Tuesday, 29 May 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) left Australia on 11 May to visit London, Europe and the Soviet Union for high level foreign policy discussions and to attend a ministerial council meeting of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris. The Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) is acting as Foreign Minister. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) left Australia on 12 May to visit New Zealand, China and Japan and to attend a conference in Seoul on participation of developing countries in the international trading system. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John Brown) is Acting Minister for Primary Industry until Mr Kerin returns. I also inform the House that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) left Australia on 11 May to visit London, Paris, Hamburg and Athens for ministerial discussions and to attend a meeting in Oslo of the European conference of Ministers for Transport. The Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) is Acting Minister for Transport until Mr Morris returns. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) 29 May 1984 is the day the Senate must decide to allow or disallow the ACT ordinances which will allow the sale of publications encouraging the use of hard drugs to go on sale in the ACT, and (b) that the Honourable Member for Moreton posted a copy of the proposed ordinances to 980 Queensland Clergymen and more than 300 secondary school principals and to date only one person has indicated support of the Government proposal, and (2) condemns the Government for its cavalier attitude and demands that publications encouraging the use of hard drugs be included in the other categories to be banned by the said ordinances. Mr BILNEY(Kingston) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with profound pleasure the results of the Australian Statistician's official survey of private investment; (2) welcomes in particular the survey result showing that private business invested 7 per cent more over the March quarter of 1984 than in the December quarter of 1983, the first such upturn for over 2 years; (3) notes with pleasure the survey finding that business intends to invest at an even greater rate over the forthcoming year; (4) welcomes this important news as further conformation that a broad-based sustainable recovery is underway, and (5) congratulates the Government on putting into place the economic, social and industrial climate which has allowed the recovery to proceed. Notice of Motion Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the opposition of the Australian mining and rural industries to the introduction of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill 1984; (2) recognises that the Bill will substantially restrict development of northern Australia for both mining and primary production with a resultant loss to the national economy and employment opportunities; (3) condemns the Government for not producing a financial impact statement that addresses itself to such loss; (4) agrees with the Western Australian Government that the legislation is unnecessary and infringes on state rights, and (5) requests the Government to withdraw the Bill. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that new dwelling commencements rose by 12.9% in the December quarter 1983 and 5% in the March quarter 1984, and (2) further notes-the report by the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry indicating that housing commencements will reach 145,000 in 1984-85, and (3) is of the opinion that the housing recovery, when combined with increases in private investment, indicates the success of the Government's economic policies Mr Coleman proceeding to give notice of a motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to reframe his notice. It is obviously giving information. Mr Young-If the honourable member for Wentworth would talk to us, we would be quite happy to see that motion formally passed tomorrow. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House draws the Government's attention to notice of motion No. 435, general business, standing in the name of the honourable member for Denison and calls upon the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to clearly state the Government's policy with respect to West Irian refugees currently in Papua-New Guinea. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for creating uncertainty and confusion among pensioners; (2) expresses its alarm that inspectors will have to be employed to assess the value of all the assets of pensioners; (3) rejects the implication of a capital gains tax expressed by the panel and review; and (4) calls on the Government to join the Opposition in rejecting the assets test . Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House commends the Minister for Foreign Affairs for providing additional assistance to the estimated 10 million refugees and displaced persons in Africa as part of the international response to appeals for humanitarian assistance made by the UN and international agencies. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that 1984 is the centenary year of the Wesley Central Mission, established, in 1884, as the Central Methodist Mission; (2) commends the Mission for its dedicated work to assist, with care and compassion, the less fortunate within our community; and (3) acknowledges the ongoing need for support, both practical and financial, to ensure that the fine work of the Wesley Central Mission continues. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) the minimum distance to be travelled by an international tourist in order to be eligible for the 30% discount ''See Australia'' air fare was changed on 1 May 1984 from 1000 km to 1600 km, and (b) this fare is now beyond the reach of tourists wishing to travel, for example, Sydney/Brisbane/Canberra/Melbourne, and (2) calls on the Government to abandon this 30% fare increase and to reinstate the previous ''See Australia'' fare. