recover the payment by court action, if necessary. The remaining clauses of the Bill encompass amendments of a minor nature that would otherwise have been included in a Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. These clauses are intended to clarify the provisions relating to the transfer of certain moneys from the credit of the Trust Fund, the levying of fees for certain audits conducted by the Auditor-General and definition of ' approved bank' in relation to statutory authorities' operations; to give recognition to the power to recover by instalments amounts owing to the Commonwealth; and to increase to present day values certain amounts struck in 1979 and specified in the Act in relation to act of grace payments and waiver of debts. The financial impact of the proposals reflected in this Bill is indirect and not easily quantified. The initial control procedures which are being proposed to apply in the context of consolidated appropriations are not intended to be an end in themselves. Rather, they are to assist and encourage departments to establish quickly the necessary degree of financial management capability to operate within that changed appropriation format. The Government believes that the consolidation of appropriations, especially for departmental administrative expenditures, will promote efficiency and effectiveness in the management and delivery of programs by overcoming the somewhat cumbersome procedures hitherto required to redirect expenditure from one item to another. The new arrangements will also allow departments to respond more rapidly to changing circumstances and priorities in the course of the year. The achievement of these benefits will be accelerated by establishing, from the outset, soundly based control mechanisms that can, progressively, be devolved on departments to administer themselves. The provisions relating to the appointment of the Auditor-General have no financial implications. The financial impact of the remaining provisions of the Bill should, in practice, prove relatively insignificant. They are primarily supplementary controls included in a piece of legislation-the Audit Act-that is, itself, a controlling statute. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(4.30) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The primary purpose of this Bill is to put into operation the Government's commitment to reactivate the former Curriculum Development Centre within the administrative structure of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. By this means the Commonwealth will have the capacity to provide schools and school systems with curriculum and educational materials, information and expertise. The legislation will also strengthen the integral relationship between curriculum issues, research priorities and the funding and program responsibilities of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. To achieve its primary purpose the Bill repeals the Curriculum Centre Act 1975 and in doing so abolishes the existing Curriculum Development Centre as a statutory authority. The assets and liabilities of the existing Centre are to be vested in the Commonwealth and will be administered by the Commonwealth Schools Commission. The legislation will establish a new Curriculum Development Council, reporting to the Minister, which will work in close consultation with the Commonwealth Schools Commission. The Chairman of the Commission will have permanent head powers in relation to the staff appointed under the Public Service Act 1922 to assist both the Commission and the new Curriculum Development Council. In addition to the primary purpose of the Bill, the legislation also updates general provisions in the Commonwealth Schools Commission Act 1973 to take account of current legislative practices. The legislation also provides authority for the Commission to inquire into, and to furnish information and advice to the Minister, with respect to matters affecting the education of handicapped children who have not attained school age. In accordance with the Government's pre-election education policy this Bill will reverse the decision taken by the Fraser Government to abolish Australia's national curriculum body. The earlier decision, arising from a recommendation of the Committee for the Review of Commonwealth Functions-otherwise known as the Lynch Committee-was made despite considerable public debate and a flood of objections from all quarters of the educational community, including the national parent and teacher organisation. It was a pointless decision given the significant achievements of the Curriculum Development Centre in its all too short history. It was a decision that could not have been made on the basis of any rational educational argument and a decision made all the more remarkable given that the then Minister for Education had only six weeks previously officially opened the Centre's premises with a speech praising at considerable length the Centre's achievements. That decision reflected the Fraser Government' s lack of real concern for the education of our children. In contrast, the Hawke Government is committed to an educational program that will ensure that the greater majority of children in our schools are given a worthwhile and rewarding education. Central to such a goal will be the re-establishment of the Commonwealth's national curriculum role as proposed in this Bill. One of the main outcomes to be expected from the proposed new arrangements will be a commitment to forge a closer relationship between national curriculum development and the program activities of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. This link will be instrumental in enabling the Commission to implement fully the Government's national educational priorities, in particular, to promote curriculum initiatives in such areas as Aboriginal education, the education of girls, computer education, secondary education curriculum renewal and those programs concerned with Australia's multicultural character. The close links to be forged between the Curriculum Development Council and the Commonwealth Schools Commission will strengthen the capacity of the Commission to bring about long term changes in Australian education. In the immediate future this increased capacity will be evident in the curriculum inputs that will be made to the announced participation and equity and computer education programs. The cost of reactivating the Curriculum Development Centre is expected to be between $2.5m and $3m a year, less expected revenue from sales of curriculum publications of $500,000 a year. The transfer of curriculum activities presently conducted by the Department of Education and Youth Affairs to the Curriculum Development Council will involve savings in the order of $1.5m a year which will be an offset against the costs of reactivating the Curriculum Development Centre . The Government's participation and equity program is a cornerstone of our strategies for educational improvement and through this program it will be possible to break down the persisting patterns of disadvantage, those patterns which have made educational outcomes dependent to an unacceptable extent on the socio-economic background of the student or the student's sex, ethnic background and geographical location. The immediate emphasis of the program will be to increase the participation of young people in post-compulsory schooling, particularly Aboriginal people, working class youth, some migrant communities, rural youth and the handicapped. However, in the longer term the Government will be seeking to make education a more challenging and rewarding experience for all children. The Government's computer education program recognises the need for all students to have an understanding of the uses of new technology and of the impact these new technologies will have on the student's social, environmental, industrial and working life. From the teachers' point of view, there will need to be planning for, and guidance in, the ways in which the computer and related technologies are to be introduced into the curriculum and into the professional development programs of both the practising teacher and the teacher trainee. The promotion of these needs, including the professional development needs of parents and community members, will be a major responsibility of the new Curriculum Development Council. Achieving these objectives will require the full co-operation of all groups with an interest in education. It will not be an easy task and it is not one that can be left to individual schools or systems. Co-operation, co-ordination and facilitation will be necessary if the initiatives are to have a broad system impact. Central to the process will be the need to give close attention to the school curriculum, in particular, to the curriculum content, structure and organisation. In this demanding task there is a clear need for national initiative and this is being provided for in the provisions of this Bill. Among the initiatives that will need pursuing on the wider national front will be such issues as credentialling and assessment procedures, the analysis of curricula, the consideration of alternative organisational and structural patterns, the retraining of teachers, changes in teacher attitudes, the design and development of new courses and, very importantly, the improvement of school- community relations and community attitudes towards both education and the outcomes of education. The Labor Party and Labor governments have traditionally been concerned with justice and equity. We have a commitment to creating a more equal society where each person can achieve their full potential. In education this means we are committed to assist schools to give a positive and effective education to all children, and to make substantial progress towards the more equal distribution of other outcomes of education such as access to paid employment and higher education. We believe there is an urgent need to encourage all children to obtain a full twelve years of education and thereby to increase participation in tertiary education and in the country's capacity to adapt to, and make significant contributions to, technological change. At the present time too many of our children are leaving school without completing an adequate level of education and without developing those skills that will enhance their opportunities for satisfying employment. It is also true that of those children who are leaving early a disproportionate number are coming from working class and disadvantaged groups. In response to this situation the Hawke Labor Government has a long term goal to ensure that most young people complete a full secondary education, either in a school or in a technical and further education institution, or in some combination of work and education. Achieving this goal will require far reaching initiatives paramount among which will be the curriculum reforms I have already mentioned. The interest of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) in the education of girls and of Aboriginals is well known and the re-activation of the former Curriculum Development Centre will be a vital element in the Government's policies in these areas. It is only recently that there has been a widespread recognition that schooling was not preparing girls for the economic and social realities of adult life. We do not yet have a comprehensive history of schooling for girls in Australia and that is significant in itself. We know that over the greater part of our history there have been major differentiations between the schooling offered to girls and boys, except for that minority of girls who followed an academic path traditionally designed for privileged males. In Aboriginal education the situation is no better. It is only recently that Aboriginal history and culture has been considered a legitimate study in our schools. Virtually all of us here were treated to the history of the world and of Australia from a British perspective. This Bill will enable the Government to take positive steps to set about redressing these imblances. In the same way that Aboriginals and girls have been limited in the benefits that they may derive from education and in the contributions they may make to the development of our country so too have several other groups including other ethnic groups and the handicapped. The multicultural nature of Australian society and the rights of all persons is still not adequately understood nor reflected in current educational practices. The Labor Government acknowledges the diversity of the contributing cultures in Australia and it will be expecting the new Curriculum Development Council to contribute to the development and dissemination of curricula that acknowledges this diversity and provides a perspective of Australia as a nation in the Asia- Pacific region. The challenge ahead of us is to turn schools, and the formal education system, into places and experiences which young people will really enjoy and find value in. We need to reaffirm the traditional and positive concern of schooling with the development of the individual, and to place less stress on the function of school as a social sorting system. It is a debasement of the purposes of education to use schools as a weeding out device. They should not be places where for many students their main experience is one of frustration and inadequacy. This is not to downplay academic achievement and high educational standards and , indeed, the Government fully recognises the need to improve the education and preparation of those who are moving into higher levels of education. However, this must not be done at the expense of the many students for whom schooling is the route to gainful employment and a satisfying adult life. The objective must be to provide a satisfying and demanding education for all students. The Hawke Government believes that this objective will be achieved if the Commonwealth supports school curriculum and practice in a positive and direct way. Such support should build upon the intellectual and social resources of students and their school communities and give to students the confidence and understanding necessary to shape individually and collectively the circumstances of their own lives. In the curriculum context the emphasis will be on the Commonwealth, through the Curriculum Development Council, taking a positive stance in co-ordinating, facilitating and in broad terms supporting the development of curriculum strategies in association with existing curriculum groups throughout the country . The aim will be to achieve increased co-operation and understanding between the Commonwealth and the States, to extend the involvement of teachers and parents in the curriculum process and to expand co-operation between all sectors of the educational fabric. Through such endeavours the Government is confident that all Australian children whatever their economic, social, ethnic or geographical background will be able to enjoy as near as practicable an equal and worthwhile educational opportunity. In proposing that the Commonwealth play a positive role in this process the Government fully recognises that State governments have the prime responsibility for education. However, the Government believes it is possible, and indeed highly desirable, for the Commonwealth to participate and for the Curriculum Development Council to work in partnership with the States in building on the work now being done in the States and to seek ways of co- operatively developing new approaches to traditional subject matter as well as new subjects, new organisational and structural patterns, and forms of teaching and learning that will make school a more interesting and constructive experience for all students. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.41) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Customs Tariff (Stand-by Duties) Bill 1984 which is now before the House is to permit the Government to impose, in certain circumstances , a Customs duty on imported light crude oils. Last year, the Government took steps to ensure that the maximum practicable level of indigenous crude oil is absorbed by the Australian refining industry. In this context, the Government announced its intention to prepare the legislation now before the House. This Bill provides that two requirements be met by the Minister for Resources and Energy before a Customs duty on certain imported oils may be imposed. The first requirement is that the Minister for Resources and Energy has published a gazette notice informing the public that, in the national interest, the rate of absorption of Australian crude oils during a year or other period should not be less than the amount specified in the notice. The second requirement is that the Minister for Resources and Energy forms the opinion that the rate at which Australian crude oil is being absorbed is, because of factors under the control of oil refinery owners, less than the rate specified in the gazette notice. In this circumstance, the Minister for Resources and Energy may convey his opinion in writing to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Bill provides, however , that such correspondence will not occur earlier than two months after the commencement date specified in the notice. If the requirements I have just outlined are satisfied, the Minister for Industry and Commerce may make a declaration by gazette notice, thus enabling the imposition of an additional duty on certain imported oils. The Bill also specifies that any additional duty shall not exceed a rate of 3c per litre or approximately $5 per barrel; cannot be applied to certain exempt oils; may be varied or revoked by the Minister for Industry and Commerce by a declaration published by gazette notice. I might also add that declarations imposing or varying the additional duty must be tabled in both Houses of Parliament. There is a long history of government policy in relation to the absorption of crude oil. Since oil was first produced in Australia in the late 1960s, governments of both political persuasions have adopted policies aimed at ensuring that all available Australian crude oil is absorbed in Australian refineries. Traditionally the refining industry has imported crude oil to make up the rest of its requirements. In 1983, however, for the first time Australian crude oil appeared to be in a state of 'technically' surplus in that available production was being shut in while imports were continuing at relatively high levels. This situation arose as a result of a variety of pressures, including the price of available spot market crudes. In the context of the parlous economic situation which confronted this Government in 1983 it was decided that it was essential to maximise the production of Australian crude oil and hence its contribution to government revenues. This was achieved through two complementary policies-exports of surplus production have been allowed on a spot basis during 1983-84 and a minimum absorption level for Australian refiners has been nominated. The success of this policy is clear. Production levels of Gippsland crude oil have been at record levels in recent months. Aggregate production over the financial year to date is currently some 60,000 barrels a day higher than in 1982-83. Most of this increase has resulted from increased levels of absorption by Australian refiners although exports have made a significant contribution. All available production from other fields has been absorbed by Australian refiners. The Bill provides a standby measure. Whether or not an import duty is imposed will depend largely on the efforts of refiners to maintain liftings of domestic crude at satisfactory levels. The Government will refrain from implementing the legislation as long as Australian oil refiners continue to lift domestic crude oil at an acceptable rate. Details of the guidelines which the Government will use to assess whether the target will be met have been prepared and distributed to the refiners. An assessment that the import duty may be necessary would require two conditions to be met. First, aggregate domestic liftings would need to be below the target rate in two consecutive months and, secondly, the Minister for Resources and Energy considered that the minimum target rate for the specified period is unlikely to be attained. If the performance of the refiners continues to reflect the Government's target the imposition of additional duties will not be needed. In the event that the standby duty is required, its financial impact will depend on the circumstances and the performance of the refinery industry against the nominated target. The Bill provides for topped crudes and the other heavy refinery feedstocks suitable for the production of lubricating oil, bitumen and fuel oil to be exempt from the duty as these products cannot be obtained from the light Australian crude oils. Imports of naphtha, a feedstock for the petrochemical industry, are also exempt. Imports of refined products which require no further processing before final sale are also exempt in order to ensure that extra costs are not added to the northern and north-western regions of Australia which are solely dependent on imported refined products. However, it would be a matter of concern to the Government if this exemption for refined products were to lead to an increase in imports of refined products, prejudicing the absorption of Australian crude oil. Should the legislation be invoked, this matter will be kept under review. The Minister for Resources and Energy will determine whether the level of liftings is consistent with the achievement of the absorption target. After imposition of the penalty duty the Bill provides for variation in the rate of duty as well as for its revocation. This would occur when the level of liftings had improved to a level consistent with achieving the nominated absorption target. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.49) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes to amend the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Act 1980 to extend the operation of the liquefied petroleum gas subsidy scheme to 31 March 1987 in a modifed form. During the extended period, eligibility for the subsidy will remain unaltered but the subsidy rate will be based upon a wholesale price for LPG as determined by the Minister for Resources and Energy. Proposed section 6A(4) in clause 5 of the Bill sets out the factors to be taken into account in the determination of this wholesale price. The use of LPG in automotive, petrochemical, mining of oil and gas or the refining of petroleum remains ineligible for the subsidy. Users who converted to LPG after 25 September 1981 will continue to have their eligibility for subsidised LPG restricted to 1,000 tonnes per annum unless they have been issued with a determination under section 7A of the Act. Under the new arrangements the subsidised wholesale price for LPG will be linked to movements in the fuel and light component of the consumer price index. From now on the rate of the subsidy will be calculated by subtracting from the determined wholesale price per tonne of LPG the amount that was the subsidised price for the preceding six monthly period adjusted in accordance with movements in the fuel and light component of the CPI. The related formula is set out in clause 5 of the Bill. For the period from 29 March 1984 to 30 September 1984 the determined wholesale price will be $244.75 per tonne and the subsidised price per tonne will be $224.44. This means that the rate of subsidy will be $20.31 per tonne. These new arrangements which have been determined as a result of a review of LPG pricing and subsidy should result in many consumers paying less and no consumers paying more for their LPG and reticulated gas requirements. Under the Government's pricing policy which determines the wholesale price of LPG the wholesale price was reduced from $304.44 per tonne to $244.75 per tonne on and from 29 March 1984. This is a reduction of about 20 per cent. In the course of the review some 200 submissions and representations were received from State and local governments, from industry and from consumers. The revised LPG pricing and subsidy arrangements decided upon by the Government are designed to meet the principal concern raised in many submissions-that is, that the price of LPG should be stabilised and price movements made more predictable. It is intended that a further review of the subsidy be conducted early in 1987. A number of submissions proposed that the subsidy should be continued at $80 per tonne. Because future movements in LPG prices will be more in line with movements in prices of other forms of energy such as electricity and natural gas the Government is of the view that it would be inequitable to subsidise LPG to this extent. Since the subsidy was introduced in 1980, the subsidised wholesale price has risen by 80 per cent compared with an increase in average retail electricity and natural gas prices of roughly equal magnitude. The cost of energy in all its forms has significantly increased in recent years and the Government believes that it would be unreasonable to exempt one set of consumers from the general movements in prices by a large subsidy financed from govenment revenue. The continuation of the modified subsidy scheme for a further three years will alleviate future sharp increases in the price of LPG which would be faced by consumers if the subsidy were withdrawn. Administrative arrangements for payments of the subsidy will not vary to any great extent. Claimants will however be advised by the Department of Industry and Commerce of any revised procedures. Financial Impact Statement The cost of extending the subsidy is expected to be $1.2m for the 1983-84 financial year, and about $7.2m for 1984-85. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Uren, and read a first time. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government)(4.53) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Under section 4A of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976, the Commissioner of Taxation is required by the end of July each year, to make a determination as to the amount of personal income tax collections which is used as the basis for local government tax sharing arrangements. Prior to the introduction of the prescribed payments system, which operates under Division 3A of Part VI of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Income Tax Regulations, collections of tax payable on income to which that system now applies, were reflected in the amount of provisional tax and balances of tax payable that were collected in a particular year of income, and which are specifically included in the definition of personal income tax in the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976. The purpose of this Bill is to make amendments consequential upon the introduction of the prescribed payments system to allow payments made under that system to be taken into account in the personal income tax which forms the basis of local government tax sharing. Without these amendments to include specifically the appropriate part of collections of prescribed payments system deductions, that is, collections from individuals in the year in which they are received, the amount of net personal income tax collections forming the basis of local government tax sharing arrangements would in future be permanently reduced by the amount of those prescribed payments system deductions. The reason for this is that, in the year following their receipt, prescribed payments system deductions will reduce both the amount of tax otherwise to be collected on an assessment of the income of the preceding year, and the amount of provisional tax to be levied in respect of the then current year. Such a result would not only be contrary to the intended basis for local government tax sharing arrangements, but it would also be inconsistent with the tax sharing arrangements with the States which include prescribed payments system deductions in the base on which the tax sharing amount is calculated. The amendments are essentially technical amendments designed to maintain the original intention of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976; to ensure consistency with the provisions of the tax sharing arrangements and to allow the Commissioner of Taxation to include receipts received in 1983- 84 in the base figure for calculation of the 1984-85 grants to local government. Financial Impact Statement It is estimated that the amendments will allow an additional $2m to $3m to be paid to local governments under the income tax sharing arrangements for the 1984 -85 financial year. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Uren) agreed to: That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposals contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the House on 1 May 1984, namely: the construction of two standard bus shelters and one additional street light in King George Terrace; and the relocation of the two police guard boxes in Queen Victoria Terrace. Debate resumed. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(5.00) —As I was saying when the debate was adjourned before lunch, there are some worthwhile measures in this Bill, such as that allowing for the right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against the decision of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The principal drive of the Bill is not to make Australian citizenship more important or more valued but to make it quicker, easier, duller and cheaper. The Minister and the Government are taking steps which the Australian public does not want to see taken. I think that has come out in the last few days in the controversy aroused by Professor Geoffrey Blainey, a controversy which I am sure has caused Professor Blainey some distress. I think that the Minister was right to point out that total Asian migration is very small. I am sure also that the Asian migrants will be either good citizens or decent workers. But it is foolish for the Minister to speak of Australia as being Asianised when Australia is and must be a European civilisation, with traditions, customs and institutions which are European, with its main sources being Britain, Southern Europe and Eastern Europe. The people value these deep and historic traditions and institutions and are alarmed when they hear Ministers of the Crown dismissing them and talking as if they did not exist. They rightly see in the Minister and in the Government a prejudice against Britain, Eastern Europe and Southern Europe. I think Professor Blainey is to be congratulated for having broken an unnecessary taboo and for having raised the issue and opening it for discussion instead of it remaining under an unnecessary taboo. It is plain that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in effect agrees with Professor Blainey. In the speech he made a week or so ago to the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils he agreed that the change in pattern is as a result of the application of the current Government's family reunion program. I think Professor Blainey should be congratulated, rather than have criticism poured on him, for opening this subject up for discussion and for breaking the unnecessary taboo. The same situation applies with Australian citizenship, which Australians take seriously, just as they take their European traditions seriously. They are alarmed when the Minister treats Australian citizenship lightly, as obviously he does. They do not see merit in making Australian citizenship quick and easy. They do not want cut-price citizenship. They do not want no-frills Australian citizenship, yet that is what the Minister and this Government are offering them . Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(5.03) —in reply -I am concerned about the way the Opposition has conducted itself in this debate . It has missed the fact that the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill gives effect to the Government's commitment to ensure that the Australian Citizenship Act reflects the common national identity of all Australians and that it does not discriminate between persons on the basis of their sex, marital status and present or previous nationality. We are concerned that the Act should provide for reviews of decisions to deny or deprive persons of citizenship. We want to amend the Act to ensure that it is thoroughly Australian in character. This Bill has had regard to the review of citizenship by the Human Rights Commission in 1981 and the national consultations on the Act undertaken by the previous Administration in 1982. As a result, we included measures to eliminate various anomalies, reduce subjectivity in criteria of assessment for eligibility for citizenship, and sought to clarify and simplify administrative requirements and to remove redundancy provisions. We are doing all this to assist the 1.1 million people in Australia who as permanent residents are eligible for citizenship but who have not yet applied to take it out. We are doing quite well . For most of the year the Hawke Labor Government has been in power the applications went up by 20 per cent. We hope that this legislation will assist that trend to continue. At the outset of my reply to this debate I should comment on the abysmally poor quality of the Opposition's argument against the major measures in this Bill. It is the most significant piece of amending citizenship legislation since 1949. The Opposition has absolutely refused to debate the major measures in the Bill. It has reneged on its responsibility to debate the real issues involved with citizenship applications and it has reneged on its responsibility to a multicultural Australia. Virtually all of the speakers from the Opposition concentrated on the alleged bias in the proposed changes to the oath of allegiance. The shadow Minister, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), made a number of allegations. He said that we had no mandate to effect these changes. I draw his attention again to the consultations that were conducted by the former Government. Many of those recommendations have been picked up in this Bill. Virtually all the major changes in this Bill, including the changes to the oath of allegiance and the removal of the British subject status as a criteria for Australian citizenship, were flagged in our policy commitments before the last election. Mr Hodgman —No, they were not. Mr WEST —They were, and I invite the honourable member to look at the information that was published at the time. I took great note of what the shadow Minister was saying in his speech on the second reading debate. It was only in the last eight minutes of a half-hour speech that he attempted to address the real issues in this Bill, and then he mentioned only two. With eight minutes to go he mentioned the fact that we were going to reduce the qualifying time and reduce the English language requirement, including exempting people who are over 50 years of age from the English language requirement. It was only in the last three minutes that he said that he supported most of the major changes being made in this Bill. So it was only in the last three minutes that the House finally discovered that the Opposition was in favour of virtually everything in the Bill, except the oath of allegiance and the British subject status, on which members of the Opposition saw fit to concentrate for the whole of their speaking time. I am sorry to say that with few exceptions the large number of speakers from the Opposition exhibited a very lamentable degree of political opportunism towards this very serious subject which concerns multicultural Australia. Let me address some of the few points that were made by the Opposition speakers . The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) actually called for Australian citizenship to be made a great deal harder to obtain. He said that we ought to see that greater benefits go to naturalised Australians than to permanent residents. I wonder how well that will be received by the virtually millions of people who are in Australia as permanent residents. Some 1.1 million are already eligible for citizenship but there are many more who are not yet eligible. Perhaps the low point in the debate, as far as the Opposition's abysmal performance was concerned, was when the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) said that, as 81 per cent of Australian people believed in God, he must rise to his feet to protest at my decision to make the reference to God optional . I must say that I do not profess to have the divine power to make God optional but obviously what he meant was that I and the Government were introducing in this Bill something which was not previously in operation. Of course that is not true. In the current legislation applicants for citizenship have the right to make either an affirmation or an oath. This Bill removes the necessity to swear allegiance to the monarchy but we have not removed the right to make a pledge in line with a person's religious beliefs. The position will be exactly the same as it is now. So I assure the migrants of Australia that the honourable member for Wakefield is wrong and that I am not attempting to make God optional. Perhaps the contributions of members of the National Party of Australia were the worst of all. They showed that they were prepared to ignore this nation's own political and social history, because we really are a nation of immigrants whether the National Party likes it or not. The propensity that they showed during the debate to hark back to the so-called benefits of anglophilism simply does not go over at all well with the many non-English speaking migrants who have come to join us from other lands. Members of the National Party just refuse to accept the fact that we have seen successive great waves of immigrants join us, particularly since the Second World War. Only two honourable members from the Opposition attempted to address the major measures in the Bill, for at least part of their addresses. At least that showed they had taken the trouble to read the Bill. Apart from the shadow Minister, who I think did know something about it-he chose not to exhibit that knowledge, by speaking for 27 minutes about the oath of allegiance and 3 minutes on the major parts of the Bill-only the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) and the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman), the last speaker, showed that they had any knowledge of the Bill, thus exhibiting the fact that they had taken the trouble to read it. I certainly do not agree with the closing comments of the honourable member for Wentworth because the Government is not, and I have never said it is, attempting to Asianise Australia. I have said that Professor Blainey is wrong when he says that we are anti-British and pro-Asian. We are simply practising non-discriminatory assessment policies on a global level according to our family reunion, business migration and skilled labour programs. Mr Coleman —It is the same thing. Mr WEST —No, it is not. What the honourable member really means if he is saying that is that he agrees with Blainey, that if those programs provide a result that he does not like, he would have us alter the programs themselves; that is to say, in his view the family reunion program provides too many Asians, we will have to alter that program because there is something inherently bad about Asians. We say the family reunion program is worth while in its own right and that all permanent residents of Australia have rights under that program, regardless of whether they come from Asia or Britain. That is the crux of the argument. We do not see a need to change our humanitarian policies simply because they might be providing just a few more Asian people. If honourable members really want to do their sums on the matter, this whole stupid and trite debate is a misrepresentative one as it is about whether we take 7,000 or 8,000 more people from Asia in a program each year of, say, 70,000 to 80,000 people. Mr Coleman —The sums don't matter; it is the trend. Mr WEST —Oh, it is the trend. We are having a great argument about whether we take 8,000 more Asian poeple than we did last year. Of course the very people who criticise that would be the people who would go out in the community and support what we say about becoming enmeshed in the economics of the South East Asian region. I would like to know how we could say to all the Asian nations, from Japan through to, say, Indonesia, that we do not really want their people coming to Australia but we are quite happy to get as much trade from them as it is possible to get. On the other hand, I was pleased to see that a large number of speakers from the Government ranks were prepared to debate the real issues. I note that the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer), the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear), the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard), the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous), the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Staples), the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis), the honourable member for Canning ( Ms Fatin), the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) and the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) all made significant contributions to this debate. Mr Hodgman —You gagged Kalgoorlie because he is an anti-republican. Mr WEST —The honourable member for Kalgoorlie would have been quite welcome to speak but unfortunately he probably did not realise the debate was resuming exactly when it did. No one at all was gagged. Let me quickly repeat some of the major measures in this Bill which members of the Opposition failed to debate. They refused to take up the challenge and concentrated on two matters, the first of which was the oath of allegiance. I do not apologise to the Opposition for this measure. This is one of the most striking features of a Bill which now makes the Australian Citizenship Act thoroughly Australian in character. The declaration of allegiance made at the time that Australian citizenship is granted is quite properly regarded as being of singular importance to many people. 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 or their culture, or all three. Further, wording of the renunciation should make it clear that it is only allegiance as a citizen to one 's former state or nation that is being renounced. The two proposed forms of the pledge of citizenship will allow all people to make a full commitment of allegiance to Australia, whatever their views on religion. Neither form differentiates between Australians on the basis of their attitude to the monarchy. The monarchy should not be a matter of division. Although I believe the Opposition is making some progress in its attitude to this so-called Asianisation debate and is moving more towards a correct bipartisan position, there is no question that its attitude on the oath of allegiance is directly aimed at causing division in the community when all that the Government is trying to do is provide a pledge of allegiance to the nation and the Constitution of Australia that will be non-divisive and equally attractive to all people who may wish to take out citizenship. Similarly, the Opposition has tried to make political capital out of the very necessary move to repeal the British subject criterion as a basis of defining Australian citizenship from the Act. As I have said, the fact is that no other Commonwealth nation still describes its citizens as being British subjects; why should Australia? Even the British themselves do not do that now. We will give the States, and Commonwealth departments too, for that mater, time to make any consequential amendments, such as will be necessary now to the Public Service Act. No doubt some State legislation will need to be amended in line with this decision to remove the British subject definition of Australian citizenship. We do not propose to proclaim this section of the Act until the States and the Commonwealth, have their acts together, so to speak. Mr Goodluck —Act or Acts? Mr WEST —There will be a number. I will come to the attitude of the States in a moment. In regard to both of these matters, the pledge of allegiance as it is now and the removal of British subject status from the Act, there is absolutely no intention at all to discriminate against or attack British settlers. Its purpose is simply to provide equality under the law to all migrants from any land. So it is not a matter of discriminating against the British; it is a matter of removing discrimination against migrants who are non-British. Very little was said, although there was some mild criticism, of the residence requirement. The fact is that the Bill reduces the qualification period for citizenship by grant from three years to two years. It also proposes to relax the continuous residence requirement from 12 months immediately preceding the application to 12 months in the previous two years. This change recognises the increasing difficulty which the current requirement can cause to people in a world which is increasingly mobile. I might also say that the effect is to compress the time required to be spent in Australia over a more recent period, because previously it was three years out of eight. Another matter very briefly addressed by some Opposition speakers was the English language requirement. We accept that knowledge of English is essential to full participation in Australia's social, cultural and political life. This Bill seeks to strike a balance between a desirable knowledge of English and giving an opportunity to those who have lived in Australia for some time and who cannot speak English very well but would take pride in becoming citizens. We therefore propose that applicants for citizenship should have a basic knowledge of English rather than an adequate knowledge, which is currently required under the Act. It is not all that much different in practice. I have been asked by certain members of this House and the Senate to spell out what is meant by 'basic English'. We will be very pleased to put down exactly the policy guidelines on what 'basic English' means. I think I can say that applicants will need to be able to discuss verbally the rights and privileges of Australian citizenship, but they will not be required to be able to read or write English. To ensure a consistency of interpretation of meaning, my Department is already developing guidelines. These guidelines will be published and made available to the public, as with other guidelines, in the citizenship handbook. I hope that the Opposition will give us its support on the exemption of those who are now over 50 years of age. (Extension of time granted) One of the most progressive aspects of the Bill is the provision for review of decisions to deny or deprive citizenship. There was virtually no reference to this matter from members of the Opposition, so I expect they all support it. It is consistent with the Government's support for external review. Clause 36 of the Bill proposes to insert new section 52A, which will give the Administrative Appeals Tribunal power to review on merit certain citizenship decisions. A whole range of decisions can be reviewed. Mr Hodgman —We support them. Mr WEST —I do not actually remember the honourable member referring to his very complete support of this section of the Bill. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, we have already indicated our support and, to save the Minister time, we support the Government's further amendments. Mr WEST —Members of the Opposition have simply refused to debate some other matters in the Bill, which I also hope they support. Sex discrimination has been removed from the current Act. Mr Hodgman —We support that. Mr WEST —That is very good. Not one of the Opposition speakers accepted or even noted that under current legislation an adopted child must receive citizenship by grant. This Bill will enable automatic acquisition of citizenship by a child on the granting of an adoption order. Mr Hodgman —We support it. We support in vitro as well. Mr WEST —What is all the fuss about then? Apparently there is nothing in the Bill that the Opposition does not support. It has taken a terribly long time to come to that conclusion and has wasted a lot of hot air to show that it supports virtually everything that is in the Bill. Mr Hodgman —You either did not listen to my speech or you cannot read. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister to ignore the interjections. Mr WEST —I will now inform the House of the attitudes of the States to this Bill . It may be of some interest to such a determined States' righter as the honourable member for Denison. At the Federal-State Ministers conference last June, the States were informed of the basic thrusts of this Bill. I told the Ministers then that we would introduce it and await their comment. I introduced the Bill in December 1983 and sent all the relevant material to all State Ministers responsible for immigration and ethnic affairs matters. I received written communications from all the States. In early April 1984 at a Federal- State Ministers conference held in Brisbane I discussed their replies. The only substantial dissent on anything came from the Queensland and Tasmanian governments, which raised the matter of the alteration to the pledge of allegiance. Queensland raised a very moderate degree of opposition to the reduction in the qualifying time from three years to two years. No other problems of any consequence were raised by any of the States at the Federal-State conference to show that the Ministers were not satisfied with my explanations. I reiterated that they would be given time to effect any consequential amendments in their State legislation before we would proclaim the Bill. I hope that this Bill, which contains the greatest and widest amendments of a far-reaching nature to the Chifley Government's 1948 Australian Citizenship Act, which created Australian citizenship for the first time, is passed unaltered by this House and the Senate and comes into law as quickly as possible. I am certainly quite proud to be the Federal Labor Minister who has had the honour of introducing these changes. I am pleased at least to note that, although the Opposition does not support everything in the Bill, it has indicated that it supports approximately 90 per cent of it. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Hodgman's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr. J. B. Mildren) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 44 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert, McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. Mayer, H.Charles, D. E. Milton, P.Child, J. Morris, AllanChynoweth, R. L. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E.E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Everingham, D. N. Scholes, G. G. D.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Fry, K. L. Snow, J. H.Gayler, J. Staples, P. R.Gear, G. Steedman, A. P.Gorman, R. N. J. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W.G. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. Lusher, S. A.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Newman, K. E.Cowan, D. B. O'Keefe, F. L.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanFife, W. C. Rocher, A. C.Goodluck, B. J. Ruddock, P. M.Groom, R. J. Shipton, R. F.Hall, Steele Sinclair, I. McC.Hawker, D. P. M. Spender, J. M.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Tuckey, C. W.Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 11-by leave-taken together. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(5.36) —Professor Geoffrey Blainey was completely correct when he described the present Hawke socialist Government as the most anti- British government in Australia's history. If ever we have seen it clearly and positively identified, we see it in relation to clause 7 of the Bill whereby the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West), urged on by his socialist republican colleagues, has completely taken out Part II of the principal Act. Part II of the principal Act deals with British subjects. I refer to that part of the Act briefly to indicate once again the paranoia and the hatred that the Hawke socialist Government has for anything British or anything relating to Britain from the Queen down. Government members are the most extraordinary bunch of hypocrites one could ever meet in one's life. They are royalists when they are in England. They put their arms around the Queen Mother and they play with Prince William. But when they come back to Australia they want to stab the knife deep into the back of the Queen. Each and every one of them stands condemned for their double standards and duplicity because not one of them can take a seat in this Parliament without taking an oath of allegiance or an affirmation of allegiance. In a few minutes they will vote to stab the Queen of Australia in the back. Before they do that they will vote to discriminate against every British migrant in Australia today. By taking Part II out of the principal Act, the Minister will achieve one of his main objectives. He is the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. He seems to forget that the largest ethnic groups in Australia today are the British, Commonwealth and New Zealand migrants. I have never heard this Minister utter one word of approval or support for British, Commonwealth or New Zealand migrants. Quite frankly, the trouble with the Minister is that he is well and truly under the thumb of a small and totally unrepresentative group. I have had the opportunity of meeting Miss Franca Arena. She might be a charming person but she is dangerous. She has this Minister under her thumb. Regarding Part II of the Act, the removal of which the Minister has been dreaming about ever since he got the position, he has declared war on every British migrant in Australia today. Mr Milton —Absolute nonsense! Mr HODGMAN —I do not know what the loyalties of the honourable member for La Trobe were when he was in Britain, but after what he said in this chamber today I would not like to go into battle alongside him. I could not be sure on which side he would finish up. I put it to him quite bluntly: It is extraordinary that some of those who are quickest to stab the Queen in the back came from some parts of the United Kingdom. Now the status of the British subject is to be ripped out of the Act. Prime Minister Whitlam was no Anglophile. Prime Minister Whitlam did not move to drag out of the Australian Citizenship Act the provisions relating to British subjects, but this Government has. What is more, it has led the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) by the nose through this maze. At the moment he probably thinks it is good to let the socialist Left get a win on one or two issues. I predict that this immigration policy will be one of the major issues in the next Federal election and that it has already cost the Government unknown tens of thousands of votes. I turn specifically to clause 7 of the Bill. In that clause this anti-British, anti-European Government, has its great moment of victory because it will rip out the provisions concerning British subjects. Let me inform the Committee what else the Government has done. Late last year the Minister said-on behalf of the Opposition I supported him-that we wished to encourage a removal of the dichotomy between British and non-British residents in Australia. When the Government brought an amendment to the Migration Act before the Parliament we supported that amendment to take away that dichotomy. When the Government said that it wanted people to become Australia citizens we supported it but what did it do to the British subjects in Australia, many of whom have been in this country for up to 40 years but have not yet taken out Australian citizenship? The Government said to those people: 'Unless you put your name on the roll by six o'clock on 25 January 1984 you will lose forever your right to cast a vote in the country you have chosen as your home and in which you pay your taxes. That will occur unless you become an Australian citizen'. Having done that, what did the Government do then? It did not even advertise in all the British and Commonwealth publications in Australia. I cite a good example. The Government did not even advertise in the Maltese Herald. The Maltese, believe it or not, are proud of the fact that they are British subjects . They are proud of the fact that their island was awarded the George Cross. They are proud of the fact that they have had the opportunity to come to this country. The Government advertised selectively, and I suggest that it probably disenfranchised a quarter of a million Australians by what it did. Those people are already resenting it. I cannot believe that any British migrant in this country will ever vote for the Australian Labor Party again after what it has done to them today. The other relevant point concerning Part II is that, in dealing with the status of British subjects, the Government is not only taking away what they had and bringing them back to square one, it is also positively discriminating against them. It is a positive disadvantage to be a British subject if one wants to migrate to Australia. Let me give an example. Only six months ago the Minister expelled from this country a young British journalist who was in Australia working on a visa. He wanted to apply for permanent resident status. He was told that despite the fact that the newspaper wanted him and he wanted to work for it , he had to go all the way back to England and make an application. That young man has now been told that he will have to wait 12 months before his application will be considered. Why is the Government discriminating against European migration? The Government has cut it by 22 per cent. If the Government believes that that is not upsetting Italian and Greek constituents in every part of Australia it is not doing its homework. The plain fact of the matter is that this Minister heads a Government whose policy is deliberately discriminatory and positively biased against British and European migration. He has now declared war on behalf of the Hawke socialist Government against every British migrant. I place on record, on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition-and we are-that we will be demonstrating right throughout the electorate over the next few months. The Government might think it is safe, that its actions will not come to the notice of the people in the electorates, but they will. Every British migrant in this country will know that today, 2 May, one day after May Day, the Hawke socialist republican Government declared war on every British migrant living in this country. The Hawke Government will take tax from those people but it will give them nothing in return. Shame on the Government. This is a black day for Australia. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(5.46) —I wish to join briefly in the consideration of the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill. Some of the rantings of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who has just spoken, were far from the truth of this legislation. The present Government is not anti anyone. Indeed , the present Government is attempting to ensure that some equity is put back into the immigration laws in Australia. We all know that the honourable member for Denison is a terrible lawyer. In the debate on this legislation a few weeks ago he demonstrated his inability to understand what is in the Australian Constitution. We now find that he did not even receive any attention in his own Party room when his Government, under the previous Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, proposed amendments to the Migration Act. If the honourable member for Denison had been awake and had taken any interest in the immigration debate in this Parliament over the years he has been a member , prior to becoming the Opposition shadow Minister, he would have known that previous governments deported many migrants who came to Australia on a visitors' visas and applied for permanent residence. In my electorate of Grayndler, which has one of the highest proportions of migrants of any electorate in the country, I would have had at least two or three cases a week under the previous regime where the Minister was refusing permanent residence to people who had come to Australia on visitors' visas. The honourable member for Denison knows that that is a fact. The honourable member knows that that was the policy of the previous Government and that what this Government has done is continue that policy. For the honourable member to stand up in this chamber and say that that is not so is a massive misrepresentation of the truth. It is a slur on the people of my electorate, who have borne the brunt of the very unfair immigration policies of the previous Government. The previous Government was not pro-British or pro anyone, but it was certainly anti many people. It was anti people from the Middle East. It was anti people from parts of Asia and it was anti many other ethnic groups. Mr Simmons —Greeks and Yugoslavs. Mr LEO McLEAY —As my colleague says, Greeks and Yugoslavs, and people from the Pacific islands, our nearest neighbours. The honourable member for Denison said that the Government has tried to stop people coming here from Britain. He should have tried to come here from Fiji when his colleague, the previous Minister, was administering the immigration program. People just did not get here. A person from the Middle East would never receive a permit, even if his wife was here, because he was not the sort of person the previous Government wanted. I address myself to another remark the previous speaker made about how terrible it was that the Government was changing the Australian Citizenship Act as it pertains to British migrants and their chance to become permanent residents. I would have thought that this provision, which has been in the Act for over 30 years, would have allowed any British migrant who had come to Australia and decided that he or she wanted to be an Australian citizen to make that decision. Surely the honourable member for Denison is not telling the Committee this evening that it has taken people 30 years of living here to make up their minds whether they wish to become Australian citizens. It is like saying that if one cannot make up one's mind after 30 years one is obviously not going to do so. That is really taking 'try before you buy' to the nth degree, to suggest that people could be here for 30 years and be not quite sure whether they like Australia. The honourable member for Denison is probably not quite sure whether he likes Australia and he has been here for a little bit longer. He might understand what is in those people's minds. But any rational person would be able to make a decision after 30 years about whether he or she wishes to become a citizen. What the Government is saying is that that section of the immigration Act gave a positive discrimination to one group. For instance, it said that people who are Greeks from Cyprus should have different rights from people who are Greeks from Greece. It said that people who are Turks from Cyprus should have different rights from people who are Turks from Turkey. Mr Cadman —They are all Cypriots. Mr LEO McLEAY —We do not need remarks from the honourable member. He would not know where those places are. The point is that the same rights should apply to everyone in this country; not some special rights for some special group, not some special right because a person happens to have been born in one part of the Aegean, one part of the English Channel or one part of Europe and not another part. The Government has quite rightly said that it will do away with this discrimination and will make all people who emigrate to Australia equal before the law in this country. That is the right and proper thing to do. It removes an anomaly that causes some problems to people who come here from other lands. The Minister should be commended for this. Let us once and for all put behind us this bogy raised by the inane pandering of the honourable member for Denison this evening about this Government being anti-British. This Government is not anti-British. In fact the only two British migrants at present in the House, the only two members who migrated here from England in recent years, are on this side of the chamber. They are supporting this legislation because they know it is equitable, just and proper. I commend the clause to the Committee. I am sure it will be carried with an overwhelming majority and that there will be rejoicing in all parts of the Australian community, not just in the one part for which the honourable member for Denison exercised some special pleading this evening. We are hearing the last bleatings of the vestiges of the British Empire here tonight. Most of the rest of the people of Australia have grown up and realised that we are an independent country in this part of the world. Unfortunately some people in the Opposition have not realised that. Surely the Leader of the Opposition should realise that the types of outlandish statements that have been made publicly by the Opposition spokesman on immigration can cause only division in the Australian community. In fact until the honourable member for Denison became the Opposition spokesman on immigration, there was a fair degree of agreement between the Opposition and the government on where the Australian immigration system was going. But since this lunatic has taken over the spokesman's position we have had division and we will have more of it. I hope the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) will look to the best interests of Australia and remove him from the position. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Would the honourable member for Grayndler withdraw the word 'lunatic'. It is unparliamentary, in my opinion. Mr LEO McLEAY —I see that the honourable member for Denison does not mind being called a lunatic. But, Madam Chairman, if you wish to protect him, I am quite happy out of deference to you to withdraw the word 'lunatic' which the honourable member for Denison obviously does not mind. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(5.54) —Honourable members on the other side of the chamber seem to forget that the great expansion in immigration policies in this country was the result of programs mapped out by their Party, the Australian Labor Party, when in power in the 1940s. The tags which have been flung from the other side of the chamber to this side of the chamber, that the Opposition is supposed to be racially motivated, are quite unfair and unfounded. If one were to go back to the Labor Party Cabinet which existed at that time and say 'What caused you to lean heavily on Great Britain as a source for the growth of this country?', the reply would be something like: 'Well, we had to ensure that when we increased the numbers in Australia we did it in a way which enabled people to blend in in terms of culture and traditions without causing any giant hiccups'. If one were to apply the theories of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), one could stretch a point and say that he was advocating that in the last few years we should have brought in, say, five million or six million people from Turkey, Afghanistan and India. I suggest that if that had been done the racial mix in this country would be one of total chaos . There would be friction in this country. The previous Government adopted a policy of ensuring that people who came to this country had backgrounds and abilities to blend in. Many an ethnic spokesman has said that Australia is probably one of the greatest, most tolerant countries in the entire world in terms of the changes which have taken place here since the late 1940s. Honourable members opposite should remember that during the last 35 years this country has been in the hands of a Liberal-National Party Administration for 30 of those years. People from all countries across the world have been allowed to settle in Australia. I truly believe that the Government is being anti-British and anti-European in its emphasis in this day and age. Whether it is being done intentionally is a matter of debate; that it is being done is not a matter of debate. One has only to cite the Big Brother movement. Within 19 days of coming to office, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) wiped it off the board-an organisation which had existed in this country since 1925 and which had had on its board between 1942 and 1947 people such as Ben Chifley. Yet the Minister could not get rid of that British oriented organisation quickly enough. What is more, I am aware of the fact that that organisation has been asking to see him for well over a year but he has just refused even to let representatives of it into his office. That organisation represents probably a quarter of a million people who have either been brought out here in the past from Great Britain or are members of families of people who have been helped and assisted to settle in this country. That is just one example. I notice that Government members have gone silent. I believe many of them would not be aware of the facts. I have friends in the ethnic communities. When I was the member for Griffith I was known as Cameronopulis, so much was I part of the Greek community. So many members of the community say to me today: 'There is no point in our trying to sponsor members of our family to come to this country because the Government completely wipes them'. Italian people tell me exactly the same. They feel they are being squeezed out, that this Minister and this Government have adopted the attitude that if one is from Europe one is almost relegated to the status of second class. Government members have almost turned the phrase of 'go home Yank' to 'buzz off Brit'. I think that is a fair assessment and analysis of how current policy is being implemented. The Government cannot get rid of everything to do with Great Britain quickly enough. It has removed the oath and reference to the monarchy. It has hoyed out of the window the national anthem. It is racing around this country pulling the photo of the Queen off every government building. It tried to get rid of the Queen's Medal last year which was an Army medal for the best shooter in the Commonwealth of Australia. It is ready to get rid of the flag. The reason it wants to get rid of the flag is that it has a Union Jack on it. All this points to the fact that the Government cannot strip away quickly enough all traces of our ancestry. I was saying to a group of people only the other day at the QE II Hospital-that stands for Queen Elizabeth II-that under the Government in Canberra very shortly the hospital will be forced to change its name. The Government is so consistent with its whole approach. I love some of the more right wing members of the Australian Labor Party who jump up in this place and say: 'No, this is not being done. We are being misunderstood. We are being misrepresented.' I admire the lefties who sit silently, recognising the truth and who are prepared to say: ' Yes, I believe in what is being done.' But there are the cowards of the Right who sit silently in Caucus watching the traditions of this country being streamrolled week after week. I say to people in the electorate that it is up to them to become aware of what is going on. The honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) is scratching his back. He has 16, 000 people of United Kingdom and Irish ancestry or background in his electorate. The honourable member for Fadden (Mr Beddall) who seems to have disappeared has 22,000 people from Great Britain in that electorate. The honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh)-he is not here at the moment-has about 18,000 such people in his electorate. Come the next election those honourable members can be sure that these people will have noted the way they have handled the reins of government since they have been elected to power. People will not stand idly by and watch the Australian Labor Party completely wipe off decades and decades of tradition in this country. I submit that one of the great problems of Labor in power is that it seeks to make vast changes to try to Australianise everything because it suffers from a huge inferiority complex. Labor Party members feel that they can run around in the pouch of a kangaroo and say: 'We are Australians'. But if we are associated with some other country they feel that it makes us inferior and less than respectable. Only the other day in Libya when that great creature of morality, Gaddafi, was moving in on all people from Great Britain, it was the British Government which offered protection and services to the Australians working in that country. In so many parts of the world this is the case. Whilst we are not in the lap of Great Britain, she has always regarded Australia as a country with which to have ties and with which to work. This remote island in the Pacific has been privileged in the past to have connections with Great Britain and yet this Government cannot bundle out Britain quickly enough. In conclusion, I join with other members on this side of the House in expressing not only displeasure but also disappointment at the indecent haste which the current Government uses to destroy the history of this country. I say that as someone with a Scottish background, not as a Pom as I have heard one or two on the other side refer to British people. When one looks back in history one sees that the Scots have no reason to love the English. But we have the English language and parliamentary and legal systems from Great Britain. I submit most seriously that everything from England should not be destroyed as this Government is endeavouring to do. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(6.05) —It is rarely that I am provoked into coming into the House to talk on matters other than primary industry matters now I am the Minister. Mr Dobie —Nice to see you here. Mr KERIN —That is good. I thank the honourable member very much. I am happy to be here. I have an electorate with a high migrant population dating back to after World War II. The first influx of people were known as refugees. They were largely of European origin. The electorate of Werriwa, being on the edge of Sydney, has absorbed succeeding generations of people in the general migrant policy area and also it has absorbed a proportion of refugees under the programs of various governments. The Opposition is trying to build up racist, opportunist , prejudicial views because it thinks there are a few votes in it. The last people to talk about Asian migration and Asian refugees should be members of the Liberal Party, after their involvement in South East Asia. There are no votes for us in supporting South East Asian immigration. We do it because of the principle. We do it because of the truth. We do it because we have a refugee program. The Vietnamese in my electorate hand out how to vote cards for the Liberal Party except for one chap who used to be in the Central Intelligence Agency but who has now joined the Australian Labor Party. I will not get on to him. Part of the Opposition's problem is that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has no leadership. I am sure that he does not agree with the nonsense and the mad ranting that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) is going on with. I do not mind if he is pro-British. That is his problem. It is his choice. But why should he pick on Asians particularly? I turn back to my electorate. There are lots of Italians and Greeks in my electorate who come to me wanting to get their remaining relatives out to Australia-cousins, uncles and all sorts of people. They go through the usual process. Some win, some lose. Some criteria have to be laid down and many principles are contained in the criteria laid down by my friend the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West) and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. We had to get some rigour into the system. In my electorate the first influx of refugees was from South America . I have Argentinians, Chileans and Uruguayans. They came here to escape political persecution by the facist regimes in that country with which the honourable member for Denison would feel quite happy, I am sure. They came in as refugees. There are now over 3,000 people from the South American countries in my electorate and they too are applying to bring their relatives into the country. The next wave were the Lebanese people. They are not Asians. They have had problems with-- Mr Hodgman —Madam Deputy Chairman, I take a point of order. At no stage have I mentioned Asian immigration but my point of order is that clause 7 of the Bill deals with British subjects and nobody else. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Child) — We are dealing with clauses 1 to 11. There is no point of order. Mr Hodgman —With respect, Madam Deputy Chairman, there is no other clause upon which the Minister can speak. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The Minister must be relevant to the clauses under discussion. Mr KERIN —The next wave of people came from Lebanon. The last came from South East Asia. They are Vietnamese, ethnic Chinese and the Khmers. The reactionary response from the honourable member for Denison is plain nonsense. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke)(6.09) —We have heard very good reasons today why the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) should never again be a Minister in an Australian Government. Today he has put out an extremely misleading statement . When I first heard it I thought I had better check it out with the officers of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to see whether it was accurate. In fact, it is inaccurate. That statement is that persons who are British subjects and who have previously had the right to vote will no longer have that right. That is what he said. Not only is that completely incorrect but also it will create a situation of concern in the community for people-- Mr Hodgman —I take a point of order. I have never made the statement attributed to me by the honourable member. I have never said that. I have not said it in the House; I have not said it outside the House. The CHAIRMAN —That is a personal explanation rather than a point of order. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Madam Chairman, I am prepared to let the Hansard record determine the situation because I listened very carefully to what he said. Let the Hansard record determine what he said. One just cannot get up and make statements in a national parliament and then repudiate those statements-- Mr Hodgman —I take a point of order. Accepting that the honourable member's knowledge of English might not be perfect, I have never said what he is attributing to me. What I have said is that those who were not on the roll as at 6 o'clock on 25 January have lost their right to vote unless they-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! This is not a point of order. If the honourable member wishes to make a personal explanation when the honourable member for Burke has finished, he may do so. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Madam Chairman, the points of order are being taken in order to take up my speaking time. Mr Shipton —You are provoking him. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Of course I am provoking him because that is what he said. The fact of the matter is that British subjects who have come to this country over many years have been automatically entitled after a six-month period to go onto the rolls and that situation was not changed by this Government. We said quite clearly that people who arrived after a particular date would be subject to the new rules. The honourable member knows that that is the position. He knows that he has misled the community in the statements that he has been making because-- Mr Hodgman —I take a point of order. The CHAIRMAN —I hope this is not another frivolous point of order. The honourable member for Denison has the right to speak again in this debate. He can then answer the honourable member for Burke. Mr Hodgman —Madam Chairman, in view of the honourable member's last statement, might I respectfully suggest that he apologise because he has now admitted that I did not say what he is saying. What in fact he is doing is lying and misleading the Committee. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Denison will withdraw that remark . Mr Hodgman —I withdraw 'lying'. He is misleading the Committee. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Let me say, Madam Chairman, that I am ready at any time to match my reputation in these matters with the reputation of the honourable member for Denison. The CHAIRMAN —I suggest that the honourable member get back to the clauses under consideration. Dr THEOPHANOUS —He has been a total disgrace as a shadow Minister in these matters and he has gone around-- Mr Groom —I take a point of order. I make the point that this is not a second reading debate. This is the Committee stage during which we are looking at particular provisions of the legislation. The CHAIRMAN —There is no point of order. I ask the honourable member to get back to clauses 1 to 11, which are being dealt with at the moment. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Let me get back to that point. The clauses we are debating relate to the situation of British subjects. I make this point in particular because of the statements made by the honourable member for Denison. He knows that the kinds of misleading comments which he keeps making in the House in relation to these matters are widely disseminated in the ethnic media and are creating concern. This is not the first time that this sort of situation has arisen. It has arisen on several occasions. I have received correspondence and expressions of concern from a wide number of people in the ethnic communities in relation to the activities of the honourable member for Denison in this matter. Mr Hodgman —Produce them. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I will produce them-the honourable member should not worry about that. Let me now make a couple of further points in relation to British subjects who have failed to take up citizenship. We have set down a particular date which will affect people in the future and not people who already have the right to vote. Those people do not need to go through any citizenship ceremony at all in order to continue to vote. That is not the position. Our legislation simply concerns people in the future. No one who has the right to vote at present is going to have that right taken away. I want to make that point because of the misleading remarks that have been made. The question arises whether this is an anti-British measure. In what conceivable sense could it be seen to be anti-British? People who are classed as British subjects are not only people from Britain but also people from other Comonwealth countries. Previously, anyone who came from anywhere in the British Commonwealth could vote and participate in Australian elections even though he was not a citizen. Yet persons from other countries could not do so. For example , Greek people who came from Cyprus were entitled to vote after six months; but Greek people who came from the Greek mainland had to wait for three years and become citizens before they could vote. What is happening in this provision, like the many positive provisions in this legislation which the honourable member for Denison has failed to recognise, is that that anomaly is being taken out of the legislation once and for all. How can this part of the legislation be seen to be some kind of attack on the British Queen? The honourable member for Denison somehow thinks it is very significant to come into the Committee and even when talking to specific clauses to refer to the Australian Labor Party stabbing the Queen and using rhetoric of that kind. The fact of the matter is that this clause, as I mentioned, irons out a provision in relation to citizenship arrangements which should have been ironed out a long time ago. The honourable member for Denison has also failed in his duty to encourage citizens from the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries to become Australian citizens. Is he suggesting that anyone who puts down legislation that encourages this objective is somehow doing this country a disservice? These new clauses are designed to encourage that process. It is time that we took this step. The latest statistics that I have available indicate that as many as 800, 000 British citizens have not taken out citizenship. As I mentioned before, many of them are entitled to vote because of a previous provision. Nevertheless, we should be encouraging everyone who resides in this country to become part of this nation. We should be proud of this nation. We should get together and form one total community out of the various groups in our multicultural society. I ask the honourable member for Denison and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) to rethink the course of action that has been taken in relation to the clause, the Australian Citizenship Act and immigration matters generally because the bipartisan position which has existed on these matters is starting to break down as a result of the cheap political point scoring of the honourable member for Denison. The fact of the matter is that difficult decisions have to be made in the immigration area. However, we ought not to be pandering to the racists; we ought not be pandering to those people who want to destroy the immigration program. We ought in fact to get together in a positive way and recognise that the economic, social and demographic demands of this nation require a continuing , fair and balanced immigration program, to which the Labor Party is committed. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(6.18) —Until tonight the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous) had the respect and, I think, the affection of a number of honourable members on this side of the chamber. It grieves me that the honourable member has either demonstrated tonight that he does not understand English or alternatively has chosen deliberately to misrepresent the position and mislead the Committee. The plain fact is that I have never at any stage alleged that persons who were already- Dr Theophanous —I raise a point of order. I take offence at the claim that I was deliberately misleading the Committee and I ask for a withdrawal. Mr HODGMAN —I accept that the honourable member does not understand English because I have never said- The CHAIRMAN —Does the honourable member withdraw? Mr HODGMAN —Yes. I have never said that people already on the roll would lose their right to vote. That, in fact, is a nonsense. If the honourable member is an academic he is a pretty shoddy one. He ought to know that one cannot get taken off the electoral roll in this country. It does not come under the Citizenship Act; it does not come under the Migration Act; it comes under the Australian Electoral Act. Mr West —Why did you raise it in the first place? Mr HODGMAN —The Minister shows how thick he is. I repeat what I said. I put the honourable member for Burke on challenge. His credibility is now on the line because I will ask him to produce in this Parliament any Press statement or any transcript of any interview I have ever given in which I said that people already on the roll would lose their right to vote after 6 p.m. on 25 January. I further put on the record my challenge to him to bring into this Parliament the letters he says he has received from people complaining about me. I will say-- Mr Donald Cameron —He will be up all night writing them. Mr HODGMAN —That is right; he will be writing all night. The honourable member for Burke is very ignorant because he does not seem to know that I have been honorary legal adviser to the Greek community in Tasmania for the past 20 years. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Could the honourable member make his remarks relevant to the clauses before the House? Mr HODGMAN —Coming back to clause 7, I put on the record exactly what I said and what the honourable member has unwittingly confirmed. I said that those who had not placed their names on the electoral roll by 6 p.m. on 25 January would lose their right to vote unless they later became Australian citizens. That is the law. That statement of fact is confirmed by the Australian Electoral Office and by the Minister. It is estimated that between 250,000 and 500,000-not 800,000, I point out to the honourable member for Burke-British migrants resident in Australia who had not taken out citizenship are now disenfranchised unless or until they take out Australian citizenship. To compound the absolute abysmal ignorance of the honourable member for Burke, he apparently does not even know that an Australian citizen can travel to the United Kingdom without taking out British citizenship, can vote and can stand for election to the House of Commons . Australians have been elected to the House of Commons. Thus the honourable member should not come this codswallop which the Minister-- Mr Leo McLeay —Not any more. Mr HODGMAN —In fact, right now there are Australians in the House of Commons, who have never taken out British citizenship. The point I make is that the hatred of the Hawke socialist Government of things British is equalled only by its ignorance. As the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) said, the plain fact of the matter is that all around Australia at this moment people of British descent are wondering what sort of government we now have in power in Canberra. Has it gone completely mad? Day by day the Queen, God, the oath of allegiance and the flag are attacked. We hear urgings to take down portraits of the Queen in Commonwealth buildings and to put up instead portraits of the self- styled president. I will talk more about that later. The 'Queen' will be taken out of Queensland; Victoria's name will be changed; and the Queen's medal and the Victoria Cross will be banned forever. What on earth would happen to the Royal Australian Navy? I suppose this Government will take the 'Royal' out of that. The feminists in the Government will change the 'Royal Mail' to the ' Something Person'. We are going into a period of absolute lunacy. We get the situation with this lunatic Minister-I am sorry; I should not have said that; I substitute eccentric-- Mr West —Madam Chair, I raise a point of order. Would you mind referring the honourable member for Denison back to the relevant clauses of the Bill? The CHAIRMAN —We are discussing clauses 1 to 11. If the honourable member is not prepared to discuss them I will have to ask him to resume his seat. Mr HODGMAN —This anti-British attitude of the Hawke socialist Government is extraordinary; it is quite schizophrenic. When in England the leader of this Government very happily cuddles the Queen Mother and bounces Prince William, but back here in Australia he is prepared to go further than Gough Whitlam and Jim Cairns were ever prepared to go. The attitude is one of: Stab the Queen in the back; we must get rid of the Queen; get her out of the oath and affirmation of allegiance. But what will happen next year when the Queen comes to Australia? Loyal Liberal Party and National Party members will not get within cooee of her because of Labor socialist members, including the honourable member for Burke, wanting to touch her. He will be the first cab off the rank to meet the Queen. What a double standard! What hypocrisy! What will be next? I will tell honourable members what will be next. The Government will lose hundreds of thousands of votes. The Minister seems to forget that when he took that affirmation of allegiance he took it before this Parliament and before the Governor-General. Did he have his fingers crossed behind his back? Does that affirmation still stand? I doubt it and so do people outside. I will reserve my other comments for clause 12. As Professor Blainey said, this Government-I include in this the Minister for non- Defence-is the most anti-British, anti-European government this country has ever seen. Mr Scholes —I raise a point of order. It is quite improper and contrary to the practices and Standing Orders of this Parliament or the British Parliament on which the traditions of this Parliament are founded for a member to accuse another member of making a false oath or affirmation. I think that the honourable member should be required not only to withdraw, but also to apologise to the House for actions and statements which are quite inappropriate and wrong. The CHAIRMAN —I suggest to the Minister for Defence that the same accusations have been made over several days of debate and have not been withdrawn. Mr Scholes —It is a very serious allegation. The CHAIRMAN —Yes, I agree that it is a serious allegation, but I suggest that withdrawals should have taken place a month ago because the allegations were used then and yesterday. I call the honourable member for Capricornia. Dr EVERINGHAM(Capricornia)(6.27) —I just want to pursue the theme briefly and not in the tediously repetitive manner of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). He has about a dozen notices of motion on the Notice Paper all hammering this tedious theme that somehow we are introducing creeping republicanism. He knows that there is no way that Australia can become a republic without a referendum. He knows that to suggest otherwise is contrary to our Constitution. He knows that Labor governments, including this one, have always abided by constitutional processes. He knows that even when people like Sir John Kerr breached the soundest traditions of the British parliamentary system we abided by the letter of the Constitution. If anybody is anti-Constitution it is the honourable member for Denison with his false propaganda. He knows that when we swear an oath of allegiance or undertake an affirmation of allegiance to the Queen we do so to her as the head of our Parliament under that same Constitution. He knows that she is a constitutional monarch and not a tyrant or a dictator. He knows that she even declined to intervene when Sir John Kerr took that same reprehensible action. She said it was a matter for the Governor-General of Australia appointed by this Parliament and would not intervene. Yet he still says that we are anti-British. Let us suppose that Australia did become a republic. It is highly likely; most of the nations of the Commonwealth are republics. Would the Queen thereby be any less welcome in this country? She is welcome in every republic of the Commonwealth. I do not know whether the heads of those countries cuddle the Queen or bounce Prince William on their knees, but I am sure they would be quite happy to. Not one of them has yet stabbed any of the Royal Family in the back, even though a few Britishers did chop off the head of one of their monarchs in years gone by when they were not constitutional monarchies. The honourable member is talking a lot of rot and creating needless anxiety about anti-royalism . Even if we were a republic, if there were creeping republicanism, if any number of Acts and a referendum of the people finally made us a republic, we are not anti-royalist. The Queen is still the head of the Commonwealth-in India, in Pakistan, in every Commonwealth nation, even in Tonga, which is way ahead of us. It has its own royal family and head of state, yet it still regards the Queen as head of the Commonwealth. The honourable member has accused us of being anti-Christian but, on this argument about the special status of Britishers he wants to introduce a provision of preference for Christians, preference for whites, and preference for Britishers. On what grounds? Only because he is a racist and a bigot. And he calls us anti-Christian! We are treating all creeds and all colours equally, and he objects to that. He is breaking a law of the Christian church, one of the Ten Commandments, which states: 'Thou shalt not bear false witness'. He is bearing false witness against every one of us on this side of the House. Besides being anti-constitutional, anti-royalist and anti-Christian he is also anti-Australian , because he denies the right of Australians ever to change their flag, although the British flag has been changed three times in its history. Even when Captain Cook came here Britain had a different flag from the one it has today. The honourable member objects to Australians ever wanting to change their flag. He says that is anti-royalist, it is stabbing the Queen in the back. He is the one who is schizophrenic, and I am willing to sign the second certificate. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(6.33) —I am somewhat concerned by the lack of understanding shown by the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) on the processes that are inherent in this oath of allegiance. Mr Scholes —Madam Chair, I raise a point of order. The call is due on this side of the House. The Minister is entitled to intervene in the debate at any time. The CHAIRMAN —Yes, I recognise that, but the Minister wishes to close the debate when he speaks. I call the honourable member for Mitchell. Mr CADMAN —The honourable member for Capricornia was trying to make the point that the removal of reference to the Queen by the insidious processes being adopted by this Government means nothing. In fact it means a whole lot of things . This process removes the protection of the citizen against any government that happens to occupy the other side of the House. The Government is removing the constitutional position of the Queen, which is important to the citizen. In the process of removing reference to the Queen from the oath, the Government has denied the protection of the citizen. Look at the American oath of allegiance. Look at the Greek oath of allegiance. Look at the Maltese oath of allegiance. Look at the oath of any country. Honourable members will see the protection for the citizen against the state. The Government has removed reference to the Queen from the Australian oath and has not replaced it with anything. It is the most insignificant oath any citizen in the world could take in allegiance to his or her country. Mr Groom —It is not even an oath. Mr CADMAN —It is not even an oath, as my friend says. It is a pledge. Having sorted out the honourable member for Capricornia, I point out to honourable members opposite that this pledge of allegiance to Australia is meaningless by international standards. The Minister sits there with a smirk on his face, content with the damage he has done to Australia's reputation, content with the damage he has done by discounting and devaluing the worth of Australian citizenship. He must be content with his administration of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs because, after countless representations to him, I find the average waiting time for an individual seeking entry to Australia is eight or nine months. Panels of review go to panels of review. Time and again matters go backwards and forwards. The immigration program of Australia is in chaos. The Minister ought to get round his Department and find out what a shambles there is. Mr West —Madam Chair, I raise a point of order. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Could the honourable member make his comments relevant to the clauses before the Committee? Mr CADMAN —Thank you, Madam Chair. I will continue to address my remarks to this legislation because all matters regarding migration must commence with the Minister and finish, we hope, with an oath of allegiance. The CHAIRMAN —We are confined at the moment to clauses 1 to 11. Mr CADMAN —I am indeed dealing with those clauses because I am looking at the terms of residence for people in Australia. If honourable members refer to clause 11 and to proposed section 13 (1) (d), they will see that the Government has discounted the process of citizenship to the extent where a person has to be a legal resident, and that is a legal term, for two years, but during that two- year period he need spend in Australia an aggregate of only 12 months. We would get shonky businessmen, drug runners and all sorts of individuals using Australia as a base over those two years. They would be no more than token citizens, token residents. Under the current citizenship provisions such people would not be eligible to gain citizenship. Under the present provisions people must spend a total of 12 months continuously in Australia. Under these new provisions an aggregate of only 12 months need be spent in Australia. Is that what honourable members want for citizens of Australia? The Minister has not explained these points to the Committee. I think this is an absolute denigration of the meaning of the word 'citizenship'. What sort of commitment can we draw from an individual who spends an aggregate of only 12 months out of two years in Australia? How do we know that he is not spending the other 12 months making a total of two years in his country of origin and is a de facto Australian citizen and a de facto citizen of his country of origin? How can we think this person is fair dinkum? What is the Minister saying to those wonderful citizens who have come from Greece, Italy, Malta and all of the European areas, to those marvellous citizens who have come from South East Asia and are committing themselves to Australia? The Minister is saying to them: 'This is what we are prepared to give people who come from this day forward. We are prepared to give them an easy entry process to citizenship'. The Government will devalue citizenship to such an extent that it will not be worth the paper it is written on. No other country would write a pledge of allegiance in such weak and paltry terms as this Minister and this Government are prepared to do. It is a terrible thing that the Minister is doing. I do not know how he will be regarded in international circles. Mr West —Madam Chair, I raise a point of order. How many times do I have to remind the members of the Opposition that we are talking about specific clauses. Mr CADMAN —I am dealing with a specific clause. The Minister is wasting my time. I am dealing with clause 11, proposed new section 13 (1) (d). The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Mitchell is at the moment speaking specifically to clause 11. Mr CADMAN —That was a frivolous point of order, Madam Chair. The CHAIRMAN —The Chair does not need any assistance. Mr CADMAN —The Minister has discounted the value of Australian citizenship. He cannot hold up his head in international circles. If he mixes with other immigration Ministers, no matter from what country, he will have to admit that a person wishing to become an Australian citizen need spend only part of a two- year period in Australia, in bunches of two or three weeks, while he runs his business from some international external port. What sort of citizenship is that ? All this Government is doing is creating a circumstance whereby all the shonkies of this earth who want to do so can use Australia as a safe base from which to operate their shonky businesses, denigrating Australia in the process. What would honourable members think about having as Australian citizens some of the characters who have been mentioned by Mr Costigan in his report? there will be more of them under these provisions. They will be here saying: 'We have the protection of Australian citizenship'. They will be wandering through South East Asia claiming Australian citizenship. They will be moving through the Americas. They will be operating internationally with this discounted and highly insignificant Australian brand of what we will be calling citizenship. If the Minister wishes to be specific on this legislation, I refer him to proposed new section 13 (1) (k), and request that he inform the Committee what he means by 'adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship'. He is not applying any test of language that is worth the stamp. What other questions will he ask individuals seeking Australian citizenship? He has not specified that in this chamber in any way whatsoever. We should look first of all at the oaths of other nations and the provisions that are required of individuals before they can accept citizenship. If a person is to be a citizen of any proud nation he needs to fulfil certain provisions that indicate that he understands truly the processes of law and the commitment that he needs to have as a character, as an individual, to that nation. What will the Minister do? Will he say that if people can speak a bit of English, that is good enough? I guarantee that no questions will be asked about knowledge of the parliamentary system or knowledge of commitments of a citizen in regard to the fulfilling of the democratic processes of this nation. What sorts of provisions will be made so that an applicant for citizenship can display that he has adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship? I would have thought a young, free nation-one of the 18 free member nations of the United Nations-would be proud of some of its traditions and standards. These traditions and standards have been fought for and they are precious to us. Can you tell me, Madam Chairman, that the early settlers in Australia did not value the freedom that they were gaining as a young colony through the processes that gained complete self-management and self-government and the federation of Australia? They were proud of those achievements, and there were people in the Australian Labor Party who used to be proud of those things as well. We have seen demonstrated in this House today by the Minister and by the Government the fact that they are not proud to run a worthwile immigration program, they are not proud to operate a system of citizenship in Australia which will stand up in international circles. In fact, the commitment by way of pledge is worthless. Not only that, but the detail of citizenship will not stand any scrutiny on two insignificant clauses of a total Bill of many clauses. The Government has not done its homework. The Minister has brought great shame to his office and to this country. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(6.43) —I would like to make a short contribution to this Committee stage of the debate on the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill. I do so for one reason, and that is that I think there is intruding into this whole question of migration and citizenship an element of the political debate of which we are seeing a little too much in Australia at present, this new McCarthyist tactic whereby if people are against what the Government is proposing, they are racists. It ought to be possible for people of properly liberal instincts, who are concerned about the decency of the welfare of this country and its citizens, from whatever country they come or whether they are Australian born, to have a legitimate difference of opinion with what the Government is doing without being accused of being racists. It ought to be possible for people to stand up here or anywhere else and say: 'Look, what you are doing is divisive and what you are about-- Mr West —What you are doing is divisive. Mr HOWARD —See, that is an example of it. Because someone disagrees with the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West), he is a racist. This is an example of the authoritarianism of the Left and the absolute antagonism of people such as the Minister, the honourable member for Cunningham. He is a classic example-- Mr West —You disgusting creature. Mr HOWARD —There you are; because I disagree with him, I am a disgusting creature. I hope that any fair minded member of the public who hears this will understand that here we have the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the custodian of the integrity of the citizenship of Australia on behalf of the Hawke Government, saying such a thing. Yet this is the first time I have spoken in this chamber on the subject of immigration since we have been in Opposition. Mr West —You are a political opportunist of the worst order. It is the first time that you have spoken on immigration. Mr HOWARD —I have not expressed a point of view other than to say that a person should be able to have a legitimately different point of view from that of the Government without being categorised as a racist, and what is the response of the Minister? He said that it is miserable and disgusting, that it is terrible and that I am an opportunist. He does not know what I am going to say, he does not have the faintest idea; but because one is against the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, ergo one is being disgusting and terrible. I want to express a concern that there has intruded into this debate this new McCarthyism, brought forward by some members of the Government, whereby if we disagree with the Government, we are everything under the sun; we are racists and miserable creatures, we are discredited, terrible, mean-minded and opportunistic. It is a very illiberal approach, but of course we have long suspected that there is a deep streak of authoritarianism in the left wing of the Labor Party, and if we scratch that we find that they are the most illiberal , authoritarian group of people in this Parliament. Anyway, we will pass that over. I want to say a couple of things about citizenship and about national symbols. It is obvious from this debate that they are things that arouse considerable passions. Let me say to those more balanced members of the Government on this subject that they cannot have a totally static view about national symbols and traditions. I warn them that these are issues about which people feel very strongly and they should not lightly tamper with people's feelings about the traditions of this country. I cannot imagine anything more divisive for Australia at present than for this Government to promote a debate upon, for example, the status of the Australian flag. If honourble members opposite really want to divide Australia, if they really want to deny what they claim to be the basis of their mandate of March last year, they should perpetuate this debate about the Australian flag. Mr Hollis —I rise on a point of order, Madam Chairman. We are not debating the flag. The honourable member for Bennelong keeps talking about the flag. In what clause is the flag mentioned? The CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HOWARD —I cannot conceive of anything that would be more divisive and more destructive of the national unity of this country than for us to have a long, drawn out debate about the nature of the Australian flag. I am prepared to concede that maybe at some time a majority of Australians will want to change the flag. I am personally opposed to any change in the Australian flag; I happen to think it is attractive. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to speak to clauses 1 to 11. Mr HOWARD —I happen to think that it very accurately reflects the aspirations of the citizenship of the Australian community and I see no point in its being changed. The most important thing is that if we think things such as citizenship , flags and allegiance are unifying factors, we have to have some sensitivity for the feelings of people on these subjects. For almost 10 years I have been the member for the electorate of Bennelong which, whilst it contains large amounts of what is generally called the north shore of Sydney, also contains a number of areas of multiracial character-areas from which I have always drawn very strong support. I have not had one complaint in that 10 years from a citizen of my electorate about the nature of the oath to be taken at a citizenship ceremony. Maybe I am an exception, but I have been re-elected on each occasion and I will be re-elected with an increased majority at the next election, so I am not out of touch with what people in my electorate are saying. I have not had one complaint. If ever, therefore, there was a phoney issue, it is this question of changing the nature of the oath. This oath is being changed not in response to popular demand but because the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) has a hang-up over the oath having some reference to the head of state of Australia. That is the reason the oath is being changed. Frankly, I accept completely what the Government has done recently in regard to our national anthem. I do not approve of the way in which it was done but I accept that Advance Australia Fair ought to be the national anthem of this country. The reason I accept it is that the majority of the Australian people indicated a preference for it when the former Government held a vote on that issue. That is why I accept it. I do not accept it because the Prime Minister decided that it ought to be our national anthem; I accept it for the reason I have given. I am not particularly attracted to it. Dr Klugman —I take a point of order. Surely there is no point in our listening to a policy speech from the honourable member for Bennelong as to the fight between him and the honourable member for Balaclava for the leadership of the Liberal Party. We know that the honourable member for Bennelong is well to the right of the honourable member for Balaclava. The CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will use his remaining few minutes to deal with clauses 1 to 11 of the Bill. Mr HOWARD —Having made those points, the point I now make is that if those honourable members on the other side of the chamber were concerned to see that things such as citizenship, nationality and symbols are unifying factors, they would not bring about these changes which must of their very nature be divisive. From the response to these changes not only from the Opposition but also from the community in general it is perfectly obvious that the Government has stirred very strong passions. This country has problems enough at present and is likely to have problems enough for years into the future without stirring up unnecessary fights and arguments about our national symbols. I cannot imagine anything that is more destructive of our national unity or more likely to provoke division between Australian and Australian than the generating-in the name of pursuing some authoritarian view of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs-of these sorts of divisive changes. It is for that reason as much as for anything else that I very strongly support the position taken in this debate by the Opposition. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(6.54) —It is very interesting to see the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) finally taking an interest in immigration. I have been here for almost eight years and I have never heard a comment from him on immigration and ethnic affairs matters. It is interesting to note that the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), is not here. It is also interesting to note that two former Ministers for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) and the honourable member for Warringah (Mr Mackellar), have not chosen to associate themselves with all the divisive rubbish and with the repulsive nature of the arguments that have been put in this debate. I will tell honourable members opposite the reason why their two former Ministers are not here. It is because deep in their hearts and minds they are absolutely disgusted with the divisive way that the Opposition has sought to use the immigration program of this country. It was honourable members opposite who first sent Australia into Vietnam. It was they who started the Indo-China refugee program. They know deep in their minds that what Professor Blainey is saying is wrong. Yet they are perfectly satisfied to sit opposite and in a divisive, most vitriolic and hateful way misrepresent what this Government is doing with regard to immigration programs for this country. Mr Cadman —I take a point of order. On two occasions the Minister called me to order for straying from the content of the Bill. He is doing the same thing now. The CHAIRMAN —I ask the Minister to stick to the clauses of the Bill. Mr WEST —Thank you very much for your advice, Madam Chair. No doubt for the rest of the Committee stage of the so-called debate on this Bill the members of the Opposition will be asked not to be so wide-ranging in the nature of their remarks. With regard to the removal of the British status as a criterion for Australian citizenship, there was no Australian citizenship per se until the Chifley Australian Citizenship Act of 1949. It was then that all the British subjects in Australia-that includes people born outside and inside Australia- were given Australian citizenship. There were transition arrangements which for many years allowed British subjects who were here prior to 1949 to become Australian citizens. The position is that no Commonwealth nation, including the United Kingdom, any longer regards its citizens as British subjects. That includes the British Government. That definition has been struck from the statutes of the United Kingdom and struck from the statutes of every other Commonwealth nation. Although we are the last nation to remove British subject status as a definition of Australian citizenship-that is virtually all it means-and although we will give the States in the Commonwealth time to tidy up their consequential legislation, honourable members opposite have spent the last hour and a half trying to prevent the passage of this eminently sensible proposition with which incidentally all of the State governments agree absolutely and totally. Mr Hodgman —Except Tasmania and Queensland. Do not misrepresent them. Mr WEST —Tasmania and Queensland do not agree with the oath change, but they agree totally with what we are doing with regard to the removal of British subject status. Every State government in Australia agrees totally with what we are doing here and is co-operating with us. Yet the Opposition has used the last one and a half hours of the Committee stage of the debate to try to present what we are doing here to tidy up the Act as an example of anti-British behaviour. The Opposition is trying to prevent Australia from being the last Commonwealth nation to remove the British subject definition. I became very angry with the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and the honourable member for Bennelong because I knew the attitude of their State colleagues. I knew how misrepresentative and divisive the honourable members actually were. This Labor Government is trying to do something in the name of all Australians, from wherever they may come, and in the interests of Australia generally. Of course we need to remove the remaining discrimination from the Australian Citizenship Act. That is what the removal of the British subject definition will do. I am sure that the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), as a fair minded person, would not agree that we should continue to allow British subjects who are not citizens to walk straight into permanent jobs in the Public Service and still require non-English speaking migrants to become citizens and then automatically get British subject status before they can become permanently employed in the Public Service. That is discrimination. We are not discriminating against the British; we are removing discrimination against the non-British. There is a very great difference, as honourable members well know. I conclude my remarks on this point: There is no self-respect or national pride in the coalition-none at all. The remarks of coalition members this afternoon indicate that they would be prepared forever to see this generation and future generations of Australia regarded as the subjects of a government elsewhere. We are no longer British subjects; we are citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia . Honourable members opposite have spent the last hour and a half of the time of this Parliament in arguing for the retention of British subject status as a definition of Australian citizenship. If we accept that argument we will be the only Commonwealth country to do so. Not even the British Government does that any longer. I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Clauses agreed to. Clause 12 (Effect of grant of certificate of Australian citizenship) Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(7.00) —The Opposition will take this clause to a division because, of all the clauses in the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill, there is none more repugnant to Her Majesty's loyal Opposition and to the overwhelming majority of Australians than clause 12 which is the clause under which the oath and the affirmation of allegiance are made. The requirement to swear an oath or make an affirmation of allegiance, introduced by Prime Minister Whitlam, are in the Australian Citizenship Act. The oath and affirmation now go out and are replaced by the requirement to make a pledge in a form which is totally unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of Australians. Pledges are for pawnbrokers. We are talking about the citizenship of the greatest country in the world. As the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) said, the Government is debasing, devaluing and discounting Australian citizenship when it denies the right of Australians to swear or affirm allegiance to the Queen of Australia. When the Government talks about misrep- resentation let me say on behalf of the people of Australia that we are disgusted at the way that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West), one of the leaders of the fascist Left in the Hawke socialist government, has gone around this country claiming that it is an oath of allegiance to a foreign monarch. He stood in Sydney in front of 25 ,000 people on Greek independence day and said that we were about to change the law so that, to become an Australian citizen, they would not be required in the future to swear an oath of allegiance to a foreign monarch living in a foreign country. That was a gross misrepresentation of the truth because the oath of allegiance is not made to a foreign monarch. The oath of allegiance is made to the Queen of Australia. That was introduced by Prime Minister Whitlam and accepted by the majority of Australians. This is the atheist, socialist republicanism of the Hawke Government now coming to light. Government members might laugh about that but I assure them that the division list for the vote on this clause will go right around Australia. People who have claimed in the past to be loyal to the Queen, people who have claimed in the past-- Mr Beazley —You are a disgrace. Mr HODGMAN —To affirm allegiance to the Queen, people like the father of the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) who affirmed and honoured it, will look through that list. I can assure honourable members that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is so out of touch with public opinion that it does not make any difference. Unfortunately, the Minister, in indicating the ideologies of the fascist Left, has misrepresented the position in this Parliament. He has claimed in this debate that the two former Ministers recommended changes to the oath of allegiance by deleting reference to the Queen . That statement is simply not true. One former Minister recommended a change concerning whether the renunciation should be before or after the oath of allegiance. But neither former Minister, the former member for Petrie, Mr Hodges , nor the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), ever advocated that reference to the Queen be taken out of the oath or the affirmation of allegiance . I do not want to repeat what I said in the second reading debate. I point to the hypocrisy, the double standards and the dishonesty of this sham Hawke socialist Government. It is prepared to deny the right of Australians to swear allegiance to the Queen of Australia. When a person becomes a member of the Commonwealth Parliament or a member of any State parliament, he or she has to take an oath or an affirmation. The Government is not prepared to go to the people of Australia with a referendum. It would get thrashed. Mr Groom —That is the test. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Braddon made the point that that is the test. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said that we will have a referendum at the end of this year in conjunction with the election on simultaneous elections and on one other matter. What about putting to the people of Australia whether we should delete the schedule from the Constitution? What does the schedule provide? It provides for an oath or affirmation of allegiance which each and every honourable member took before he or she could take a seat in Parliament. The Ministers took one or the other in the presence of the Queen's representative, the Governor-General. I put it to the Government that if it wants to see what the people think about this matter it should take it to the people. The Government has no mandate to do what it is doing. It is going against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Australians. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said, it is indulging in divisive and disruptive tactics. The Government displays itself as not being loyal to the Queen of Australia and for that it will be condemned. On this issue alone it will lose so many votes in the next election that it will find itself in a position which is not the position it thinks it will be in at this time. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(7.07) —Once again we have had the usual parade of name calling and attempts to label people from the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). I certainly will not do that in return. It is our belief that it is the overwhelming desire of the people who expect to seek to acquire Australian citizenship that this Bill be passed. Over three million of the six million people in this country who were either born overseas or who have a parent who was born overseas come from non- English speaking countries. Let us be frank, honest and non-divisive about this matter. We are not saying that this is the first step towards an Australian republic. We are not saying that the Queen is no longer the Queen of Australia. We are saying that, for some migrants who join us from non-English speaking countries, it is a divisive provocation to require them to swear allegiance to the Queen who is resident elsewhere before they can obtain Australian citizenship. Let us look at what the report commissioned by the former Government and brought down by Professor Zubrzycki had to say. I will conclude my remarks with a quote from the report on the National Consultations on Multiculturalism and Citizenship. It stated: 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. This view was shared by persons from a variety of backgrounds, including holders of Imperial awards and persons who maintained that they were not republicans. No hostility was expressed towards Her Majesty, though one speaker did pose the conundrum as to where her own allegiance would lie if Britain came into conflict with Australia. She was a very forward-looking woman. She was looking at maybe 100 years down the track. The report continues: Few speakers were in favour of retaining a mention of the Queen in the Oath of Allegiance, and spoke mainly to register their support, rather than to advance a reasoned case for its retention. I rest my case. I move: That the question be now put. Mr Tuckey —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman. I was on my feet prior to the Minister moving that the question be put. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mildren) —There is no point of order. The question is: ' That the question be now put'. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That clause 12 be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung- Mr Hodgman —You are a fascist of the Left and you are the most disgraceful Minister we have ever had in this Parliament. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mildren) -I ask the honourable member for Denison to withdraw those comments. Mr Hodgman —I say that he is a fascist of the Left. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I ask the honourable member to withdraw those comments. Mr Hodgman —Only out of respect to you, Mr Deputy Chairman. The world knows that it is true. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I ask the honourable member to withdraw the comments unqualifiedly. Mr Hodgman —Out of respect, I will. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr J. B. Mildren) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 41 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. Mayer, H.Charles, D. E. Milton, P.Child, J. Morris, AllanChynoweth, R. L. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Everingham, D. N. Scholes, G. G. D.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Fry, K. L. Snow, J. H.Gayler, J. Staples, P. R.Gear, G. Steedman, A. P.Gorman, R. N. J. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. Lusher, S. A.Andrew, J. N. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian Newman, K. E.Carlton, J. J. O'Keefe, F. L.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 13 to 16-by leave-taken together. Motion (by Mr West) agreed to: That the question be now put. Clauses agreed to. Clause 17. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(7.17) —I move: Clause 17, page 16, line 10, after ''statement'' insert ''made by a person for the purposes of sub-section (1), and, in a case where the person has claimed that, if he had not done the act or thing that resulted in his ceasing to be an Australian citizen, he would have suffered hardship or detriment of an economic nature, that the person's circumstances were such as to compel him to do that act or thing''. Mr Hodgman —We agreed to the amendment. How thick are you? Mr WEST —The amendment is agreed to. Mr Deputy Chairman, can you pull that lunatic into gear? Mr Hodgman —I raise a point of order. Apart from being insulting, the Minister is a fool. He has been told five times that we agree to the amendment. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I ask the honourable member for Denison to restrain himself . Mr WEST —The amendment is of a technical nature. I understand that it is agreed to by the Opposition. I have an explanation that can be made, if necessary, on this technical amendment. However, in the interests of expediency perhaps the Committee would prefer to drop the technical explanation and proceed to put the amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 18 to 35-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 36. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigation and Ethnic Affairs)(7.21) —I move: (2) Clause 36, page 21, line 17, omit 'sub-section 13(1)', insert 'section 13 ( other than sub-section 13(9))'. I can see that the Opposition agrees with this amendment. If that is correct, I will refrain from the technical explanation because it is a technical amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 37 agreed to. Clause 38 (Schedule 2). Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(7.25) —Clause 38 has the effect of removing from the statute books forever the Schedules to the Australian Citizenship Act which were brought into this Parliament and which passed through this Parliament when Mr Whitlam was Prime Minister. I have to say to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) that this is the last chance that he and the Hawke socialist Government have to pull back from removing from the Schedule set out in the Australian Citizenship Act 1948-1973, firstly, the oath of allegiance and , secondly, the affirmation of allegiance. The oath of allegiance is in simple and beautiful terms and is as follows: 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,- I emphasise those words- Her heirs and successors according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen. The affirmation of allegiance is in similar terms except that the words ' solemnly and sincerely promise and declare' are inserted in lieu of the words ' swear by Almighty God'. These are to be replaced by a pledge of allegiance which , as the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) has said, is an insult to this nation, an insult to all Australians past and present. As I said a few minutes ago, pledges are for pawnbrokers; they are not for citizenship. This is what the people of Australia are being confronted with in this Bill. Firstly, the pledge of Australian citizenship will be in the following terms: 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. That is placed as the first option. Mr Whitlam, in his Bill, had the decency to place as the first option the oath of allegiance. It so happens that 81 per cent of Australians happen to believe in a God. This arrogant, ignorant Minister, this outrageous socialist republican Government says: 'Your first option is a pledge but, if you want to, as a second option we will give you the opportunity of swearing allegiance. That is the second form of the pledge'. In so doing the Government is insulting four out of five Australians who believe in God or christianity or who are members of a church. Secondly, the Government is refusing them the right to swear allegiance or affirm allegiance to the Queen. Yet those hypocrites opposite do it when they come into this Parliament because if they do not swear or affirm allegiance to the Queen, they cannot take their seats and cannot collect their money. Thirdly, if we look at the latest gallup poll, Government members are so far out of touch with public opinion on this matter that it just does not count. Power and the public opinion polls have gone to the head of the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke). He now regards himself as more important than the Queen and half as good as God. I tell honourable members that this vote is an historic vote because on this vote Government members are demonstrating beyond any shadow of doubt that the allegiance which they swore or affirmed to the Queen was shallow. I put it to them that they are putting in jeopardy their own seats. They can hardly argue that their oaths are worth the paper on which they were written when, less than 12 months afterwards, they are in this Parliament putting the knife into the Queen. The Minister ought to resign before he is sacked. He has become a symbol of disunity amongst Australians old and new. He thinks he is pleasing the ethnic groups with this amendment. I can assure him that, following his speech in Sydney on Greek Independence Day, the number of people who came up to me wearing an Australian flag and who said 'We believe in the Queen' would have put him to shame. He has listened to the wrong people. The Prime Minister has been sucked in by the socialist Left. The Minister is now about to destroy the right of Australians to swear allegiance to the Queen of Australia. Shame on him. It is a black day. I know my voice is going but my heart is in this because the people of Australia will know Government members for what they are-hypocrites, liars and cheats and disloyal, one and all, to the Queen of Australia. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(7.28) —Clause 38 refers to the regulations attached to the Bill. I will not be as viciously or as stupidly repetitive as the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs , the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), on this matter of the changes to the oath; I will merely refute once again two points. The removal of reference to the Queen from the oath of allegiance is not an indication of a rush to republicanism. I wish Opposition members would get that through their heads, nor is it an indication of anti-British feeling; nor does it indicate any resentment against the Queen. I refer again to the stupid remarks of the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) during the second reading debate when he actually said that I was out to make God optional. As I said, I do not claim such divine powers. It was always an option to make an affirmation or an oath. Mr Ruddock —Just the first option. There must be some significance in turning around the order. Mr WEST —I make it clear to the honourable member for Dundas, who I might say, to be charitable, made one of the few reasonable contributions from the Opposition during the second reading debate-I am sure he will be able to understand what I am saying although the honourable member for Denison will not learn-that reference to the Queen is in the current affirmation and the oath. But, of course, an affirmation does not refer to religion or God whereas an oath does. So I am afraid God was always optional in this Act. Now we will give the would-be citizens of Australia a choice between two forms of pledge, one which swears by Almighty God and one which does not. The important point is that it is truly national in character. All people will be asked to do is to swear allegiance to the magnificent country of Australia and to the Australian Constitution. I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the clause be agreed to. The House divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr J. B. Mildren) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 41 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. Mayer, H.Charles, D. E. Milton, P.Child, J. Morris, AllanChynoweth, R. L. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Everingham, D. N. Scholes, G. G. D.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Fry, K. L. Snow, J. H.Gayler, J. Staples, P. R.Gear, G. Steedman, A. P.Gorman, R. N. J. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. Lusher, S. A.Andrew, J. N. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian Newman, K. E.Carlton, J. J. O'Keefe, F. L.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —It being past 7.30 p.m., I shall report progress. Progress reported. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being past 7.