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that on 30 May 1984 the International Coalition of Scientists for the Sakharovs, will deliver letters to Soviet Embassies throughout the world, including Canberra, expressing its concern at the continued persecution by Soviet authorities of Dr Andrei Sakharov and his wife, Dr Bonner, and (2) calls on the Government to follow the lead of the Coalition of Scientists for the Sakharovs and mobilise Australian public opinion against the Soviet Union's inhuman treatment of one of the world's most distinguished scientists and his wife. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from India led by the Honourable Shri G. Lakshmanan, MP, Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to the members of the delegation. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Is it a fact that the joint committee of the departments of Social Security and Veterans' Affairs estimated that the assets test proposal favoured by the panel would hit 50,000 pensioners but bring in only $80m? Is it also a fact that the start-up costs of the proposal were also estimated by the departments at about $80m, with substantial continuing operational costs? In the light of these figures will the Government scrap the assets test? If not, will it promise that all savings from the test will be immediately used to increase pensions? Dr BLEWETT —At the moment various proposals are before the Government and are being given full consideration. The report was received by the Government eight days ago. Since then the report has been given thorough consideration by the Government and it is hoped that an early and immediate response will be made on which option will be followed by the Government, the costs of that option and the pensioners affected. Mr MOUNTFORD —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. What are the indications that the Government's strong support for the prices and incomes accord is a positive and constructive vehicle for sustaining the economic recovery? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Banks for his very relevant question. It is now universally acknowledged that the economic recovery in Australia is well under way. When I say 'universally acknowledged' I mean universally; not only here in Australia but in every relevant economic and financial centre throughout the world. The accord to which the honourable member referred will ensure that that recovery will not be aborted by some destructive and counter- productive wages explosion. It is relevant to put this into context and to say that the Australian people should never forget, and they will never forget, the tragic economic legacy created by the Fraser Government when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer. Let me remind the House, Mr Speaker, of the elements of that tragic legacy. Firstly, the deepest economic recession since the 1930s, crippling interest rates-- Mr Moore —Tell us about the share market crash. Mr HAWKE —I am tempted to interrupt my spontaneous answer by the interjection of -I will be gentle-this person on the opposite side who said: 'Tell us about the share market'. I suppose we are meant to deduce from that intelligent piece of economic analysis that something has happened in Australia on the share market which indicates that the economic policies and the economic recovery of this Government are in jeopardy. If we are to embrace that lunacy of analysis we must understand immediately that the United States recovery has collapsed and the recovery of every Western democracy which has a share market has collapsed, because the same thing has happened in all those places. Of course, honourable members on the other side of the House have found the one true economic indicator of what is happening in the economy-the share market. I wonder why they did not have this same intelligent appreciation of what happened to the share market after the election of this Government. When those on the share market saw that they were no longer encumbered with this bunch of economic misfits the share market went through the roof. What did Opposition members say then? We do not mind members opposite insulting their own intelligence but let them not insult the intelligence of members of this House and the people of Australia by saying that what has happened in the share market in the last week suggests that the economic recovery in Australia has collapsed. If honourable members want to delude themselves by that sort of analysis in their fragile little meetings of their fragile little shadow Cabinet, let them go for their lives. That will be another act of self-delusion at which members of the Opposition are rapidly becoming the world's experts. I was reminding the House of the elements of the legacy left by the previous Government, for example, the recession, crippling interest rates, the wages explosion-which under its misguided policy wrecked this country's international competitiveness-double digit inflation and a rise in unemployment in its last year in office of over a quarter of a million of our fellow Australians. The Australian people suffered appallingly throughout those seven dark years of Liberal-National Party economic mismanagement. The simple indisputable fact is that that Government, with the honourable member for Bennelong-- Mr Goodluck —Me? Mr HAWKE —No, not you, Bruce. I know the honourable member for Franklin has great aspirations. He will never become Treasurer, although I doubt that even he could have done a worse job than the honourable member for Bennelong. Mr Goodluck —I do a better job than you, anyway. Mr HAWKE —If the honourable member keeps saying that he is ashamed to be a Tasmanian, as he said before, he will not even-- Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. There is far too much conversation and interjection from both sides of the House. Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. On behalf of the House I ask the Prime Minister to get down to the business of government instead of all this chit chat. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —The tragedy was that during that period the then Government was totally incapable of taking the hard decisions that were necessary for the economic management of this country. It was incapable of taking the sort of decisions I am talking about and which this Government has taken in the deregulation of the financial system, the steel industry reconstruction, reconstruction of the motor vehicle industry, floating of the dollar and retirement incomes. The thing which sticks in the craw of honourable members opposite is that they see a Labor government taking the decisions which are necessary for competent, constructive and responsible economic management. Let me conclude by saying that the simple fact is this: The Australian people are already benefiting, and benefiting very substantially, from the decisions that have been made by this Government. I remind the House of the benefits which the people of Australia are now enjoying as a result of the economic management of this country. They are clear and they are irrefutable. In the 12 months 225, 000 new jobs have been created, as distinct from the 186,000 jobs that disappeared under the previous Government. The annual inflation rate, even excluding Medicare, is now the lowest for a decade. Economic growth in the second half of last year was at the highest level since records have been kept in Australia. Business investment is up by 7 per cent. Non-seasonal interest rates are significantly lower than they were a year ago. Real unit labour costs are back to the level of 10 years ago. Those are the facts which show that under this Government, with a central operation of the prices and incomes accord, the people of Australia are now getting the sort of economic management which they deserve. Mr Porter —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask the Prime Minister to table the two pages of notes which he is hiding under his foolscap pad and from which he read the answer. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Was the Prime Minister quoting from a document? Mr HAWKE —No. Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It was obvious to all honourable members on this side of the House that the Prime Minister was using notes in front of him. They were extensive and he was quoting from them. He has put them in his folder. He has denied he was using them and we know that that is a deliberate lie. Mr Speaker, I ask you to have the notes tabled. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw the words ' deliberate lie'. Mr Peacock —The Prime Minister, in the view of everybody here, has deliberately misled the House. Those notes were taken from the despatch box. I ask that they be tabled. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw. He knows that that sort of reflection is not allowed. Mr Peacock —I withdraw the word 'lie' and say he misled the House and is continuing to mislead the House with those notes in front of him. I ask that they be tabled. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows that such an allegation must be the matter of a substantive motion. Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition was taking a point of order, to which I was listening. During that point of order he made unparliamentary remarks. I have asked him to withdraw those remarks. When he has done so I will deal with his point of order. Mr Peacock —I withdrew them. Mr SPEAKER —With regard to the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition knows that under the Standing Orders a request may be made for the tabling of a document on public affairs from which a Minister is quoting. The requirement of the Speaker is to ask two questions: Whether the Minister, or in this case the Prime Minister, was quoting from such a document. If he says 'no' that finishes the matter as far as the Speaker is concerned. If he replies 'yes' it then goes to a further question. That is the power given to the Speaker in the House. Mr Peacock —It might be a matter for reference to a committee on that one. My goodness, I have never seen anything like it. There is no doubt that this man has misled the House. No amount of shellacking from him will get him out of it. It is in front of him now. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will-- Mr Peacock —If he can't tell the truth he should not come in here. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition is defying the Chair. I ask him to go to his question. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Despite the fact that the toing and froing and the backing and filling went on again today-- Mr Hawke —Oh! Mr PEACOCK —Don't start appealing to Mr Speaker. He has looked after you once today. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Leader of the Opposition that a Speaker is elected to the Chair to allow the proceedings to go on normally in the House. The Leader of the Opposition is consistently defying the Chair. I ask him to go straight to his question and then the matter can be dealt with. Mr Hawke —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr Peacock —Listen to this for selective morality. He cannot tell the truth but he can jump up and down. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Hawke —Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has just grossly reflected upon you. He said that you, the Speaker, had already looked after me once today. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. If disorder continues in this way I will proceed to name, without warning, the next member who offends. Mr Hawke —Mr Speaker, my point of order is that the Leader of the Opposition in this place has cast the gravest reflection upon you. It is a matter for you. When the Leader of the Opposition said that you, the Speaker, had already looked after the Prime Minister once today, that is a severe reflection upon the Chair and it is a matter for you, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —I accept the point made by the Prime Minister. A number of remarks like that are made during the proceedings. My skin is thick enough to cop them. I know that I can take it. Mr PEACOCK —It is all right, thin skin. The question is not to you; it is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will get on with his question or I will call another honourable member. Mr PEACOCK —As I have said, my question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. I refer the Minister to the statement by Senator Ryan, as the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, that, whatever assets test is introduced, it will be retrospective to 24 August 1983. As the new proposals by the Assets Test Review Panel are completely different from the Government's own proposals, will the Minister assure pensioners, irrespective of what statement is made this week as a consequence of his answer in the House today, that the test will not now apply retrospectively? Dr BLEWETT —As I indicated in an earlier reply to the Leader of the Opposition, the whole issue of the assets test is under examination by this Government as a result of the receipt of the report from the review panel set up in an effort to meet the criticisms and the objections that were raised in the community to the assets test. When we appointed that panel for that purpose it was praised by some members of the Opposition-those few honourable members who have been prepared to take a constructive attitude in the face of this difficult problem. Before this Parliament rises a clear statement will be made by the Government on its intentions in relation to the assets test. Mr ALLAN MORRIS —My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence Support. Given that the Government has announced that the offsets policy and program are to be reviewed by an independent committee headed by Sir Brian Inglis, what is to happen to offsets pending the outcome of this review? Mr HOWE —After careful consideration of the question of offsets policy, the Government has made the decision, which has been announced, to ask Sir Brian Inglis to head a committee of review to examine the policy. The review will be broad ranging and will go to a number of questions concerning the effectiveness of the policy, particularly to ensure that it is not used to subsidise Australian industry but to offset major overseas purchases in a way that will enable Australian industry to move positively out into the world and grasp more export opportunities. I am sure that the review to be carried out will help the Government to revise a policy which has not been substantially revised or reviewed by any government since its inception in 1970. In the interim, the Government will remain with the existing policy. That policy will be enforced and administered, hopefully with a greater degree of efficiency and with greater attention to the monitoring of unfulfilled offset obligations. For a country such as Australia, which is a major importer of high technology capital equipment, offsets represent an opportunity to develop indigenous technology. They have been very significant in the aerospace industry. They will be very significant in regard to the development of an indigenous industry in relation to computers. So, in the interim, the Government intends to pursue the present policy, certainly with vigour. We will be seeking to strengthen its administration. But any revisions of the policy will await the report of the committee of review to be headed by Sir Brian Inglis. Mr CADMAN —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security noted the comments made by the Assets Test Review Panel that its favoured option, option 2, is potentially the most intrusive in respect of personal privacy? Has he also noted the views of the Department of Social Security that option 2 would be more difficult to administer than other options because few pensioners would have an accurate idea of the net market value of their home, furniture and other household items? Does this mean that, if this option is chosen, pensioners will have all their assets valued at regular intervals by Government inspectors? I want a straight answer, none of this-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call the Minister for Health. Dr BLEWETT —All the views referred to by the honourable member have been noted and are being considered by the Government in reaching a decision on this issue. But I am certainly not prepared, at this stage, in this House, to fuel the kind of speculation which has been used simply for alarmist purposes-- Mr Peacock —Well, you leaked it to the Press three weeks ago. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent. Mr Peacock —You would not give it to your own members. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition. Dr BLEWETT —As I was saying, Mr Speaker, it is not my intention at this stage of the Government's consideration of these difficult issues to provide material which has been used and will be used by this Opposition simply for the purpose of alarmist exercises. If I might describe the campaign waged over the last six months by this Opposition, it is best described as hypocritical, purely cynical and quite opportunistic. In fact, it very much defies the kinds of principles it was prepared to consider in relation to these matters when it had the responsibility of government. Mr Sinclair —Table the Gruen report. Dr BLEWETT —In relation to the interjection concerning the Gruen report, as I said, it was received by the Government eight days ago. We are moving to have it made available in an official form to all members of this Parliament at the earliest possible date. Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I can assist the Minister. I have a copy of the report here. Perhaps he will grant leave for it to be tabled. I am prepared to table documents even if the Prime Minister is not. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Dr THEOPHANOUS —My question is directed to the Minister for Science and Technology. What has been the response of the business community and State governments to the proposals for the formation of the management and investment companies? Now that the first series of licences has been issued, what developments does the Minister expect in technology as a consequence? Mr BARRY JONES —The honourable member for Burke asked what is the response of State governments about the granting of management and investment companies licences. The answer would have to be elation in one case and disappointment in two. As honourable members know, there was a wide spread of licences. Three went to Sydney, two to Melbourne, one to Brisbane and one to Perth. In the case of the Western Australian company, Westintech Innovation Corporation Limited, the Western Australian Government was a participant in the management and investment company. So the Western Australian Government is very pleased. The Victorian Government was a participant in the Elders-IXL submission which failed. The South Australian Government, which has taken a very high profile in high technology, was disappointed that no licence went to South Australia. It is very important that people stress-I know that the Minister for Housing and Construction is well aware of this-that there is life after the first MIC awards. This was intended as a five-year program, or thereabouts, and it is expected that a new round of licence awards will begin in October of this year. Naturally some of the disappointed aspirants of the 32 applicants will reapply. Although the Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board determined that there would be no absolute geographical criteria in granting licences in the sense that there did not have to be one licence for each State, I am very pleased that there was a reasonable geographical spread. By the end of the second or third round there will be a very encouraging spread of activity. Mr Moore —When is the tax legislation being introduced? Mr BARRY JONES —The legislation on tax incentive will be brought down tomorrow by the Treasurer. This will be a comprehensive piece of legislation of which the MIC provisions are only part. The MIC development is just one of a whole series of very encouraging developments in the capital market generally. We are of very good heart. All the indications are that there will be a tremendous amount of high technology activity in this country in the next 12 to 24 months. This will be seen as one of the great achievements of the Hawke Government. Mr WILSON —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security: Is it not a fact that, throughout the greater part of the post-war period, home ownership has been supported by all governments as a desirable aspiration and goal for all Australians? How then does the Minister reconcile this fact with present proposals that family homes be included in a pension assets test? Will not such a test penalise many ordinary home owners by reducing their pensions or denying them when they reach pension age or by depriving them of their pensions at the time when they are widowed? Dr BLEWETT —I again suggest to members of the Opposition that they display a little patience. The reference made by the honourable member for Sturt is to one of a number of options which have been presented in the report of the Assets Test Review Panel on which no decision has yet been made. As I have indicated to the House, we are hopeful that such a decision can be made quickly and urgently and reported back to the House. Mr HOLLIS —Does the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment intend to continue the practice of previewing Australian films for the benefit of members and senators? Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Carlton —This is a serious matter. Mr COHEN —This is serious. The Australian film industry-- Mr SPEAKER —When the House comes to order, I will call the Minister. Mr COHEN —If it had not been for idiots like the honourable member it would have been doing better than it is at the moment. Mr SPEAKER —Order! When the House comes to order, I will call the Minister. Mr Peacock —We do not want to see them free. We are prepared to pay to go to see them. Mr SPEAKER —That includes the Leader of the Opposition. Mr COHEN —The Leader of the Opposition should contain himself. This is a practice which was commenced by-- Dr Klugman —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Could the Minister arrange for the Leader of the Opposition to get a part in one of the films? Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr COHEN —As soon as we do the remake of Dracula, I will get him an audition for the part. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call the Minister to answer the question. Mr COHEN —Mr Speaker, I am trying to answer the question. This is a practice which was commenced by Mr Ellicott. I commend him for it. A number of films, including Breaker-- Mr Peacock —I thought you just abused us for what we did in government. Mr COHEN —Oh, you are childish; fair dinkum! Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition knows that he is going beyond the limits of tolerance and abusing the practices of the House. I call the Minister. Mr COHEN —The Leader of the Opposition should let me answer the question. The practice has introduced many members of Parliament to Australian films for the first time. Last year we showed Phar Lap and the award winning film Careful He Might Hear You. Attendance was between 350 and 400. Some 35 members of Parliament attended the screening of Phar Lap, and 22 attended the screening of Careful He Might Hear You. This year I have chosen three films: Annie's Coming Out, Silver City and Fast Talking. I chose those films because each has particular qualities that emphasise the diversity, professionalism and talent-- Mr Howard —Is Fast Talking Mick Young's biography? Is it the life story of Mick Young? Mr SPEAKER —I ask the Minister to resume his seat until the House comes to order . Mr Moore —Who will hold the prompting board in Fast Talking? Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Ryan. I call the Minister. Mr COHEN —As I said, I chose those films because they have particular qualities that emphasise the diversity, the professionalism and the talent of the Australian film industry. They illustrate how and why Australia is rocketing to prominence in the international field. Annie's Coming Out was a brilliant production by Film Australia. It dealt for the first time with a sensitive and tragic subject, cerebral palsy. It was a breathtaking film produced for $1.3m by Film Australia. It was recently reviewed by 400 of Hollywood's hard-bitten producers, directors and distributors and at the conclusion of the screening it received a standing ovation. Therefore, it was very disappointing to see only three MPs and senators at the screening-the honourable member for Macarthur, Senator Harradine and Senator McIntosh-particularly in view of the stated interest by members in the problems of the disabled. I inform the House that Fast Talking will be screened tomorrow night. It deals with the problems of young teenage school children in working class suburbs of Australia. I have seen the movie-- Mr Carlton —Are you going to call the roll? Mr COHEN —The honourable member would not be interested in the problems of the unemployed. Perhaps if he comes along to the film tomorrow night, he will become interested. I believe it is a superb movie, very funny, brilliantly acted and skilfully directed. I hope that honourable members will come tomorrow night to see that film. Next week there will be a preview of one of the most brilliant films ever made-Silver City. It is the first time that the problems of migrants, and the traumatic experience of arriving in Australia from war-torn Europe in the early 1950s, have been portrayed in Australian films. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask the Minister for Communications: What involvement did he or his officials have with the Chairman or other members of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation before the Chairman made his announcement last weekend on the presentation of the Four Corners program relating to Papua New Guinea? Mr DUFFY —It appears that those opposite, and in this case the right honourable member for New England, find it extremely difficult to understand the independence of the ABC. The answer to the question is that there was no contact whatsoever. Mr TICKNER —I direct my question to the Minister for Finance in his capacity as Minister responsible for all matters of expenditure, including expenditure on the Public Service. Can the Minister advise the House of the actual and estimated growth in Australian Public Service staff numbers since 1982-83? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for his question. This relates to a matter which has received some attention in recent times. It was also the subject of one of the many Press releases of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition which have, of course, sunk without trace. The point that the- Mr Howard —He thought it was a bottom of the harbour scheme. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr Howard —That is probably what he thought it was. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr Howard —He is obsessed with harbours. Mr SPEAKER —I name the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr Peacock —He was talking to me. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the honourable member for Bennelong be suspended from the service of the House. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, 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.Hawke, R. J. L. Wells, D. McM.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Newman, K. E.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Peacock, A. S.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Robinson, IanFife, W. C. Rocher, A. C.Fisher, P. S. Ruddock, P. M.Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. 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. Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Bennelong is therefore suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours. The honourable member for Bennelong thereupon withdrew from the chamber. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.53) —Mr Speaker, I move: That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from. I refer to your ruling to name the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Mr SPEAKER —Order! It is not a question of dissent from my ruling. Mr PEACOCK —You put that. Mr SPEAKER —I named the honourable member. Mr PEACOCK —That was your ruling. That was a determination by you, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the House then moved the motion. That motion has been passed by the House. It is not a matter of dissent from a ruling. It is a resolution of the House. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, there are two courses that the Opposition has in matters of this kind. The first is to move dissent from your ruling. The second is to move a motion of no confidence in you. We prefer to move dissent from the ruling which you have given, which is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition be suspended, as a result of your ruling that he be named. It seems to us, Mr Speaker, that the second course would be totally inappropriate in a matter in relation to which the Standing Orders provide for us to move a motion of this sort. I direct your attention to standing order 100, which states: If any objection is taken to any ruling of the Speaker, such objection must be taken at once-- that is why the Leader of the Opposition has just risen- and a motion of dissent, to be submitted in writing, moved, which, if seconded, shall be proposed to the House, and debate thereon shall proceed forthwith. Mr Speaker, I put to you that this motion is entirely in accordance with the proceedings and that it is quite proper to proceed. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party is suggesting that dissent from my ruling can be moved when the House has already resolved that ruling. There has been a division and a vote on the matter. So dissent from the ruling at this stage is not appropriate. Mr Young —Mr Speaker, the House itself rules on your ruling. The person involved having been discharged from the service of the House after being named, the only way in which there can be dissent is if the majority of the House disagrees. Mr SPEAKER —That is exactly what I have tried to convey: The House has made a decision on this matter. Mr PEACOCK —Mr Speaker, you have just indicated that and, as a consequence, I move dissent from your ruling. Mr SPEAKER —In that case, the honourable member would be in order. Is the motion in writing and is it seconded? Mr PEACOCK —Yes, it is indeed, with a slight amendment as a consequence of your latest ruling. Mr Hawke —Ha, ha. The old albatross is coaching you. Mr PEACOCK —That is a very nervous laugh you have, having lied in this Parliament already today. Mr Hawke —Look at me; I am shaking! Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr PEACOCK —We have moved dissent from your ruling-- Mr Hawke —Look at the albatross coaching him. The old albatross is not a very good coach. He has not got a very good pupil. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr PEACOCK —We have moved dissent from you ruling-- Mr Hawke —The albatross and his pupil. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the House for order. Dissent from a ruling or a motion of no confidence in a Speaker is a very important motion to put before the House . It is not a matter for cheap gibes across the chamber. I ask that the debate proceed. Mr Dawkins —Mr Speaker, what is the motion? Mr SPEAKER —The motion is dissent from my ruling that the Opposition cannot dissent from my ruling. Mr PEACOCK —We have moved this motion today because throughout the proceedings of the Parliament this afternoon there has been a weaving and an evasion by the Government. More to the point, Mr Speaker, you named the Deputy Leader-- Mr Scholes —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr PEACOCK —Oh, here it is. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Scholes —My point of order is that the motion is a motion to dissent from your ruling, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition is not entitled to canvass matters outside your ruling. Mr PEACOCK —That is right. Mr Scholes —Unless he moves a vote of no confidence. Mr SPEAKER —Order! When the House comes to order I will respond to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is quite able to make preliminary remarks in moving dissent, but of course he appreciates that he cannot have a general debate on other matters. Mr PEACOCK —Mr Speaker, I have moved dissent from your ruling. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was in fact in private conversation with me. The noise level in this chamber was high not surprisingly because, after all, Ministers were talking about statements and other things sinking. I said 'Is he referring to the bottom of the harbour?' and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said 'No, he is referring to a statement of mine which he says has sunk without trace', or words to that effect. I said: 'Not to the bottom of the harbour?' That is when he said: 'No, not to the bottom of the harbour'. For that reason, having been involved in that discussion, or words to that effect, he is now excluded from this Parliament as a consequence of your earlier ruling. Leading up to that event today has been a debasement of this Parliament by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition should move to the reasons for dissent from my ruling. Mr PEACOCK —They are related because this current occupant of the Prime Ministership stood in this Parliament before all members here, and I trust the gallery, with papers in front of him. He was asked 'Were you quoting from those papers?' and he said: 'No'. We all know that was a lie. Dr Theophanous —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The House will not tolerate general debate being brought into-- Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. Dr Theophanous —The situation here. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. Dr Theophanous —The Leader of the Opposition to speak-- Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Burke. Mr PEACOCK —Not only did he not tell the truth but he then hid his papers in front of him like a school boy and has carried on according to that pattern of behaviour for the last 50 minutes. That all led to the sort of discord that was in the Parliament. Those on this side of the House believe that the Government has been treating the Parliament with contempt. In treating the Parliament with contempt, it moved a motion immediately. Knowing the nature of the conversation the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was having with me, it even excluded him from participating in this House, notwithstanding that the Government's own leader had misled this House-- Mr Cunningham —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on standing order 303. Mr Speaker, we have the situation in which you ruled under standing order 303(e) that a person had persistently and wilfully disregarded the authority of the Chair and you named him. We have the situation, Mr Speaker, on the point of order-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr PEACOCK —Mr Speaker, what we witnessed in this House today, before you gave your ruling, was merely a continuation and indeed an extension of a theme which runs right through the sorry history of this Government. We have seen a government which will not tell the truth through its Prime Minister here. We have seen a government which tries, through its Prime Minister, to censor the