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Young-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(7.37) —Mr Chairman, I felt, having listened to the debate, that there was need to make a contribution because I am deeply concerned at the move that has been made to change the oath. I am one of those people present who , as a former shire president and local government person, has participated over the years in assisting people to take out citizenship in Australia by taking an oath and, in many cases, an affirmation. I am deeply concerned, in the first instance, that we should break a longstanding tradition by not including the Queen of England as the Queen of Australia in the oath of allegiance. The change is absolutely unnecessary. People have always recognised that the Queen is an institution as well a as a person. The monarchy is certainly an institution and, as such, we have included it in our traditions. It is certainly part of our history. Other nations also have backgrounds emanating from the British Isles. The fact that when the Queen visits those places people turn out in their thousands to greet her is evidence that those people have great respect for that tradition. I would not mind if I could see some benefit to Australians in taking the Queen out of the oath. It is a tradition. She is declared as the Queen of Australia and I believe that she should not be removed. I think the Labor Government is paranoid in its desire to remove the Queen, a desire previously pursued by the Whitlam Government. In that period the Prime Minister of the day tried to replace that institution with his own. He had his photograph hanging on walls as we well know. I see this move as taking away from Australians something that stands up for us to recognise as a higher institution . It is exactly the same thing as we find in some communist nations which demand that everybody dresses the same and looks the same. We are taking away something that people can look up to. More importantly, I see a great problem in the downgrading of God. There is no other way to describe it. This act must be deliberate. Draftsmen do not by accident turn around the position of affirmation and oath. They do it by instruction. That instruction clearly came from the Government. I am a little astounded by that. I have a good memory and I take notice of things that happen. I have had the opportunity to watch the swearing in ceremony of members of this place on two occasions and I thought that maybe the Australian Labor Party had decided to upgrade God a little bit because when I observed the 1981 swearing in of members I saw the honourable member for Wills ( Mr Hawke) make an affirmation but when I watched the swearing in ceremony after the 1983 elections I saw the honourable member who was, of course, Prime Minister-elect, take the oath. It is amazing to me that the Bible did not catch fire in his hands when he did it because we know very well some of the statements that he has made. Let us hope that his father, the Reverend Clem Hawke, got to him and that he does not have an ambition to walk on water. I think that is what he is planning to do in the future. I think what the Government is doing is disgraceful. It is just another example of the hypocrisy of a government which throws crumbs to its left wing to keep it pacified while it carries out other things which, of course, its left wing is not so pleased about but in respect of which it is not prepared to roll the Government. We know what those issues are. If the left wing is prepared to survive on these crumbs, good luck to it. I think, of course, that members of the left wing are completely destroying their principles when they take the crumbs instead of standing up for the issues in which they truly believe. I have admiration for people who stick by their principles, but I have no admiration for people who do things such as I have just mentioned. I have no admiration for people who find that they can forgo God when it is interesting to be amongst the boys and make an affirmation but who turn around and rediscover God when they believe respectability is required for their new position. Many people rediscover God but they rediscover Him for good reasons and not for pure and blind ambition. I think it is time that honourable members opposite went back to their Prime Minister and said: 'As you have been able to upgrade God, at least let us upgrade Him and put him on top of the Schedule which is referred to in section 38'. That is where He was; that is where most people wanted Him. It is quite simple to do this. What honourable members opposite have done is quite sinister and they have done it for a definite purpose. I think that this is most unfortunate and regrettable. If any honourable member opposite wants publicly to stand up and say that he is prepared to downgrade God I hope he never wants to be Prime Minister because if he is he will be put in the position of having to upgrade Him again. Mr West —But I haven't made Him optional. Mr TUCKEY —No, the Minister has not. However, he has certainly put God in a position where He might be missed. God should have been on top of the list. The Government took a deliberate decision to change the positions around. The Minister cannot deny that because I know his draftsman would not have changed the basic order of words on his own. This was done on the instructions of the Government and the Minister. It is not really funny because we are a Christian nation, even though some of us see God in slightly different ways. Quite a lot of other religions still recognise a God. It is a great pity that this change has been proposed. What I am saying is that members of the left wing have a crumb. God has been downgraded and the Queen has been wiped out. However, they were rolled on uranium and they have been rolled on everything else in which they believe. That does not make them very effective members of parliament. This situation is a disgrace. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Motion (by Mr West)-by leave-proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(7.45) —In the dying stages of this debate I have the opportunity to speak briefly. I want to say two things to the Government. I say them across party lines and in all sincerity. Because of the highly contentious, extremely divisive and extraordinarily emotional issues that have been raised by this legislation, I ask the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West ) to go back to Cabinet and re- commend to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that this Bill progress no further for a period of, say, three months during which time community reaction to it can be further gauged and assessed. In the utmost good faith, I ask the Minister to stop now before he does irreparable damage to the fabric and framework of this great nation of ours. The Minister's decision to downgrade God and wipe out the Queen will be regretted very strongly by the overwhelming majority of Australians. I appeal to the Minister to hold the matter and take it no further. If the Minister is not prepared to respond favourably to that request put to him and to the Hawke socialist Government by Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, my concluding comment is a message to the other place. I hope that when this Bill reaches the other place those who have the honour to serve in the Senate will more accurately represent the views of the people of Australia about loyalty to our Queen. This is the Commonwealth of Australia and the Constitution guarantees a constitutional monarchy. We are not some republic and the Prime Minister is not President. If it were possible to transmit a message from this House to the Senate I would hope the message would be that in the other place, under divine providence, wiser counsel should prevail. I for one am proud, along with millions of other Australians, to say the words 'God save the Queen'. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(7.48) —in reply -This Government has taken notice of and considered the consultations that the previous Government held throughout Australia with migrant communities and organisations. I have consulted with the States and I am satisfied that in the main they support the major provisions of this Bill. I have consulted with them almost since the Government took office over a year ago. I have taken this matter through two Commonwealth-State ministerial conferences. What is more, I am confident that the majority of the people of Autralia gave us a mandate for the major changes that are proposed in this Bill after they were quite clearly told at the last election what we were going to do. Therefore, I refute what the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), said and call on the other place to pass this Bill unanimously because that is what the majority of the migrants and, I believe, the majority of Australians want. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. [COGNATE BILL: PIG MEAT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 7 March, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —Madam Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that this House has a general debate covering this Bill and the Pig Meat Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering both measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(7.51) —The main purpose of the Pig Meat Legislation Amendment Bill is to give the Pork Promotion Committee control of its own funds. The change of name from the Pig Meat Promotion Committee to the Pork Promotion Committee is also provided for. The outline of the legislation states that the following changes are to be made: to appoint the second producer member on the Committee as Deputy Chairman ( other producer member is Chairman). to provide for Ministerial approval of deputies prior to their appointment by a member. to provide for a quorum of three (member or deputy) at Committee meetings. I am making this speech for the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), who is away from Parliament at the moment. He wanted certain definite points to be made during this debate. These Bills continue the legislative policies of the Hawke Labor Government over the period of the 13 months it has occupied the treasury bench. Those policies indicate that as far as primary industry is concerned the Government is more interested in the shadow of administrative fine-tuning than in the substance of developing policies and fulfilling pre-election commitments. There has not been one substantive piece of legislation which has sought to translate its 'me too' pre-election promises into statute. One can understand that that is only to be expected. The Government has never shown any interest in primary industry. We all remember Senator Walsh's comments on millionaire farmers and the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen), that we would be better off without Australian wheat and sugar producers . Of course, the Government has been very strong on rhetoric. It has been superb in extending sympathy and agreement with primary producer organisations which have come in with their legitimate concerns. The stock reply of the Government has been to blame the previous Government for all its inability to offer help and fulfil its promises. It cannot deliver and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is rapidly gaining a reputation as a man who always loses in the Ministry or in Cabinet and as one who has failed to translate that sympathy into reality. The only legislation he has brought in deals with administrative change or imposes additional charges, such as increased inspection charges on industries or applies them to a wider area of primary production than was the case under the Fraser-Anthony coalition. Fortunately for Australian primary producers, the Minister has had to face the complete ignominy of having this legislation held up in the Senate. He is one of the few Labor Ministers who has had this fate befall him. It is interesting to note that following the comments made by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Darling Downs, in a recent House of Representatives debate on inspection charges and the failure of the Government to have in place practical policies and enthusiasm to charge for something that was unknown, two Bills were not proceeded with in the House of Representatives and four Bills in the Senate are not even to be debated this week. The Minister, in his enthusiasm to put further charges on Australian primary producers, in his second reading speech indicated that the passage of these Bills was urgent as the increased and new charges- Mr Kerin —I raise a point of order. These Bills are not about export inspection charges. They refer to quite minor matters concerned with two Acts. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I ask the honourable member for Murray to confine himself to the content of the Bills. Mr LLOYD —I think the point of order raised by the Minister verifies the point I was making, namely, that the Government and the Minister have failed to do anything other than increase charges for farmers in the primary industry area. With respect to the Pig Meat Legislation Amendment Bill the Opposition supports the deletion of the promotion account and the payment of promotion moneys to the Committee. With the necessary safeguards provided by the Auditor-General it will allow for a more business-like arrangement than that which was possible through departmental procedures. It seems unnecessary for the Department of Primary Industry to be involved to the degree it was involved under the 1975 legislation when we are not here dealing with dollar for dollar government and industry money. We are dealing with industry money alone. There is a need for promotion. Pork promotion will be supported to the level of $1.75m this year. Of this amount $1.4m will be spent on promoting all cuts of pork and $250,000 will be spent on ham promotion. The people associated with the promotion deserve applause for their modern approach in convening a joint policy of advertisements in all capital city newspapers and 14 major provincial newspapers, 33 radio stations and in a 16 page colour recipe lift-out in the Women's Weekly. This follows the successful campaign which they launched in mid- 1983 and the previous success of the 'Quick and Easy' cooking theme they developed. The cooking theme will be further developed by a new series of television commercials. Ham has traditionally been used for snacks, salads or Christmas dinner. The tactic now will be to promote ham as an everyday family dinner at a cost of $250,000 through advertisements in the Australian Women's Weekly, Woman's Day, New Idea and Family Circle. An advisory committee comprising a nutritionist, a dietitian, a food scientist, a food technologist and home economist has been set up. The pork promotion scene has been gratified by a massive swing in interest towards health, diet and nutrition and by the endorsement pork has from Weight Watchers. The pork industry is a major Australian agricultural industry and a significant industry in world terms. Presently there are about 330,000 sows producing about 4.2 million slaughtering pigs with a total carcass weight of about 240,000 tonnes of fresh pork, 50,000 tonnes of ham and bacon and 40,000 tonnes of can product a year. We readily appreciate the multiplier effect of such a large number of intensively housed animals to the secondary industry such as meat processors, feed millers and grain growers. As with the red meat industry there has been a reduction in prices to pig farmers this year compared with last year and for the pig industry in isolation there has been a significant reduction over the past few years. Following discussions that the shadow Minister for Primary Industry has had with pig industry people from all over Australia he sees that the greatest difficulty faced by pig and pork producers is in the export area. Australia has many factors in its favour which could lead it to becoming a world leader in pork exports. Australia has big areas with ideal climate for intensive livestock production. Australia is an exporter of natural gas and coal which should provide a relatively cheap supply of energy and land costs for intensive production are low by world standards. This cheap land, dry climate and low population density makes effluent disposal in Australia easy compared with some of the enormous difficulties of some of our overseas competitors. Due to the sound quarantine proposals of previous governments we are relatively free from livestock diseases. If we adopt adequate promotion techniques and spending on this industry there is an enormous market for pork meat in the general Asian sub-continent area. Japan is a major importer and Singapore could be developed. Australia should be a major supplier to these markets. There is no inherent reason why we cannot usurp the position of Canada which has been the major supplier of pork as it has many disadvantages compared with Australia. However, the lack of a plant variety rights scheme in Australia has discouraged private firms from developing better feed grain varieties and improving the yields of feed grains. Grower supported research funds through the wheat industry have been concentrated on wheat development. Therefore, pig producers have been inhibited in their export potential by this lack of development of a feed grain industry. We need also to overcome our bad reputation as a supplier to world markets because of our industrial relations record. Mr Young —Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask the honourable member to excuse this interruption. I have been made aware of the fact that a number of honourable members on both sides of the House have commitments in respect of the Governor- General's dinner. They have their spouses here and so forth. I ask the honourable member if he would be prepared to continue his remarks tomorrow so that we can adjourn the House. Mr LLOYD —Yes, quite happily. Debate (on motion by Mr Young) adjourned. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 2 May 1984: Public Service Act-Determination-1984-No. 8. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 170) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 18 May 1983: (1) Can he say if a vehicle, manufactured by British-Leyland in the United Kingdom, designed to allow a disabled person to enter and exit the vehicle by wheelchair without assistance, and to also drive that vehicle without assistance , is now available. (2) Can he also say if any similar vehicle is now in production in Australia. (3) Is this vehicle, manufactured by British-Leyland, and designed specifically to aid the disabled, currently subject to between 93 and 95 per cent sales tax and import duty by the Australian Bureau of Customs, when it is purchased by an Australian citizen and brought into this country. (4) Is this level of taxation an undesirable impost on the severely handicapped person. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) I understand that a vehicle specifically designed for disabled persons is now available from British-Leyland in the United Kingdom, under the name of the Elswick Envoy. (2) None of the local vehicle manufacturers produces a vehicle specifically designed for use by the handicapped. However a variety of locally produced vehicles are capable of being modified for this purpose and each of the local producers provides an advisory service to assist handicapped users in the design of modifications necessary for their individual purpose. (3) For tariff purposes an Elswick Envoy would be classified as a passenger motor vehicle, and therefore be subject to a duty of 57 1/2 per cent. As imports of motor vehicles are subject to quota limits a prospective importer would also require access to quota in order to be able to import the vehicle. As far as sales tax is concerned I am advised that the rate of tax applicable on importation would be the general rate of 20 per cent unless it is covered by an exemption provision in the sales tax law. The only provision which calls for comment is item 123 in the First Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. Item 123 exempts goods designed and manufactured expressly for use by disabled persons provided that they are not of a kind ordinarily used by persons who are not suffering from disablement. It is a question of fact for the Commissioner of Taxation to decide whether a particular item of goods is exempt under item 123 or excluded from exemption because it is in the nature of general-purpose goods ordinarily used by persons other than the disabled. The Commission is not aware of any instance where a road vehicle designed or modified to be used and operated by a disabled person has qualified for sales tax exemption under the item. On face value, such a road vehicle would be unlikely to qualify for exemption, because, although it may be specially designed in certain respects, it would still retain the basic character of a road vehicle for the transport of persons. The Commissioner would need to be supplied full details of specifications, etc. of the vehicle to enable a proper determination to be made. He will arrange for this to be done if such details are supplied. I am advised that the sales tax position would be the same for similar vehicles produced in Australia as for the imported vehicle in question. There is, however , a limited exemption in item 42C, First Schedule, for goods to be used in the modification of a motor vehicle solely for the purposes of adapting it for driving by a person who is suffering from physical impairment. The exemption would apply to goods used in Australia to modify imported or locally produced standard vehicles. Exemption, of course, would not apply to goods which are used in the modification overseas of a motor vehicle and which form an intergral part of an imported vehicle. Items 135 and 135A in the First Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act contain limited sales tax exemptions for motor vehicles for use by disabled persons. Item 135 provides exemption for a motor vehicle for use in the transportation of an ex-serviceman who as a result of war service has lost a leg or both arms or receives a special Repatriation pension for blindness , tuberculosis or in respect of total and permanent incapacity. Item 135A provides exemption for a motor vehicle for use in the transportation to and from gainful employment of a person who has lost the use of a leg to such an extent that he is permanently unable to use public transport. On the basis that the vehicle would not qualify for exemption, sales tax would be calculated at 20 per cent on the following value on importation into Australia- (a) value for customs duty; plus (b) customs duty; plus (c) 20 per cent of the sum of (a) and (b) (4) The Government of course is very conscious of the particular mobility problems that can face disabled people. Assistance to help the disabled in meeting those problems is provided through various avenues. As noted above, provision exists for exemption of sales tax in certain instances. In 1981-82 the cost to revenue of sales tax exemptions on motor vehicles owned and used to convey persons with leg disabilities amounted to around $1.2m. Furthermore, a special mobility allowance for severely disabled persons was introduced in the 1982-83 Budget. Persons who have not received sales tax relief on the purchase of a motor vehicle qualify for a non-taxable allowance of $10 a week. The cost of this allowance is estimated at $18.3m in a full year. The possibility of providing special tariff concessions for imports of vehicles designed for any use by the disabled has also been considered. However examination has shown that this would not be feasible. If concessional entry was provided for these vehicles there would be a real risk that the concession would be used to import vehicles which would end up being marketed for the general user. To safeguard against this risk very specific criteria would need to be written into the tariff. This however would have the effect of negating the practical value of the concession to the genuinely disabled. Even if tariff criteria which avoided this problem could be devised the potential would still remain for vehicles imported under the concession to be subsequently converted for sale in the general market. While conversion would involve costs to the importer these need to be considered against the substantial duty savings which would be involved. Abuse of any concession in these ways could have serious effects on production and employment in the local vehicle manufacturing industry. The possibility of side effects of this kind places obvious limits on the extent to which it is feasible to use tariff concessions as an instrument of social welfare policy. These limitations have been recognised by governments of all political persuasions. (Question No. 559) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 22 September 1983: (1) What action has he or his Department taken over allegations in early 1983 of bribery within Telecom Australia. (2) Were the Australian Federal Police called in to investigate the claim, as he promised they would be; if so, with what result; if not, why not. (3) Is he satisfied that there are no longer any Telecom Australia employees receiving bribes for illegal telephone installations. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Allegations of corruption within Telecom contained in the Connor Report into Legalising Casinos in Victoria were referred by me on 26 May 1983 to the Special Minister of State for investigation by the Australian Federal Police ( AFP). (2) Yes. The Special Minister of State has advised me that: ''As a result of a series of interviews and the examination of relevant documents the AFP has reached a tentative conclusion that there is not evidence available which would vindicate in satisfaction of the criminal burden of proof, that there is more than a casual link between organised crime and Telecom.'' (3) Telecom has advised me that should any of its employees be detected receiving bribes for illegal telephone installations they will be prosecuted. (Question No. 628) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 13 October 1983 : (1) What is the timetable for establishing the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's second regional radio network. (2) What are the programming priorities of the network. (3) Will there be a greater emphasis on local content such as local news and locally produced programs; if so, will this require additional news staff and other staff above those ordinarily employed at a regional radio station. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In August the Prime Minister announced that detailed planning of the ABC's second regional radio network would begin in 1983-84. I will be establishing a task force to examine a number of aspects of the network. Once the task force has undertaken some preliminary work and reported to me, I intend to publish a Green Paper about the intended nature of and philosophy behind the ABC's second regional radio network. Construction of the transmitting facilities will begin in 1984-85. At this time I am not in a position to answer in greater detail. (2) See above. (3) See above. (Question No. 821) Mr Shipton asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 17 November 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the article on the rust-proofing industry in the September issue of Choice magazine. (2) Is it a fact that the rust-proofing industry is a very valuable and reputable Australian industry. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The treatment of motor vehicles either during manufacture or subsequently with a suitable and properly applied corrosion inhibition product can assist in preventing rust. It seems however, that at least some rust-proofing currently performed in Australia is below the desired standard. For example, the Annual Report of the South Australian Commissioner for Consumer Affairs for the year ended 30 June 1983 revealed that of 63 cars inspected at random from some of the State's major new car dealers and 3 major car rust-proofing companies only 3 were satisfactorily rust-proofed. Much of the treatment was reported to be, at best, shoddy although I understand the situation was more serious for treatment supplied by the dealers than by the rust-proofing specialists. The Standards Association of Australia has recently prepared a Standard on motor vehicle rust- proofing products and is currently developing Standards for rust-proofing product application and contract conditions for treatment. I am pleased to note that the automotive rust-proofing industry is represented on the relevant SAA Committee and sought the development of the recently published Standard. (Question No. 893) Mr Milton asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 1 December 1983: (1) Has the Attorney-General's attention been drawn to articles in the Age and the Australian on 30 November 1983, reporting that Mr Ranald MacDonald, a former director of David Syme and Co. Ltd, had discovered that up to 1964 the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation had vetted the appointment of Age newspaper reporters. (2) Can the Attorney-General confirm whether, and to what extent, such vetting has been undertaken by ASIO in relation to the appointment of reporters in the print, radio and television media. (3) Will the Attorney-General advise whether, and to what extent, ASIO is presently operating such a vetting procedure. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) I follow the practice of successive governments in that the activities of ASIO are neither confirmed nor denied. I can say that the great majority of allegations reported about ASIO's activities are without foundation. ASIO's functions are strictly confined under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 to the collection and evaluation of intelligence relevant to security. It is concerned only with the activities prejudicial to national security. It appears from the article in the Age of 30 November 1983 that many people associated with David Syme and Co. Ltd, and the Age newspaper regard Mr Ranald McDonald's claims about ASIO vetting of journalists as lacking foundation. Mr Keith Sinclair, editor of the Age from 1959 to 1966 was reported as describing Mr McDonald's claims about ASIO vetting of journalists as 'absolute nonsense'. Mr W. G. Bland, General Manager of the Age between 1964-1983 was reported as saying that he had no knowledge of any ASIO vetting of journalists. Mr Peter Alston, the personnel manager of the Age from 1961 to 1978 said that he was '' never aware'' of any ASIO involvement in the process of appointing journalists to the paper. The present editor of the Age, Mr Creighton Burns, said that to his knowledge, and certainly since he had become editor, the Age has not sought security checks on staff from ASIO or any other government instrumentality. Mr Burns stated that he had never been approached by ASIO in relation to staff appointments. (3) In certain prescribed circumstances, ASIO is authorised by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 to provide Commonwealth agencies with security assessments in relation to individuals. The only circumstance in which a reporter would be the subject of such an assessment is where he or she is to have official access to national security classified information or a secure area and is formally submitted for assessment by a Commonwealth agency. (Question No. 894) Mr Shipton asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 1 December 1983: Has he received any complaints about the unwarranted attack in Choice magazine, September 1983, on the rust-proofing industry; if so, has he referred any complaints to the Trade Practices Commission for investigation to ascertain whether Choice has breached provisions of the Trade Practices Act. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I have received a number of representations about the Choice magazine article, including from members of Parliament and the motor vehicle rust-proofing industry. The Trade Practices Commission has received complaints from certain sections of this industry and, I understand, a letter from the honourable member , about the Choice article. I am advised the Commission has decided not to investigate this matter to determine who is right or wrong, but to leave the matter to complainant companies to consider bringing proceedings under the Trade Practices Act or the general law. (Question No. 917) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 7 December 1983: (1) What is the (a) name (b) purpose and (c) amount (i) provided and (ii) to be provided, to each project funded by the Aboriginal Development Commission. (2) What is the (a) current financial position and (b) overall operations of each enterprise and project funded by the Aboriginal Development Commission. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The amounts provided and to be provided by the Aboriginal Development Commission in respect of its functional programs up to 1983-84 are listed below. (Est.) 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 $m $m $m $m Land acquisition 0.872 3.679 2.927 4.690 Enterprise grants 3.347 3 .489 4.274 4.524 Enterprise loans 1.302 4.553 3.092 2.105 Housing grants . . 23.683 26.863 30.500 Housing loans 8.319 10.076 13.009 12.500 13.840 45.480 50.165 54.319 Details of the programs are shown in the Commission's annual reports. The function of providing housing grants was transferred from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to the Commission on 1 July 1981. (2) Enterprise and housing grants are provided to incorporated Aboriginal organisations which in turn administer the projects within the framework of self -management. The Commission monitors the projects and obtains audited financial statements from the organisations. However, in accordance with normal commercial practice, the Commission does not publish detailed financial and operational information in respect of individual enterprises or projects. (Question No. 924) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 7 December 1983: (1) Is he functionally responsible within the administrative arrangements for the Aboriginal Arts Board and its activities. (2) Has he, in effect, handed over this part of his portfolio responsibility to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the recent directions which were relayed to the Aboriginal Arts Board resulting in a significant change in funding responsibilities applying to Treka Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Ltd; if so, was this action taken with the knowledge and approval of the Prime Minister. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Under the Administrative Arrangements ordered by His Excellency the Governor-General on 1 July 1983, the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment administers the Australia Council Act 1975. The Aboriginal Arts Board was established by the then Prime Minister on 27 March 1975 pursuant to Section 20 of the Australia Council Act. Pursuant to Section 7 of the Australia Council Act, the Council may, subject to any direction of the Minister, delegate any of its functions and any of its powers under the Act to a Board. The Aboriginal Arts Board operates under such a delegation from the Council. The Minister has given no direction in respect of this delegation. (2) No. (Question No. 962) Mr Simmons asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 8 December 1983: Is it a fact that the Local Government Grants Commission has indicated that because of present budgetary circumstances and the need to expand job creation programs, the Government is concerned to concentrate funding in areas of maximum need; if so, will special grants be given to some areas at the expense of other areas. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The various State Grants Commissions are responsible for recommending to the State Governments on the allocation to local governing bodies, within their respective States, of Commonwealth local government revenue sharing funds. Distribution guidelines are provided under section 6 of the Local Government ( Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 which allow some flexibility in grant allocations according to the relative revenue raising and expenditure disabilities of local authorities. The special needs of areas are taken into account to some degree under the Grants Commission's methodologies. These basic general purpose grants may be supplemented on an area or functional basis for above average needs according to the policies of the Commonwealth or State Governments. A number of Commonwealth programs already exist for this purpose. (Question No. 987) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 December 1983 : Is it a fact that there is a potential anomaly in requiring the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to regulate the satellite program service or television networking but to make no such requirement for terrestrial networking. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. Although commercial television stations currently practise extensive networking by terrestrial means, in the sense of large-scale distribution of programs from one central source, cost considerations prevent this practice from developing to such a point that local control of the receiving stations is endangered. The Tribunal inquiry is concerned, at least in part, with the issue of whether satellite delivery of programs will increase the probability of such local control being lost. (Question No. 1003) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: (1) Is it a fact that the introduced toad Bufo marinus (cane toad) has become established in the Northern Territory, and that the continuing expansion of the geographic range of this pest could have serious ecological impact in the N.T. (2) Will he indicate what steps are being taken to prevent the toad from becoming established in the Territory in light of his attempts to enlarge the Kakadu National Park as a portion of Australia to be maintained for future generations. (3) What steps is the Australian Government taking to investigate possible control of this pest in the light of documented evidence of the harmful effects of the toad upon native wildlife that succumb to its toxic secretions or competition. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Since 1980 the Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory has been monitoring the distribution of cane toads in the Gulf of Carpentaria region . There is considerable concern regarding the environmental consequences of the westward movement of the cane toad to presently unaffected areas of the Territory. (2) I am concerned that the cane toad may become established in Kakadu National Park. Preliminary discussions have been held between officers of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and Australian Quarantine Service research scientists on the possible control of cane toads using one of the exotic iridoviruses. The host specificity and target efficacy of these viruses require further research and evaluation. (3) See (2) above. (Question No. 1004) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: (1) Further to the answer given by his predecessor to my Question No. 152 ( Hansard, 27 April 1976, page 1650) concerning cane toads, has the Acting Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service approached State wildlife authorities to see if the cane toad problem warranted combined State- Commonwealth action; if so,what was the outcome of those discussions. (2) What action was taken by the Federal and State Governments at the time on each of the 19 recommendations made in the report by Mr Michael Tyler of the University of Adelaide. (3) In view of his predecessor's observation 8 years ago, that information about the cane toad is poorly documented and is one area that requires research, what action has been taken to research the effect of the toad on native fauna. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The spread of cane toads and their apparent adverse impact on native wildlife has been the subject of Commonwealth-State consideration and has been discussed in the forum of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers and associated Committees. In 1977, the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service funded a three year study of the biology of the cane toad and its effects on Australian wildlife. It was found that the sensitivity of native wildlife to cane toad venom varies with various lizards (goannas) and snakes being the most obviously affected. (2) The report by Mr Michael Tyler of the University of Adelaide to which the then Minister referred, was prepared for the Vermin and Noxious Weeds Destruction Board of Victoria and the Western Australian Agricultural Protection Board. I am not aware what specific action those agencies have taken in relation to the recommendations contained in the report. (3) See answer to (1). (Question No. 1011) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: (1) Did a working party report on the Small Claims Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory in September 1980. (2) Has the Attorney-General's Department commenced a review of the report of the working party. (3) Did the Attorney-General advise the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Council that he had endorsed the placing of the review in a high priority category with a target date for completion of December 1983. (4) Has the Attorney-General now received the review. (5) Have drafting instructions for an amending ordinance been completed. (6) When does the Attorney-General anticipate an amending ordinance being (a) referred to the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly for its comments and (b) proclaimed. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) to (5) Yes. (6) (a) The timing will depend upon the reaction to a draft of the Ordinance which my Department will be sending in the course of the next two months to interested bodies in the Territory for comment before I finally settle the draft Ordinance for submission to the House of Assembly; (b) Once the draft Ordinance is sent to the House of Assembly the date of making the Ordinance will depend on the time taken by the House of Assembly to deal with the matter. (Question No. 1013) Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: (1) Is it a fact that, following pressure from Telecom Australia, no further licences are to be issued for voice paging units until Telecom's future policy is decided; if so, when is the forward policy likely to be completed. (2) Will he ensure that as little delay as possible occurs before the re- introduction of licences for this very important service. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: On 26 January 1984, Telecom announced that private paging operators would be able to automatically interconnect with its switched telephone network. Prior to the resolution of this policy, there were some temporary delays in frequency assignments but since the announcement of the new policy, no further delays are expected to occur. (Question No. 1019) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: What is the Literature Board subsidy per issue to the following magazines: (a) Quadrant, (b) Meanjin, (c) Overland, (d) Southerly and (e) Westerly. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows. The Australia Council has provided the following information: At the Literature Board meeting on 29-30 September 1983 the following subsidy allocations were made: (a) Quadrant $2,500 per issue, (b) Meanjin $5,000 per issue, (c) Overland $4,500 per issue, (d) Southerly $4,500 per issue, (e) Westerly $4,350 per issue. At the Literature Board meeting on 3 March 1984 the amount of subsidy per year to Quadrant was increased by $2,500; on the basis of 11 issues per annum. This brings the Quadrant subsidy per issue up to $2,727. (Question No. 1020) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: What is the percentage of total annual expenditure met by Literature Board subsidies to each of the following magazines: (a) Quadrant, (b) Meanjin, (c) Overland, (d) New Poetry, (e) Poetry Australia, (f) Southerly (g) Westerly, (h) Australian Literary Studies, (i) Australian Book Review, (j) Australian Drama Studies, (k) Australian Short Story Magazine, (l) Brave New World, (m) Ethnic Magazine, (n) Neos, (o) Northern Per- spective, (p) Social Alternatives and (q) Words and Visions. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australia Council has advised me that information concerning total annual expenditure by the magazines is made available to the Literature Board by the grant applicants under strict confidentiality. I am therefore unable to provide details of the Board's subsidies, expressed as a percentage of total annual expenditure by the magazines. (Question No. 1021) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: Does the Literature Board hold any figures for salaries or expenses paid to the editors of each of the following magazins: (a) Quadrant, (b) Meanjin, (c) Overland, (d) New Poetry, (e) Poetry Australia, (f) Southerly, (g) Westerly, (h) Australian Literary Studies and (i) Australian Book Review; if so, what salaries or expenses are paid to those editors. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australia Council has advised me that the Literature Board does hold these figures. However, the information is made available to the Literature Board by the grant applicants under strict confidentiality. I am therefore unable to provide details of the salaries or expenses paid to the editors by the magazines. (Question No. 1022) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: Does the Literature Board hold figures for the sales of the following magazines : (a) Quadrant, (b) Meanjin, (c) Overland, (d) New Poetry, (e) Poetry Australia, (f) Southerly, (g) Westerly, (h) Australian Literary Studies, (i) Australian Book Review, (j) Australasian Drama Studies, (k) Australian Short Story Magazine , (l) Brave New World, (m) Ethnic Magazine, (n) Neos, (o) Northern Perspective, (p) Social Alternatives and (q) Words and Visions; if so, what are the figures. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australia Council has advised me that the Literature Board holds these figures. However, the information is made available to the Literature Board by the grant applicants under strict confidentiality. I am therefore unable to provide details of the figures for sales by the magazines. (Question No. 1046) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: (1) Is he able to say whether in January 1983, the United States Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, submitted to the US Congress its justification of estimates for the fiscal year 1984; if so, did the report ( a) refer to an electro-magnetic gun (EMG) program being pursued in the US and (b ) note, on page 157, that the US has maintained close ties with related work pursued by the Government of Australia. (2) What does the 'related work' referred to in the report involve. (3) How closely does Australia work with the US on this program. (4) What are the potential strategic applications of EMG technology. (5) How far advanced is the project. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The report referred to by the honourable member is a compendium of descriptive summary sheets and was a supporting document for the US Department of Defense's Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) financial estimates for fiscal year 1984. Although the actual date of release is not specified it is most likely that the compendium was submitted to the US Congress in February 1983. The honourable member's copy was provided by the US Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service. (1)(a) Yes. (1)(b) Yes. (2) The 'related work' carried out by Australia is concerned with research into the physics of electromagnetic launchers. (3) Australia and the United States are involved in a joint collaborative program on electromagnetic launchers. This program is one of a number of programs carried out under the auspices of the Australia-US Memorandum of Understanding on co-operative research and development. (4) Potential applications of electromagnetic launchers cover any situation where an ultra high velocity of projectile is required, such as for intercept of anti-ship missiles. While not of interest to Australia, they have also been proposed for strategic systems such as defence against ballistic missiles. (5) US workers have demonstrated the feasibility of accelerating projectiles of 300 grammes mass to velocities of 4 kilometres per second. Velocities in excess of 30 kilometres per second are considered possible in the future. Scientists in the Department of Defence have designed, built and analysed the performance of small experimental electromagnetic launchers. They have made particular contributions to the overall understanding of the complex physics of these devices. (Question No. 1051) Mr Burr asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: (1) Was a cash injection of $90m given to Australian National Line in June 1983 ; if so, was it (a) given to improve ANL's commercial efficiency, (b) conditional on ANL management to improve management efficiency and (c) conditional on sea-going unions to implement manning reductions and increase dead-ship productivity. (2) Have the unions (a) reduced manning of ships in the 6 months up to December 1983 and (b) improved the productivity of ship usage in the same period. (3) Did ANL give one month's notice of termination of the Darwin/East Coast service; if so, was this part of the improved management efficiency. (4) Can Tasmanian shippers expect a similar period of notice of ANL if the Bass Strait service runs at a loss, Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government made a capital injection of $90m to the Australian Shipping Commission, trading as the Australian National Line (ANL) in June 1983. It comprised $30m cash and $60m conversion of outstanding Domestic Treasury loans to equity (a) Yes; (b) Yes; (c) Seagoing unions agreed to certain improvements in manning levels and to examine other ways of improving efficiency. (2) (a) Yes; (b) Ship productivity has improved. (3) ANL's decision to withdraw from the East Coast/ Darwin service and its formal notice of one month to shippers was made after extensive discussions, spanning over three years, between ANL, the Federal and Northern Territory Governments and shippers. In 1983-84 the Government increased the subsidy for the service by a third to $2m to allow more time for the Northern Territory Government to develop proposals for alternatives. It was only after the Northern Territory Government did not come forward with any constructive proposals and also advised that no financial assistance would be forthcoming that the decision was taken by ANL that the service be terminated . (4) The Government is not aware of any suggestion that ANL proposes to withdraw from the Bass Strait trades. (Question No. 1055) Mrs Kelly asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 1 March 1984: (1) What is the average length of time taken by Customs officers to clear personal effects of public service officers returning from overseas. (2) If there is any delay, what are the reasons. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Customs inspections are normally carried out within two working days from the time the importer or importers' agent requests an appointment for the examination to be made. This period may be slightly extended during times of workload peaks or staff unavailability. Unless prohibited imports or the payment of duty is involved, the goods are released for delivery immediately the Customs examination is completed. The examinations cannot be carried out until the goods have been delivered to the place of examination from the shipping company and the goods made available for inspection and all necessary documentation completed by the importer or the importers' agent, including the owners' personal Customs declaration. These procedures apply to examinations of personal effects imported by public service officers returning from overseas, as well as importation by other private or commercial interests. In the case of returning public service officers appointments for inspections are made by the Department of Administrative Services who act as agent for the owner. (Question No. 1081) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Science and Technology, 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 Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM Science and Technology Employment Statistics: 1 December 1983-29 February 1984 Department Statutory Authorities Men Women Total Men Women Total December 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . January 1984 17 9 26 17 11 28 February 1984 7 . . 7 43 50 93 24 9 33 60 61 121 (Question No. 1088) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 2 March 1984: When will Mackay have its ABC-FM radio transmitter. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No new VHF-FM radio services can be introduced into the Mackay area until surrounding television transmitters using particular VHF frequencies known as Band II (channels 3, 4 and 5) have been allocated to other VHF or UHF channels. Band II covers the internationally recognised portion of the spectrum used for VHF-FM radio services although past planning decisions in Australia gave shared usage to some television services. The Government is anxious to clear the way for the development of FM radio. New services will be introduced as soon as the frequencies become available. Early attention will be given to those areas, most critically affected, including Mackay. (Question No. 1090) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 March 1984: (1) Further to his answer to Question No. 960, (Hansard, 28 February 1984, page 116), how many persons participated in the anti-terrorist exercise held at Woomera, SA, between 24 and 28 November 1983. (2) Was the SA Government advised of the exercise; if so, what Ministers were advised and when; if not, why not. (3) Did the exercise involve firearms; if so, were they used. (4) Was the exercise in any way connected with the Sheraton Hotel exercise conducted by ASIS. (5) How many exercises of a similar type have been held in SA in each of the last 5 years. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The numbers involved in the exercise were 68 South Australian Police, 45 soldiers from 4 Military District, and 110 members of the Special Air Service Regiment. (2) Liaison was carried out between headquarters 4 Military District and the SA Police. The responsibility of informing the SA Government lies with the SA Police Commissioner. (3) Yes; blank ammunition and pyrotechnics were used. (4) No. (5) The Special Air Service Regiment conducted joint training with the SA Police in August 1982, November 1982 and November 1983. (Question No. 1143) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 5 March 1984: (1) What consultants have been engaged to work for the Minister or the Minister 's Department since 1 April 1983. (2) What is the name of each consultant, or if a company or partnership, the name of the corporation or partnership. (3) For how long was each consultant engaged. (4) What fee is to be or has been paid to each consultant. (5) What special background and experience does each consultant possess to enable the consultants to undertake the engagement. (6) Was the merit principle applied in each case; if so, in what manner. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (4)-(a) Siromath Pty Ltd: 2 days: $500; (b) Computer People: 240 hours: $8,400; (c) Koranya Data Base Intelligence: 308 hours: $15,923; (d) Data Science Pty Ltd: 100 days: $40,000; (e) Associate Professor P. Yetton: 6 days: $3,000; ( f) Mr M. J. Thompson: Currently engaged for up to 140 days as a special consultant for the Committee of Review of the Special Broadcasting Service: $30, 000; (g) Ms E. Cox: 2 days: $500. (5)-(a) Siromath's consultant had been successfully involved in the earlier development of the Department's data base systems; (b) Computer People was selected from the Government Period Contract; (c) Koranya Data Base Intelligence had proved its competence in computer evaluations with another Government Department; (d) Data Science Pty Ltd had extensive experience in data modelling and systems analysis, together with expertise in the use of the Department's hardware; (e) Professor Yetton had undertaken a number of previous consultancies in the development of senior management; (f) Mr M. Thompson has extensive experience in the ethnic broadcasting field and a special knowledge of the activities and operation of the Special Broadcasting Service; (g) Ms E. Cox was engaged to design a survey questionnaire for the Committee of Review of the Special Broadcasting Service. She has designed a number of questionnaires and is well qualified in areas being examined by the Committee. (6) Detailed guidelines on the engagement of consultants were issued by the Public Service Board, in consultation with the Department of Finance, in 1978. A copy of these have been provided to the honourable member. The guidelines cover situations where the consultant is selected from a competitive field and those where only one consultant can provide the required service. Arrangements in respect of the consultants at (b) to (f) were approved by the Public Service Board. The consultants at (a) and (g) were approved within departmental delegation because they were under $1,000. (Question No. 1148) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Defence Support, upon notice, on 5 March 1984 : (1) What consultants have been engaged to work for the Minister or the Minister 's Department since 1 April 1983. (2) What is the name of each consultant, or if a company or partnership, the name of the corporation or partnership. (3) For how long was each consultant engaged. (4) What fee is to be or has been paid to each consultant. (5) What special background and experience does each consultant possess to enable the consultant to undertake the engagement. (6) Was the merit principle applied in each case; if so, in what manner. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows. CONSULTANTS ENGAGED TO WORK FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE SUPPORT SINCE APRIL 1983 Consultant Background Application of Consultants name Consultants firm assignment Duration Fee and experience merit principle (1) E. Beaumont and G. Gerrard PA Australia Ltd Production Services Division Reform at Williamstown Naval Dockyard 8 months 87,474 E. Beaumont - Has undertaken similar consultancy roles - Was a member of the Joint Management Review Team which investigated Williamstown Naval Dockyard G. Gerrard - Has specialist knowledge and expertise in computing applications Consultants selected on merit basis against following criteria - Understanding of assignment - Role of Production Services Division - Skills and expertise (2) B. Hiscock, J. Sheldon and J. Liddle Peat, Marwick and Mitchell Services Implementation of Financial Reforms at Williamstown Naval Dockyard 2 years 236,000 B. Hiscock - Chief executive of Peat, Marwick & Mitchell - Performed Victorian Ministry of Housing Consultancy on Management Services J. Sheldon & J. Liddle - Performed Victorian Industry Authority Consultancy on Costing and Marketing - Performed Mobil Oil consultancy on 'Product Distribution' - Thirty Five tenders received - Shortlisted to four companies - Company was selected on following criteria Ability and willingness to perform task Expertise Perception of the project Responsibility for the final product (3) E. Phillips E. Phillips Training of Estimators at Williamstown Naval Dockyard 8 days 3,775 - Was employed for 15 years as leader of the Garden Island Dockyard Estimating Cell - Thorough understanding of standard estimating and its application in a Naval area Merit principle not employed as Phillips was considered to be uniquely qualified for this task (4) Professor B. Gandevis Professor B. Gandevis Occupational Health Survey on Asbestos 4 years (Ongoing Study) 2,000 (1983-84) - Professor of Thoracic Medicine at Prince Henry Hospital - Merit principle not used as Professor Gandevis is an acknowledged leader in this field of medicine (5) J. Brister Parity Computer Services Pty Ltd ADP Strategic Plan Study for Munitions Factories 1 month 12,060 - Extensive experience in Production and Inventory Management systems - Development of COPICS P & IM system for the Department - ADP Planning - Production Management - Involved with American Production and Inventory Control Society - Employed under Commonwealth Government period contract arrangements - Seven quotations received - Selected on the basis of expertise and skills in IBM hardware and software data base and communications and ADP planning and investigation as well as cost (6) George Howes George Howes MUNIPLAN- Production and Inventory Management Systems 2 years 135,000 - Specialises in the implementation of computerised Production and Inventory Management Systems - Was Director EDP for PETBOW Pty Ltd UK (1973 to 1978) and was responsible for implementing an on-line inventory management and shop-floor control system - Selection panel consisted of 3 officers including project manager - Nineteen companies invited to tender - Shortlisted to four companies who could demonstrate direct knowledge and implementation experience in computer aided systems in production and inventory management - Mr Howes was selected on the basis of best meeting the selection criteria, cost considerations and referee reports (8) C. Jones and A. Murray M & M Protection Consultants Occupational Safety and Health 6 months 32,500 Experience covers - Loss control - Training - Safety and Health Surveys and Reviews - Selection was by steering committee - Three companies considered - Final assessment based on cost (9) W. White W. White Middle Management Course No. 1-Module 1 at Williamstown Naval Dockyard 4 days 1200 - Head of Dept of Administration and Law, Swinburne Institute of Technology - Has 15 years experience teaching management theory and marketing. (10) N. Watson N. Watson & Associates Middle Management Course No. 1-Module 2 at Williamstown Naval Dockyard 5 days 2500 - Ex principal lecturer in Admin. Studies at RMIT - Self-employed organisation consultant (11) P. Hanford P. Hanford Middle Management Course No. 2-Module 1 at Garden Island Dockyard 5 days 2778 - Employed by Queensland Dept of Health - Previously employed as freelance management consultant - Holds Master of Arts degree (12) N. Watson N. Watson & Associates Middle Management Course No. 2-Module 2 at Munitions Filling Factory, St Marys 5 days 2500 (As above) (13) P. Hanford P. Hanford Middle Management Course No. 3-Module 1 at Regional Office, South Australia 6 days 3300 (As above) For each consultancy, three to four consultants were contacted and interviewed against the following criteria - Availability - Cost - Consulting experinence in the area concerned - Reports from previous client organisations. (14) N. Watson N. Watson & Associates Industrial Democracy Strategy Paper 3 days 1000 - Tertiary Qualifications in psychology and industrial sociology - Principal lecturer in Administrative Studies, RMIT. - Fifteen years involvement in organisational change in public and private sectors - Selection followed a search of people thought to be suitable (15) N. Watson and K. Raymond N. Watson & Associates K. Raymond & Associates Development of 'Introduction to Industrial Democracy' Course at Williamstown Naval Dockyard 15 days 16400 N. Watson (as above) K. Raymond - Tertiary Qualifications in Business Admin. - Management consulting and seminars on human resource management (including participative practices) - Consultants were nominated by department as candidates for selection by representatives of the workforce at WND-they were subsequently chosen. (16) N. Watson and K. Raymond N. Watson & Associates K. Raymond & Associates Employment of Industrial Democracy Consultants on a long term basis at various establishments 60 days 1983-84 30000 N. Watson (as above) K. Raymond (as above) As above. (17) J. Morrison Swinburne College of Technology Industrial Democracy Seminar at Swinburne 1 day 1000 - Industrial Democracy principles have been taught at Swinburne for the past 10 years. - In Feb. 1982, a centre for Industrial Democracy was set up at Swinburne. - The Swinburne package offered considerable advantages over other possible consultancies because of the experience of the staff in research and practice of Industrial Democracy principles, the availability of a suitable venue, the low cost of the package and the level of real commitment of the institution to the introduction of Industrial Democracy in the Australian workforce. (Question No. 1158) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 6 March 1984: (1) Will he bring up to date the information given by his predecessor in answer to Question No. 159 (1) (Hansard, 15 September 1983, page 958) in relation to (a ) which trials of dissidents Australian Embassy officials have attended, or attempted to attend, in the Soviet Union, (b) where these trials were held, (c) the date on which these trials were held, (d) in each case (i) the charges and ( ii) the sentences, (e) the reasons given for denial of access to Australian officials where applicable and (f) what representatives from other countries attended, or attempted to attend, these trials. (2) Further to his answer to Question No. 159 (2), has the Government supported any subsequent initiatives to support the release of Dr Yuri Orlov or Mr Anatoli Shcharansky. (3) How many Soviet citizens emigrated to Australia under the 'family migration ' category in 1983. (4) How many persons emigrated to Australia from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1983. (5) Further to his answer to Question No. 159 (4), will the Government support any move to establish, in the Parliament, a Standing Committee on Human Rights to report on serious violations of human rights in any country, including Australia, in accordance with paragraph 65 of the final chapter of the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on Human Rights in the Soviet Union. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Australian Embassy officials have attempted to attend the following trials since September 1983: (i)-(a) Begun, Josef; (b) Vladimir, RSFSR; (c) 12 October 1983; (d) (i) section 70 (1) of the RSFSR criminal code and (ii) seven years' imprisonment; (e) Vladimir was described as 'temporarily closed to foreigners'; (f) British, Dutch , United States and Canadian representatives were also refused permission to travel to Vladimir. (ii)-(a) Medvedkova, Olga; (b) Moscow; (c) 16 and 23 March; (d) (i) Article 193 (2) of the RSFSR criminal code and (ii) thirty months suspended sentence; (e) ' no available places'; (f) United States, British and Canadian representatives also attempted unsuccessfully to attend. (2) No representations have been made on behalf of Orlov and Shcharansky since Mr Jacobi's 1983 question. (3) Under the 'family migration' category, 9 Soviet citizens and one family of 3 came to join relatives in Australia in 1983. (4) The figures for December 1983 are not yet available, but it can be confirmed that the total number of persons emigrating from the USSR to Australia in the period January-November 1983 was 29. (5) In response to the final point, I refer the honourable member to my answer to a similar question in September 1983. (Question No. 1163) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 7 March 1984: Will he include horticultural products, such as dried or canned fruit, in Australia's food aid program. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The question of what commodities should be included in Australia's food aid program falls within the responsibilities of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. However, I am informed that modest quantities of horticultural products are included in the program from time to time as appropriate. While the bulk of Australia's food aid program is in the form of wheat, flour and rice, there is also a smaller non-grain component of the program under which a range of commodities such as milk powder, horticultural products and canned meat are provided according to the requirements of particular recipients. (Question No. 1165) Mr Andrew asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 7 March 1984: Does he recall saying, in reference to my speech on the second reading of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983, that 'He asked whether the anti-dumping duty will be refunded on goods that are exported. Of course, it is' (Hansard, 1 March 1984, page 277); if so, does this mean that dumping duties on nitrogen fertiliser will be refunded when that fertiliser is used in the production of primary produce which is exported. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Dumping duties are not excluded from the payment of drawback. The payment of drawback is however subject to certain eligibility criteria set out in the relevant legislation. These criteria would exclude from drawback goods which have been used in Australia to fulfil their intended home consumption purpose and would necessarily exclude nitrogen fertiliser used in the production of primary produce. (Question No. 1181) Mr Campbell asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: (1) How many (a) passengers were carried and (b) passenger trains were operated by Australian National (AN) to and from Alice Springs in the last 12 months. (2) What was the average number of passengers per trip. (3) How many (a) passengers were carried and (b) passenger trains were operated , by AN between Port Pirie and Kalgoorlie and Kalgoorlie and Port Pirie in the last 12 months. (4) What was the average number of passengers per trip. (5) What was the average occupancy of the sit-up car in both directions over the route Port Pirie to Kalgoorlie and Port Pirie to Alice Springs. (6) Is there any plan to change the timetable of the AN service across the Nullarbor; if so, what changes are proposed and why. (7) Is there any plan to further reduce the passenger service across the Nullarbor. (8) Does AN consider that it has any responsibility in the area of tourist promotion. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) 35,396 passengers; (b) 170 passenger trains. (2) 208. (3) (a) 61,250 passengers; (b) 543 passenger trains. (4) 113. (5) Port Pirie-Kalgoorlie: 34; Port Pirie-Alice Springs: 96. (6) The possibility of introducing a timetable involving shorter travel times is being examined jointly by the three rail authorities operating this trans continental route. Improved track speeds have been made possible by capital investment on concrete re-sleepering and the inauguration of a through standard gauge service between Adelaide and Perth. (7) No. However the level of passenger services is constantly monitored and modified in accordance with demand. (8) Yes, consistent with AN's overall responsibilities. (Question No. 1188) Mr Shipton asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 27 March 1983: Has the Government any proposal before it concerning the provision of management or training assistance to owner/drivers engaged in road transport. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: In consultation with the road transport industry, the Department of Industry and Commerce produced in 1981 a training package entitled 'Staying up Front' on managing a long distance owner/driver operation. The package comprises a booklet , audio cassette tape (which drivers can play in the cab) and a 24 minute documentary film. The Department also has a booklet entitled 'Keeping Ahead in the Road Freight Business' in its Managing the Small Business series of booklets. Following a request from the New South Wales Road Transport Association, the Department is currently considering whether there is a need to update the above material. (Question No. 1195) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: (1) Is Mr Elias Freij, the Mayor of Bethlehem, a guest of the Australian Government; if so, is his visit being sponsored by the Department of Foreign Affairs. (2) Is he able to say whether Mr Freij stated at a presss conference at the Canberra Press Club on Monday, 6 March 1984, in response to a question from an unidentified journalist concerning the agreement reached between Israel and Mr Gemayel, the President of the Lebanon, that Mr Gemayel has no authority in Lebanon and secondly that in Jordan there is a government, in Syria there is a government, and in Egypt there is a government but in Lebanon there is no government, there are only gangs and gangsters. (3) If so, is he able to say whether this statement (a) gave offence to the Lebanese Ambassador, Mr Heneine and (b) reflected seriously upon a government to which Australia has given support and encouragement. (4) Is he further able to say whether Mr Freij failed to apologise to the Lebanese Ambassador for his statements about the Lebanese Government. (5) Did Mr Freij later, in concert with officers of the Minister's Department, issue a more detailed statement supporting Lebanese independence, calling for a cessation of hostilities and a withdrawal of non-Lebanese forces, but falling short of giving to the Lebanese Ambassador and the Lebanese the apology and retraction sought by the Lebanese Ambassador. (6) Has he, or his Department, received a note of protest from the Lebanese Ambassador; if so, (a) does the note call for any action on the part of the Australian Government, disassociating itself from the statements of its guest about the Lebanese President and the Lebanese people and (b) what has been the Government's response. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Mr Elias Freij, Mayor of Bethlehem, visited Australia from 4-18 March 1984. He was invited by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the costs of his visit were met by the Department of Foreign Affairs. (2) Mr Freij addressed the National Press Club on 6 March 1984. The Department of Foreign Affairs does not have a full text of his address. Mr Freij made comments similar to those referred to in the honourable member's question, although it is far from clear that there was any mention of President Gemayel. (3) and (6) The Lebanese Ambassador called on the Department of Foreign Affairs on 7 March 1984 and delivered a note drawing the Department's attention to reported comments by Mr Freij which the Ambassador described as 'insulting to the President and Government of Lebanon'. He asked for 'public reparation'. The Lebanese Ambassador's request was considered, but it was felt that there was no requirement for the Department of Foreign Affairs to express a public view on the opinions of a private person. The Lebanese Ambassador was informed of this. (4) and (5) I understand that Mr Freij called on the Lebanese Ambassador immediately after his address to the National Press Club. I further understand that as a result of this meeting Mr Freij issued the following statement clarifying his remarks: 'I strongly support the full independence of Lebanon. All countries should respect the integrity of the borders of Lebanon and its sovereignty. All non- Lebanese forces have no right to be in Lebanon and should withdraw without any conditions or concessions. All non-Lebanese forces which carry guns in Lebanon must be obedient to the Lebanese Government in this critical hour in the history of Lebanon. I wish President Gemayel, his Government and our Lebanese people all the necessary courage to solve their problems and factional differences in a way which would preserve the unity and integrity of Lebanon and the independence of Lebanon.' The statement was drawn up by Mr Freij. The Department of Foreign Affairs assisted Mr Freij in having the statement brought to the attention of the media. (Question No. 1214) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 30 March 1984: Did the National Capital Development Commission receive a supplementary appropriation of $400,000 from the Advance to the Minister for Finance in November 1983 for administration expenditure under the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957; if so, for what purpose were these additional monies appropriated and spent. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am informed by the National Capital Development Commission that the Department of Finance on 24 November 1983 authorised payment of $400,000 to the Commission's No. 1 (Administration) Account from the Advance to the Minister of Finance, pending an appropriation under Division 622/1/00 of Appropriation Act ( No. 1) 1983. The advance funds were required to meet staff salaries during the Supply period . (Question No. 1227) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 April 1984: (1) Does he recommend in favour of continued participation in the Sinai Peacekeeping Force. (2) When will the Government be in a position to announce its decision on continued Australian participation in the Sinai Force. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government has been considering the question of Australian participation in the Sinai Multinational Force and Observers (MFO). I shall be making a statement on the matter in due course. (Question No. 1229) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 April 1984: Was he consulted on the Prime Minister's steel proposal before the Prime Minister put to the Chinese Premier the proposition that Australia and China enter into a steel production arrangement; if so, what was the nature of the advice given to the Prime Minister by the Foreign Minister; if not, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The formulation of government policy decisions is the business of the Government. (Question No. 1230) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 April 1984: Does his directive to Australian Ambassadors authorise them to have discussions with the Palestine Liberation Organisation on particular issues; if so, (a) what issues and (b) does the authorisation extend to all factions including the Syrian faction, or is the authorisation limited to representatives of Mr Yasser Arafat. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government decided last year that Australian Ambassadors in relevant posts would be authorised to include PLO representatives in their range of contacts. Such contacts are of course completely informal, since Australia does not accord the PLO any international status. The decision was made so as to allow the senior political officers at relevant posts to inform themselves fully about developments in their areas of responsibility. Contacts are not restricted to any particular group or groups within the PLO. (Question No. 275) Mr Wells asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: (1) Is it a fact that officers of the Special Broadcasting Service have decided to discontinue purchases of any Greek films distributed in Australia by Australian distributors. (2) Is the termination of the employment of Mr Ioannou, an officer of the Service until December 1982, connected with a protest against that decision. (3) Is he aware of any past dealings by any of the officers of the Service which would suggest that the dismissal of Mr Ioannou involved a cover up; is so, what are the details. (4) Is he aware of any reason why officers of the Special Broadcasting Service would wish to purchase films from Greek distributors rather than from distributors based in Australia; if so, what is the reason. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on information provided by the Special Broadcasting Service, is as follows: (1) No. (2) No. (3) No. (4) The Special Broadcasting Service's programs are purchased in accordance with its program acquisitions policy which is outlined in its response to the review of the program purchasing and commissioning policies of the Special Broadcasting Service. The response was tabled in the House on 6 December 1983. (Question No. 539) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 15 September 1983: (1) What information is available to indicate how many people listen to broadcasts of Parliament. (2) Does this information indicate (a) ages, (b) sex, (c) socio-economic groupings, (d) residential regions of the listeners and (e) the different sizes of the audiences at different times of day; if so, what are the details. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice received from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is as follows: (1) A survey conducted by the ABC's audience research department in the month of August, 1983 in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Hobart is the most recent source of information and shows that on a four-city basis: 49.3 per cent of people aged 10 years and over have listened to a broadcast of Parliament at some time in their life; In demographic terms, these people who have listened to Parliament, are more likely to be male than female and to be aged either 25-44 years or 45+ years. Information on socio-economic groups and residential groupings of listeners is not available. 47.5 per cent of those who listen to Parliament do so once or twice per year; 29.3 per cent listen several times per year; 15.6 per cent listen once a week; 7 .6 per cent listen most days. Females are slightly more likely to listen to Parliament on an infrequent basis , than males. 57.8 per cent of those who have listened to a broadcast of Parliament at some time did so primarily because 'it just comes on'; 22 per cent listen because they 'follow Parliament'; 11.6 per cent listen specifically to 'Question Time'; and 18.3 per cent listen for a range of reasons; Females are more likely to listen because 'it just comes on', while males are more likely to have listened because they 'follow Parliament'; For nearly two-thirds of those who listened (63.3 per cent), the time of listening tended to be variable; for 10 per cent it was in the morning; for 25.3 per cent it was in the afternoon; and for 14 per cent it was at night. Age and sex differences in these listening patterns were not in evidence. 2. It is not really possible to state how many people listen to Parliament. However, it is possible to show how many people listen to radio at times when Parliament and/or the normal Radio 1 program is being broadcast. Thus, the following figures relate to time-slots, which sometimes represent listening to Parliament and sometimes represent listening to the normal Radio 1 program. The two cannot be separated; eg Sydney/Melbourne: April-June 1983 Weeks 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 Parliament was broadcast. Weeks 2, 7, 8 normal 2BL/3LO program was broadcast. Sydney Melbourne 1.15 p.m. 19,000 29,000 2.00 p.m. 14,000 21,000 3.00 p.m. 16,000 19,000 4. 00 p.m. 20,000 23,000 5.00 p.m. 22,000 26,000 8.00 p.m. 5,000 8,000 9.00 p. m. 5,000 8,000 10.00 p.m. 11,000 15,000 While information relating to age, sex, residential centres and, as has been explained above, some degree of audience size is available, the ABC does not have information about socio-economic groupings. (Question No. 579) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 October 1983: (1) How many independent Aboriginal schools will receive funds from his Department during 1983-84. (2) What is (a) the name of each school and (b) the amount allocated for each school for 1983-84. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Seven (7) (2)- Amount allocated for 1983-84 as at Name of school 6 April 1984 $ Kulkarriya Community School-Noonkanbah, Western Australia 79,100 Nomads Charitable and Educational Foundation-Strelley, Western Australia 180,900 Christian Aboriginal Parent-Directed School-Coolgardie, Western Australia 57,000 Nyoongah Community Inc-Lake Gnangara, Western Australia 53,400 Yipirinya Council Inc-Alice Springs, Northern Territory 194,000 Yiyili Aboriginal Organisation-Louisa Downs Station, Kimberleys, Western Australia 24,100 Worowa College-Frankston Victoria 95,200 Total 683,700 (Question No. 713) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 November 1983 : Will the Australian Broadcasting Corporation provide the same radio coverage of the 1984 Olympic Games and television and radio coverage of the 1986 Commonwealth Games to all Australians or will certain areas receive only a percentage of that coverage. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is as follows: Final details of the ABC Radio coverage of the 1984 Olympic Games have not yet been decided. Choice of events to be broadcast will be influenced by results, that is, the specific events including finals, in which Australians are competing. Because of Australian time zones, the great difference between Australian time and United States West Coast time and limits on broadcasting capacity using Radio 3, it will not be possible for the ABC to provide the same radio coverage to all Australians. These problems will to some extent be lessened in the State capital cities, Canberra and Newcastle where both ABC Radio 1 and Radio 2 operate. It is also significant to note that on 12 March 1984, the ABC announced that Radio Station 2UE had acquired exclusive rights throughout Australia to the ABC' s coverage of the Los Angeles Olympics. Radio station 2UE is seeking to sell coverage to other Australian commercial radio stations. The ABC has obtained exclusive radio and television rights for the Edinburgh Commonwealth Games in 1986 and it is anticipated that all Australians will be able to enjoy its coverage. However, details of coverage of this event have not yet been considered. (Question No. 808) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: (1) What (a) financial, (b) technical and (c) other forms of assistance, are available from the Minister's Department, to private business. (2) What (a) is the contact point and (b) requirements have to be met to qualify, for each form of assistance. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: A range of financial, technical and other forms of assistance is provided by the Department of Science and Technology to the private sector. This assistance is designed to promote the development, maintenance and utilization of scientific and technological capability to meet Australia's industrial, economic , international, social and cultural needs and its objectives include: stimulating scientific research and technical development in industry, government and academic sectors; facilitating the effective application of technology and the development of technologies having special significance for Australia's industrial growth; faciliting invention and innovation. In addition my Department provides support for basic research to promote the acquisition and advancement of knowledge. Although these schemes are not specifically designed to support industry, appropriately qualified individuals within the private sector may receive support from them. Specific schemes and forms of assistance are: innovation centres-provide private and corporate inventors with access to information, expertise, services and facilities. workshops in innovation and entrepreneurship (enterprise workshops)-provide training for potential entrepreneurs. assistance to inventors scheme-provides technical advice and/or financial assistance to Australian inventors. information technology programs-provide technical assistance and advice to industry and the public on information technology. multiplier agency and infrastructure development-provides support to various organisations which in turn provide assistance to industry. manufacturing technology programs-provide technical support and some financial assistance to business. Australian industrial research and development incentives scheme-provides financial assistance to industry in the fields of industrial research and development. Australian research grants scheme-provides financial assistance for basic research. marine science and technologies grants scheme-provides financial assistance to qualified researchers in the field of marine sciences and technologies. national biotechnology program research grants scheme-provides financial assistance for research in biotechnology. national research fellowships scheme-provides financial assistance to qualified researchers for basic research. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation collaborative projects-provide technical inquiry service to business. patent trade marks and designs-provides technical assistance to industry in areas of industrial property protection, patents, trade marks and designs. National Materials Handling Bureau-provides technical assistance and advisory services to industry in areas of materials handling. Management Investment Companies Licensing Board-allocates licences to companies to raise investment capital which attracts a tax concession. Full details involve a considerable volume of material. I have provided the honourable member with documentation containing relevant information and points of contact separately. The initial point of contact on these forms of assistance is the Central Office of my Department, Belconnen Australian Capital Territory. (Question No. 1008) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: Does the Institute for Health Economics and Technology Assessment receive any funding from his Department. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Department of Health has provided funds of $13,900 to the Institute for Health Economics and Technology Assessment under the health services research grant scheme, to study the impact of health care technology assessment on health costs and private sector innovation in twelve nations. This grant was approved by the then Minister for Health on the recommendation of the Research and Development Grants Advisory Committee (RADGAC). I am informed that the Department has two further applications for grants under consideration by RADGAC at the moment, and recommendations will be made to me in due course as to whether I should approve or reject the applications. (Question No. 1043) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: (1) Does his Department recommend industrial safety proceedures to authorities responsible for enforcing these procedures in the Australian uranium industry. (2) Has his attention been drawn to the conclusion of the US Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (B.E.I.R. III, 1980, page 326) that the evidence is still insufficient to determine whether aggregates of radioactivity that remain localised in specific regions of the lungs give a greater or smaller risk of lung cancer per average lung dose than uniformly deposited radiation and that a small fraction of inhaled insoluble particles may remain in the bronchial epithelial layer for long periods. (3) Is he able to say whether theoretical considerations following the work of Sir Macfarlane Burnet and others suggest that (a) there is no minimum dose of ionizing radiation capable of increasing cell mutation rates, (b) most cancers start from a single cell and (c) present guidelines to 'safe' levels of industrial exposure recommend toleration of total radiation doses to particular vulnerable tissue sites several orders of magnitude less than the recommended tolerable total body dose. (4) Will he review existing guidelines for uranium mining and publish maximum and minimum estimates of increased malignant disease arising from uranium mining in Australia with (a) 40 hours' work without filtering of inspired air and (b) 40 hours' work with total efficient filtering of inspired air in (i) worst case conditions with deep cut dry mining in still air and (ii) best case conditions with efficient exhaust ventilation of the work site. (5) Has he evidence that (a) miners and other workers in hot humid conditions prefer to dispense with respirators because the discomfort and impediment to breathing they create exceeds the discomfort of breathing slightly dusty unfiltered air and (b) employers and health authorities do not efficiently enforce use of respirators in mines. (6) Has he information based on the use of alternatives to respirators such as air conditioned helmets or cabins for uranium miners. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Formally, radiation safety procedures are recommended as guidelines to the Code of Practice on Radiation Protection in the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores (1980). The Australian Radiation Laboratory of my Department provides major input in the development of these guidelines which are published by the Department of Home Affairs and Environment. In addition the Laboratory publishes, from time to time, handbooks of good practice. The State authorities make use of these codes, guidelines and handbooks in determining safety procedures to be followed in the uranium industry. (2) Yes. The 'hot particle' thesis first advanced by Tamplin and Cochran has been rejected by a number of radiation experts (including the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council). There has been little serious discussion of this problem since about 1975. (3) Australia's current radiation protection standards are based on the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection which assume that there is no threshold for radiation induced effects and that the effect of a radiation dose is in simple proportion to its size and is independent of the rate at which the dose is given (generally referred to as the linear hypothesis). They also take into account the varying sensitivity of different organs to ionising radiation. There is a minority scientific opinion which holds that radiation is much more serious than is generally believed but there is also a minority scientific opinion which believes that radiation damage in man is greatly overestimated. The majority scientific opinion is that the linear hypothesis allows the upper limit of the radiation risk to be defined. Its use may lead to over-estimation of risk but is unlikely to under-estimate it. (4) The Australian Radiation Laboratory has recently circulated widely a review paper on the present code of practice. The paper addresses many questions, including the need to re-examine exposure standards in the light of new information and improved understanding of radiation effects. These will be taken into account when the code of practice is revised. Up to the present, monitoring of mine employees and of their working environment has demonstrated that exposure to ionising radiation, both external and internal, has in practice been very low and no significant increase in radiation induced malignancies is likely to result. The following guidelines, which discuss aspects of the inhalation of radioactive materials, have been published to supplement the code of practice. Background to radiation protection criteria embodied in the Radiation Protection Code Personal respiratory protection Radiation monitoring programs Appointment, qualifications and responsibilities of ventilation officers Radiation protection aspects of ventilation practice (in final stages of preparation). The following handbooks have also been published. Monitoring employee exposure to radon and its daughters in uranium mines Radiation protection in the mining and milling of radioactive ores. (5) In general the preferred regulatory practice is to ensure that working conditions do not require the use of respirators rather than to depend on respirators whose effectiveness is always difficult to control. Respirators are regarded as emergency aids to cover unforeseen circumstances. (6) Individual filtered-air-flow helmets and mining equipment with air- conditioned driver's cabins have both been made available in Northern Territory mines. Air-conditioned cabins are in regular use by workers involved in mining operations. (Question No. 1060) Mr Ruddock asked the Prime Minister, 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 Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The numbers of staff who commenced temporary employment under the community employment program in my Department and in the Public Service Board in each of the months shown are set out below. All of those employed were females. Public Service Month Department Board December 1983 nil 3 January 1984 25 3 February 1984 nil 8 Other statutory authorities within my portfolio did not engage staff under the community employment program during the months of December 1983 to February 1984 . (Question No. 1064) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, 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 Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Males Females (i) Department of Employment and Industrial Relations- December 1983 Nil Nil January 1984 1 4 February 1984 1 5 (ii) Statutory Authorities- December 1983 Nil Nil January 1984 Nil Nil February 1984 Nil Nil (Question No. 1074) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Transport, 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 Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) (i) nil. (a) (ii) 14 males have been employed by Australian National Railways Commission (AN) under the Community Employment Program, in each of the months December 1983 and January and February 1984. (b) (i) nil. (b) (ii) nil. It should be noted that AN has additional approved projects schedules to commence on 1 May 1984 which will provide employment for an additional 116 people for periods ranging from 13 weeks to 50 weeks. (Question No. 1121) Mr Ruddock asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 5 March 1984: (1) What consultants have been engaged to work for the Minister or the Minister 's Department since 1 April 1983. (2) What is the name of each consultant, or if a company or partnership, the name of the corporation or partnership. (3) For how long was each consultant engaged. (4) What fee is to be or has been paid to each consultant. (5) What special background and experience does each consultant possess to enable the consultant to undertake the engagement. (6) Was the merit principle applied in each case; if so, in what manner. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (6) I have not engaged any consultants in my office since 1 April 1983. Consultants engaged by my Department since that date are: Name Period of engagement Fee Dr R. Gregory As required from May 1983 to September 1983 $188 per day Ms C. Ronalds For three months from 23 May 1983 $8,500 From 24 August 1983 to 16 November 1983 $10,225 For 9 months from 23 February 1984 $3,860 per month Koranya Data Base Intelligence From 31 October 1983 for a maximum of 182 days $400 per day Detailed guidelines on the engagement of consultants were issued by the Public Service Board, in consultation with the Department of Finance, in 1978. A copy of these has been provided to the honourable member. The guidelines cover situations where the consultant is selected from a competitive field and those where only one consultant can provide the required service. Dr Gregory is a distinguished Australian economist who has made major contributions, both empirical and policy-oriented, in the fields of industries assistance and the economics of the Australian labour market. A number of his works in these fields has been published. Ms Ronalds has qualifications in law. She has worked in the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department in the Human Rights Branch and in that Department' s Women's Unit. She was subsequently Legal Officer for the New South Wales Anti- Discrimination Board. She spent three months in the United States of America in 1979 examining the development, operation and results of affirmative action programs. Ms Ronalds is the author of numerous papers and articles and a book on anti-discrimination legislation. She is a leading expert in the policy development and practical effects of anti-discrimination legislation. The firm of Koranya Data Base Intelligence was selected from a group of consultancy organisations with acknowledged expertise in the type of computer system required and which had been asked to express interest in an assignment to advise in the evaluation of tenders for computer hardware and software and in the acceptance and installation of the system. The selection was made in accordance with a process developed and managed by the Department of Administrative Services which is responsible for Commonwealth tendering and contracting processes. Public Service Board approval was obtained for each of these engagements. (Question No. 1123) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 5 March 1984: (1) What consultants have been engaged to work for the Minister or the Minister 's Department since 1 April 1983. (2) What is the name of each consultant, or if a company or partnership, the name of the corporation or partnership. (3) For how long was each consultant engaged. (4) What fee is to be or has been paid to each consultant. (5) What special background and experience does each consultant possess to enable the consultant to undertake the engagement. (6) Was the merit principle applied in each case; if so, in what manner. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answers to the honourable member's question: Consultant: Ormsec Management Centre (Mr J. Bailey) Purpose: Undertake two pilot surveys on small business failure and entrepreneurial skills in small business, analyse the results and produce a report. Length of Engagement: 28 February 1984 to 30 June 1984 (estimated). Fee: $7,650 Consultant's Background: Lecturer in management and entrepreneurship at the David Syme Business School in Melbourne. Proven experience and an acknowledged expert in this field. Consultant: Australian National University data processing unit Purpose: To provide statistics relating to Australia's trade with developing countries. Length of Engagement: (1) 17 May 1983 to 21 November 1983. (2) 18 January 1984 to 6 March 1984 Fee: (1) $3,971. (2) $8,510 Consultant's Background: Access to the only source of data necessary for this investigation (from the World Bank). Consultant: Coopers and Lybrand Purpose: Perform installation audit of new Automatic Data Processing system. Length of engagement: 10 November 1983 to 30 June 1984 (estimated). Fee: $15,000. Consultant's background: Previous experience in this field. Consultant: David Angeloro and Associates Pty Ltd. Purpose: Train and supplement departmental staff involved in data base administration, and provide specialist advice in particular areas. Length of engagement: 7 November 1983 to 30 June 1984. Fee: $14,000. Consultant's background: Superior relevant practical experience. Consultant: Australian Graduate School of Management. Purpose: Study the cost of funds in manufacturing industry. Length of engagement: 1 June 1983 to 31 July 1983. Fee: $9,300. Consultant's background: Relevant expertise and ability to provide time series data in this field. Consultant: Insearch Ltd (Dr Kaunitz). Purpose: Produce a high level document describing the total departmental information environment (ADP). Length of engagement: 23 January 1984 to 31 January 1984. Fee: $2,400. Consultant's background: Previous experience with Departmental ADP systems. Ability to meet Departmental time requirements. Consultant: Media Enterprises Pty Ltd (Mr G. Deacon) Purpose: Write a correspondence course on small business management. Length of Engagement: 28 February 1984 to 22 May 1984. Fee: $8,000 Consultant's Background: Proven skills in the media field. Previous experience both in this field and with this Department. Proven reliability in completing assignments on time. Consultant: A.N.U. Health Research Unit Purpose: Provide advice on specialised economic and econometric aspects of the retail pharmacy industry. Length of Engagement: 6 January 1983 to 30 June 1983. Fee: $4,000 Consultant's Background: Well versed in the technical, professional and economic aspects of the pharmacy industry. Independent body. Wide research experience in this field. Consultant: Touche Ross and Co. Purpose: Carry out a review on production accounting procedures for the Cooper Basin oil fields. Length of Engagement: 22 April 1983 to 21 June 1983. Fee: $14,000 Consultant's Background: Demonstrated ability to produce a quality product, on time, and within budget. Previous experience in dealing with departmental operations and requirements, and hence no time loss on orientation aspects. Consultant: P. A. Management Consultants Purpose: Report on the feasibility of assembly or manufacture in Australia of certain light commercial vehicles. Length of Engagement: 16 November 1983 to 7 December 1983. Fee: $42,897 Consultant's Background: Expertise specific to the industry. Personnel available to meet the required deadline. Wide range of resources available within the organisation. Excellent reputation and acceptance. Consultant: Amalgamated Wireless (Australia) Purpose: To provide a training course for observers using the Litton radar system installed in Nomad aircraft used for surveillance. Length of engagement: 2 to 6 April 1984. Fee: $4,000 Consultant's background: the company employs the sole authorised Litton radar technician in Australia. Consultant: Touche Ross and Co. Purpose: To provide services to train staff in the use of systems based investigation methodology and ADP audit software. Length of engagement: 4 October 1983 to 3 October 1984. Fee: $72,500 Consultant's background: suitable established methodology previous experience with Departmental requirements. Consultant: Mr Terrence Cummins Purpose: Advanced Written Communication Course. Length of engagement: 28 to 31 May 1984. Fee: $3,200 Consultant's background: familiarity with the subject area in the public sector . successful past performances in the public sector. ability to develop training staff. Consultant: Ms Annabelle Langdale, Ms Kerry Liddycoat (Capital Territory Health Commission-Mental Health Unit) Purpose: Middle Management Workshop Length of engagement: 16 to 20 January 1984. Fee: Nil Consultant's background: previous experience with similar courses. ability to provide the material content required by both the participants and the Department. Consultant: Human Resource Management (Mr P. Howes) Purpose- (1) Middle Management Workshop (2) Training Needs Identification (3) Middle Management Workshop (4) Middle Management Workshop (5) Middle Management Workshop Length of Engagement- (1) 3 to 7 October 1983 (2) 5 to 9 December 1983 (3) 16 to 20 January 1984 (4) 6 to 11 May 1984 (5) 17 to 22 June 1984 Fee- (1) $1,783 (2) $4,008 (3) $2,548 (4) $4,975 (5) $4,975 Consultant's background: proven expertise and competence in this field. style of presentation and ability to work in a team environment meet Departmental requirements. participation in previous courses has proven both the needs of the participant and the requirements of the Department are satisfied. Consultant: Mr Phil Hanford Purpose- (1) Senior Management Seminar (2) Senior Management Seminar Length of Engagement- (1) 9 to 18 November 1983 (2) 21 to 30 March 1984 Fee- (1) $6,625 (2) $5,975 Consultant's background: successful experience with previous courses. Consultant: Ravaba Pty Ltd (Mr Gordon Jackson, Ms Viv Reid) Purpose: Senior Management Seminar Length of Engagement: 21 to 30 March 1984 Fee: $10,750 Consultant's background: successfully utilised on previous courses. ability to develop departmental training staff. management experience in both the public and private sectors. Consultant: Ravaba Pty Ltd Purpose- (1) Senior Management Seminar. (2) Design a system to identify and update the continuing training needs of managers and factors affecting their performance; train Training Section personnel to implement the system; recommend methods of improving managerial performance. Length of engagement- (1) 9 to 18 November 1983 (2) 1 July 1983 to 30 June 1984 (estimated). Fee- (1) $4,300 (2) $20,000 Consultants's background: design and relevance of their proposed systems most suitable to Departmental requirements. competitive fee structure. previous experience in this field. the nature and effectiveness of presentations satisfies both the participants and the Department Consultant: Ravaba Pty Ltd (Ms Viv Reid) Purpose: Occasional Seminar-Industrial Relations Length of engagement: 30 June 1984 Fee: $550 Consultants background: proven expertise in this field. ability to liaise effectively with executive management. Consultant: Mr Chris Phillips Purpose- (1) Middle Management Workshop (2) Middle Management Workshop (3) Senior Management Seminar Length of engagement- (1) 2 to 4 May 1983 (2) 12 to 16 September 1983 (3) 21 to 30 March 1984 Fee- (1) $1,125 (2) $1,125 (3) $5,500 Consultant's background-Previous session leader on Middle Management Workshops. Good knowledge of the Department and its requirements. Consultant: Ms Geraldine Crane Purpose: Training Needs Analysis Workshops Length of engagement: Five days, April 1984 Fee: $900 Consultant's background-part-time lecturer at Canberra College of Advanced Education in basic social sciences techniques. impressive work and high reputation in this field. Consultant: Prof. Charles Margerison Purpose: Occasional Seminar-Organisational Development Length of engagement: 1 June 1984 Fee: $500 Consultant's background: Proven expertise in this field. ability to liaise effectively with executive management. All consultants were engaged with the approval of the Public Service Board; the contract programming staff were engaged through the Department of Administrative Services. Detailed guidelines on the engagement of consultants were issued by the Public Service Board, in consultation with the Department of Finance, in 1978. These guidelines cover situations where the consultant is selected from a competitive field and those where only one consultant can provide the required service. (Question No. 1132) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 5 March 1984: (1) What consultants have been engaged to work for the Minister or the Minister 's Department since 1 April 1983. (2) What is the name of each consultant, or if a company or partnership, the name of the corporation or partnership. (3) For how long was each consultant engaged. (4) What fee is to be or has been paid to each consultant. (5) What special background and experience does each consultant possess to enable the consultant to undertake the engagement. (6) Was the merit principle applied in each case; if so, in what manner. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (5) The Department has engaged both individual consultants and firms since April 1983. Details of 18 individuals and 23 consultancy firms engaged since that date are attached in the following table(s). It should be understood that, in the context of the Public Service Board 'Guidelines for the Engagement of Consultants and Contractors for Services-May 1978', consultants include all outside lecturers and guest session leaders engaged for Defence Force and Departmental approved courses of training. These persons are paid sessional fees at the rates prescribed from time to time by the Remuneration Tribunal. Additionally, the Public Service Board has agreed to certain period contracts for consultancies provided that the approved guidelines are rigidly adhered to. Details of outside lecturers and those consultancies under period contracts have not been included. Also excluded are details of consultancies in relation to the engagement of medical practitioners and psychologists in support of the Defence Force, and minor consultancies of a scientific/technical nature associated with the Defence Science and Technology Organization. (6) Detailed guidelines on the engagement of consultants were issued by the Public Service Board, in consultation with the Department of Finance, in 1978. A copy of these has been provided to the honourable member. The guidelines cover situations where the consultant is selected from a competitive field and those where only one consultant can provide the required service. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE CONSULTANTS-APRIL 1983-MARCH 1984 Serial (1) and (2) (3) (4) (5) $ 1 Dr R. G. Gillis Melbourne, Victoria 33 days Mar-Oct 83 5,905 Recognised world-wide expert in chemical warfare. 2. Professor W. Wolfe Royal Roads Military College Canada Jan 84-for 6-9 months 7,645 Specialist in signal processing-engaged on an opportunity basis while visiting Australia. 3. Professor G. C. Goodwin University of Newcastle 7-11 Nov 83 5,000 Expert in the field of modern control theory. 4. Sir John Charnley Technical Consultant, United Kingdom 2 days Sept 83 955 Former Controller of Establishments and Research United Kingdom MOD- evaluated two United Kingdom applicants for the position of Director MRL and prepared associated reports. 5. 6. 7. Dr J. L. Farrands Professor I. J. Polmear Dr H. L. Wain 12 days 1983 12,500 Each member has extensive experience in materials science. 8. Dr T. B. Millar, AO Apr 83-Mar 84 262 Head strategic Studies Centre, Australian National University-strategy consultant to JSSC. 9. RADM S. J. Lloyd (Ret) 1 day Nov 83 80 Adviser on the Radiation Hazards Committee-specialist in nuclear medicine. 10. Mr G. D. German 8 hours maximum per week- continuing 1,772 to Mar 84 Previous extensive experience within the Department-engaged on sensitive historical/archival work-Public Service Board approval. 11. Sir Murray McInerney, Kt, QC 1Nov 83- continuing 15,000 Former Senior Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria and a former member of the Courts-Martial Appeal Tribunal-engaged in writing chapters for the Defence Force Discipline Law Manual-Public Service Board approval. 12. 13. Mr D. Warner Mr R. Filmer 1 day May 83 360 Indepth knowledge of Media/Defence-presentation to C and SC 'The Commander the Media and the Public' 14. Mr B. Netherton Mar-Apr 84 150 Biological scientist from Flinders University-preparation of Environment Reports for Army. 15. Dr A. Samud 3 hours Dec 83 300 Psychologist-expert witness at a court martial. 16. Dr I. Wardrop Dec 83 808 Agricultural/Accounting expertise-agricultural assessment of fire damage to civilian lands adjoining Army range. 17. Mr R. Turner Nov 83-Feb 84 5,500 Professional Industrial Engineer-analysed, developed and trialled the Method Time Measurement (MTM) System and entered it into the KAYPRO computer. 18. Mr B. Sullivan 4 days Jan 84 2,280 Professional Industrial Engineer-conducted the initial in-house 'MODAPTS PLUS' course for instructor level students. Organisations 1. Jack Cohen & Associates Pty. Ltd. 71 days Dec 83- Mar 84 36,400 Technical and Management Consultants-submitted best tender-PSB approval. 2. Czermak Computer Services 10 days Apr 83 5,000 Specialist in RELIANCE software data base-PSB approval. 3. Control Data (Canada) Ltd (Mr J. Hambleton) 32 days Aug-Sep 83 23,660 Sole source-Mr Hambleton is the firm's international computer expert and was in country on another task when engaged-PSB approval. 4. OR Systems Pty Ltd (Mr G.C. Rennie) continuing 40/hr to maximum of 640 Mathematical consultant-engaged to assess applicants for a mathematician position. 5. System House of Canada Mar-Jun 83 68,000 Sole suitably qualified firm to undertake Project AUTOCHART-PSB approval . 6. P.K. McGregor & Associates Apr 83-Mar 84 19,000 Sole suitably qualified and security cleared consultant engaged on Project JASON-PSB approval. 7. Touche Ross Services Pty Apr-Jun 83 33,000 Management/Computer Consultants-submitted best tender-PSB approval. 8. W.D. Scott & Co Pty Ltd Mar 84- continuing 46,000 Management/Economic Consultants-submitted best tender-PSB approval. 9. Disk International Dec 83-Feb 84 39,000 Experience in data base design-submitted best tender-PSB approval. 10. J.T. Cummins & Associates 5 days Sep 83 5 days Mar 84 3,000 3,000 Management Consultants-conduct management training at C and SC on an annual basis. 11. Mt Eliza Consultancy Group 5 days Mar 84 900 Management Consultants-supplementary management training at C and SC-see Serial 10. 12. Richard Croll & Associates 5 days May 83 5,000 Expertise in Media and Training-present Media Awareness course at C and SC-most cost effective bid. 13. PNG Furnishers Apr-May 83 295 Technically qualified to assess dental laboratory refurbishment. 14. Bennet Research Pty Ltd May-Jun 83 30,000 Research Agency specializing in community trends-selected by tender through AGAS. 15. Rockend Pty Ltd Jun 83 900 Sole expertise in computer wargame field-conducted wargaming computer software assessment. 16. Remington Australia (Miss J. McNary) 45 days Apr-May 83 17 days Oct 83 778,286 Equipment supplier-advanced word processor training. 17. Trippet Alan & Associates Pty Ltd Apr 83 continuing 150,000 Airways Consulting Engineers-project definition study for air traffic control radar at Oakley airfield-best tender-PSB approval. 18. Australasian Training Aids (Mr Kermode) 1 day Sep 83 250 Training Aids Manufacturer-presentation to Training Command 'Employment of Training Aids in Small Arms Training'. 19. Dames & Moore Nov 83 continuing to 1986 792,400 Environmental Consultants-survey of possible new army field training areas in New South Wales-best tender-PSB approval. 20. National Acoustic Laboratories Apr 83 continuing 58,000 Statutory Authority with the necessary expertise to conduct environmental (noise) studies at Defence facilities throughout Australia. 21. Ridley & Hamilton Nov 83 250 Expertise in indexing-indexed a paper titled 'A Guide to Administrative Law '. 22. Institute of Industrial Engineers Nov 83 250 Assisted and advised on new training aids and systems information for evaluation and possible subsequent use by the Department. 23. Urwick International Pty Ltd Jul-Aug 83 13,336 Management Consultants-advised on the setting-up of an organization to manage and control the Supply System Redevelopment Project (SSRP) over a two year period-best tender-PSB approval. (Question No. 1146) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 5 March 1984: (1) What consultants have been engaged to work for the Minister or the Minister 's Department since 1 April 1983. (2) What is the name of each consultant, or if a company or partnership, the name of the corporation or partnership. (3) For how long was each consultant engaged. (4) What fee is to be or has been paid to each consultant. (5) What special background and experience does each consultant possess to enable the consultant to undertake the engagement. (6) Was the merit principle applied in each case; if so, in what manner. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has supplied the following information to the honourable member's question: All consultancies entered into were in accordance with detailed guidelines on the engagement of consultants which were issued by the Public Service Board, in consultation with the Department of Finance, in 1978. A copy of these has been provided to the honourable member. The guidelines cover situations where the consultant is selected from a competitive field and those where only one consultant can provide the required service. (A) (1) Departmental Public Information Consultancy. (2) W D Scott Management Consultants. (3) Six months. (4) $25,000. (5) Experience gained through numerous organisation and management studies in the Australian Public Service over the past ten years. (6) The Australian Government Advertising Service recommended three firms as being suitable for the Department's requirements. Following tenders, W D Scott was selected as the only consultancy that addressed all the objectives required and was within the budget allocated for the consultancy. (B) (1) All Pensions and Allowances consultancy to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. (2) Doll Martin Associates Pty Ltd. (3) 25 days. (4) $16,965. (5) Principal consultant has 20 years' automatic data processing (ADP) experience with extensive experience at the management level and in corporate planning. The second team member has 25 years of experience in computing and is widely exposed to all facets of ADP, specialising in the latest information engineering techniques. (6) Each tenderer's ability was assessed according to experience and knowledge and whether they were abreast of the latest information engineering techniques used by the Department. The Public Service Board approved the Department's final choice. (C) (1) Standards consultancy to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. (2) Computer Sciences of Australia Pty. Ltd. (3) 16 weeks. (4) $26,250. (5) Agents for the sale and installation of Standards and Project Control computer software packages SDM70 and PC70 and experts in their use and the provision of training and advice. (6) The Department purchased the software packages in accordance with normal tender procedures. The consultancy is an extension of the assistance provided with the purchase of the packages. (D) (1) Recruitment Consultancy to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. (2) Alan Usher and Associates. (3) 5 weeks. (4) $19,000. (5) Extensive experience in Public Service departments in management consultancy. (6) Mr Usher was the only suitable and available person for the job. Public Service Board approved the selection. (E) (1) Corporate planning for the Defence Service Homes Corporation. (2) Doll Martin Associates Pty Ltd. (3) Three months (estimated). (4) $29,044. (5) The consultants have management experience in financial, computer and public sector organisations and consultancy experience in corporate planning, information technology strategy and organisational development in the public sector at Commonwealth and State levels. (6) Eight management consultancy firms were invited to submit proposals. All firms submitted proposals which were assessed by a Committee comprising representatives of the Corporation, the Systems Division of the Department and the Public Service Board. The proposals were assessed against selection criteria that were approved by the Public Service Board and had been circulated with the invitation to bid to the eight firms. (Question No. 1164) Mr Andrew asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 7 March 1984: (1) What savings were planned by the introduction of the diesel fuel rebate scheme in terms of (a) type of saving and (b) value of saving. (2) What was the increase of staff necessary to cope with the introduction of the scheme, and what is the annual cost of that staff in (a) salaries, (b) overtime and (c) travelling expenses. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) There were two types of savings envisaged by the introduction of the diesel fuel rebate scheme. Firstly the additional revenue, which formed the greater part of anticipated savings received from diesel fuel purchasers who were no longer entitled to duty free fuel because of the limited eligible categories of uses. Secondly improved control under the rebate system has provided further savings by reducing the scope for abuse which existed under the old arrangements. (b) $176m. (2) The increase in staff necessary to cope with the introduction of the scheme was 100. (a) 1.8m. (b) $80,000. (c) $70,000. (Question No. 1177) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 March 1984: When will he urgently review the STD telephone classification of residents of the electoral division of Flinders for calls to the Melbourne metropolitan area as promised in the Prime Minister's telegram of 1 March 1983. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: It is assumed that the honourable member's question refers to the telegram sent by the Prime Minister to the honourable member for Flinders indicating that I would review telephone call charges from the Flinders electorate to the Melbourne metropolitan area. Following representations to me from the honourable member for Flinders, such a review was completed by Telecom in June 1983. The report I received from Telecom indicated that it would not be appropriate, for a number of reasons, to vary call charges between the Mornington Peninsula and the metropolitan area. The honourable member will be aware that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure is currently enquiring into Telecom's zonal charging policies. The Committee is to initially examine local call arrangements surrounding each of the capital cities and no doubt call charges from the Mornington Peninsula to Melbourne will be addressed as part of the study. (Question No. 1207) Mr Burr asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 March 1984: (1) Does the Australian National Railways Commission Act 1983 require Australian National (AN) to meet any loss it incurs over and above the Federal Government's yearly allocation. (2) Has his attention been drawn to the Tasmanian Government's recent decision to lift the need for permit fees for the movement of superphosphate in Tasmania; if so (a) was the decision based on an alleged heavy backlog of rail deliveries, (b) was there such a backlog and (c) how did this backlog come about. (3) What was the consequent reduction of revenue for AN. (4) Is this situation being rectified so that the Tasmanian region of AN can maintain its anticipated target for revenue. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Under Section 56 of the Australian National Railways Commission Act 1983 the Commission is required to use commercial methods to fund any loss it incurs over and above its budget appropriation. (2) (a) I am advised that the decision to ease permit fees for road cartage of superphosphate was made by the Tasmanian Government in the light of backlogs of unfilled orders at 8 March 1984 amounting to 6,000 tonnes for rail and 3,000 tonnes allocated to road. Easement of permit fees was applicable only to the 3, 000 tonnes backlog for road, and was subject to review at the end of March 1984. At 27 March 1984 the road component of the backlog was 2,500 tonnes and the permit-free period was extended to 14 April 1984, subject to further review at that date. (b) See 2 (a) above. (c) The unfilled rail orders were brought on by a seasonal rush and were accentuated by less than optimum wagon utilisation due to: (i) slow discharge of loaded wagons by some consignees, (ii) limitations in maximum gross train loads brought on by industrial bans on locomotive servicing. (3) There is no anticipated reduction in revenue. No cancellations or reductions in loading for rail have been evident to date. (4) The unfilled rail orders of 6,000 tonnes at 8 March 1984 have so far been reduced by 1,500 tonnes in addition to the normal loading commitment of 500 tonnes per day. The situation is being rectified by (i) removal of locomotive servicing bans, allowing greater gross tonnage on trains, (ii) constant liaison with consignees to ensure prompt discharging of wagons, (iii) supply of wagons for weekend loading. (Question No. 1209) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 28 March 1984: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a report in Zdoroviec, the Soviet health magazine, as translated in the Sydney Sun of 16 March 1984; if so, does it (a) warn parents not to give children too much to eat before bed because it excites the sexual organs, (b) claim similar effects for coffee, chocolate and spices and (c) warn Soviet parents not to caress or kiss their children because it encourages stimulation of the erogenous zones and precocious development of sensuality. (2) Has his attention also been drawn to similar views expressed by the Reverend Fred Nile, MLC, of New South Wales, and his adherents. (3) Does his Department have any scientific evidence to support these views. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I have seen an AFP-AAP-Reuter report of an article, stated to have appeared in Zdoroviec, saying much the same as quoted by the honourable member. (2) I have not been able to locate any material of this nature. (3) No. (Question No. 1222) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 30 March 1984: (1) Has his Department established a uniform royalty rate for licensing fees; if so, (a) what is the rate and (b) which licence categories have reached that level. (2) Are increases, additional to those imposed by the last Budget, being considered in the number of licence categories and in licence fees for satellite earth stations. (3) Do the present earth station licence fees include a 16 per cent royalty component. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) From 1 September 1983, a royalty component was included in all radiocommunications licence fees. While it is not feasible to ascertain exact figures for each service, the royalty averages out at approximately 15 per cent. (2) A review of all licence categories and fees is undertaken every year. (3) See the reply to part (1) of this question. (Question No. 1342) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) What percentage of bicentennial road program funds was allocated to Tasmania for 1983-84. (2) Is this percentage anticipated to be maintained in 1984-85. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Tasmania's allocation of Australian Bicentennial Road Development (ABRD) Trust Fund revenues in 1983-84 is $15.1m representing 3.6 per cent of anticipated revenue of $420m. (2) Allocations of anticipated revenue in 1984-85 will be determined in the Budget context. (Question No. 1075) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic 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 West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (i) Employees under the community employment program in my Department: December January February 1983 1984 1984 (a) Male 5 10 15 (b) Female 46 94 111 Total 51 104 126 (ii) No temporary employees were engaged in any statutory authority reporting to me. (Question No. 1092) Mr Kent asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 March 1984: (1) What revenue was derived from (a) import duty and (b) sales tax on imported boats, such a cruisers, charter craft and sailing yachts mainly used for recreation and holiday charters, in 1982-83. (2) What revenue was derived from sales tax on similar craft built in Australia in 1982-83. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Customs duty derived from imports in 1982-83 of boats used mainly for recreation amounted to $862,864. Sales tax revenue derived from the sale of boats is not recorded separately. However, it is estimated that sales tax payable in 1982-83 on boats used for recreation and holiday charter was about $10m, of which about $1.5m was in respect of imported vessels. (Question No. 1142) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 5 March 1984: (1) What consultants have been engaged to work for the Minister or the Minister 's Department since April 1983. (2) What is the name of each consultant, or if a company or partnership, the name of the corporation or partnership. (3) For how long was each consultant engaged. (4) What fee is to be or has been paid to each consultant. (5) What special background and experience does each consultant possess to enable the consultant to undertake the engagement. (6) Was the merit principle applied in each case; if so, in what manner. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Length of Consultancy Engagement Name of Company Consultancy Fees Paid Consulting Background (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) $ Project Management Urwick International Pty Ltd 66 days 20,152 Project management. Seminar Koranya Data Base Intelligence 4 days 3,360 Expertise in data analysis techniques. Seminar Integrated Systems 6 days 7,200 Systems Analysis. Project Management Arthur Young & Associates Ltd 9 days 5,840 Project Management Expertise. Study of Information Technology Opportunities W. D. Scott Pty Ltd 176 days 410,000 Marketing, market research and information technology expertise. Information Needs of Department of Science and Technology Central Office P. K. MacGregor & Associates 94 days 55,170 Expertise in information processing with specialisation in computer-based technology in the Modern Office. Interaction of the Recombinant DNA Monitoring System with Existing Regulatory Systems Dr M. Barter, Faculty of Law ANU 30 days 7,500 Legal training and experience in reviewing the application of legislation to new technology and environmental protection. Develop a Bibliometric Model of Australian Science Center for Research Planning Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA 88 days 37,000 Centre possesses a unique technique of bibliometric analysis for the production of policy oriented literature based models of national scientific effort. Pilot Study AIRDIS Evaluation Price Waterhouse Associates 115 days 100,00 Economics of technology and survey expertise. Design and Project Management of Sea Containers Fit Out Lincolne Scott Tasmania Pty Ltd 66 days 48,000 Engineering design, documentation, tendering and supervision of contracted work expertise. ADP Management Review of the Antarctic Division John P. Young & Associates 30 days 19,591 ADP Management and review expertise. (6) All consultants were engaged in accordance with guidelines issued by the Public Service Board. These guidelines were issued in consultation with the Department of Finance in 1978. A copy of these has been provided to the honourable member. The guidelines cover situations where the consultant is selected from a competitive field and those where only one consultatnt can provide the required service. (Question No. 1161) Mr Steedman asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 6 March 1984: (1) Is it a fact that under a number of recent non-labor administrations, no action was taken to encourage light-keepers in attendance on Commonwealth light- stations to associate with or to form a union or association in their own interests. (2) Do light-keepers remain one section of the Australian work-force in which membership of a protective association is the exception rather than the rule. (3) Recognising that it may be neither advisable nor practical to force such public servants into an appropriate organisation, is it possible to encourage such organisations and to supply relevant information. (4) Do the report and transcript of evidence of the inquiry by the House of Representatives Expenditure Committee into light-stations indicate that (a) no light-keepers were called upon formally to present evidence to that Committee and (b) no association representing light-keepers was called before or made a submission to the Committee. (5) Can he say whether (a) light-keepers were able to present their views and experiences in a formalised, inquiry-type situation when the Committee visited individual light-stations and (b) senior officers of his Department were present during these visits. (6) Does he propose any action to ensure that adequate and independent consultations are held with light-keepers when matters affecting light-stations and their relationship with the community are under consideration; if so, what action. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (3) I have no direct knowledge of what action may have been taken under previous administrations. However, both the Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers) and the Customs Officers' Association of Australia, Fourth Division, are authorised to offer membership to light-keepers and various other categories. My department co-operates with these associations in disseminating or displaying relevant information for their members. Beyond that applications for membership are at the discretion of individual light- keepers. (2) Accurate statistics on membership of staff associations by light-keepers are not available. My department estimates that approximately one-third of light -keepers are union members. (4) (a) and (b) The seeking of written submissions and the calling of organisations and persons to present oral evidence were matters for the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. The Committee placed advertisements in the national Press advising of its Inquiry and inviting submissions from interested individuals and organisations. I understand that written submissions were made by two light-keepers and by the Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers) on behalf of light-keepers. Neither the light-keepers nor the Association was called before the Committee during its public hearings. (5) (a) The Committee visited 10 of the 41 manned light-stations around Australia. During these visits the Committee held informal discussions with the light-keepers at these stations. I understand that the discussions were not conducted in a formalised inquiry type situation. (b) Yes. (6) My Department will continue to consult with light-keepers as appropriate on matters affecting their particular stations. (Question No. 1162) Mr Wells asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 7 March 1984: Will he consider (a) extending the range of eligible relations under the family migration program to cover nieces and nephews and (b) a revision of the family reunion guidelines to enable Australian residents who have in the past acted in loco parentis to their nieces and nephews, to sponsor the entry of those relatives and have them assessed for entry as if they were the natural children of residents. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The Government's immigration policy contains generous concessions which allow for the migration of close family. The policy is based on the concept of the nuclear family (parents, children and siblings) which reflects the Australian norm. If the policy were to include nieces and nephews it would imply a commitment to the extended family concept and carry with it an obligation to include other relatives in eligible categories. Our capacity to absorb migrants would be severely tested if eligibility categories were to be widened as the honourable member suggests. (b) Imigration policy allows for the acceptance of sponsorships for relatives where special circumstances exist. Each case is considered on its merits having regard to the nature of the circumstances and the needs of both the sponsor here and the relative overseas. (Question No. 1308) Mr Peacock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) What changes to existing equal opportunities programs have been made in the Minister's Department since the 1983 general election in regard to (a) aims, (b) assessment procedures, (c) methods of ensuring that the aims of the program have been met, (d) procedures for union involvement and/or consultation in the program, (e) the involvement of the Public Service Board Equal Opportunities Bureau and (f) the priority rating of the program within the Department. (2) What is the cost of the Department's programs. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Department's equal employment opportunity policy was determined after the general election in 1983. Committees have been set up in central and regional offices to implement that policy. No formal arrangement was in place prior to the general election in 1983. (2) Departmental initiatives are being undertaken through the respective equal employment opportunity committees. Costs incurred to date are restricted to internal publishing and advertising.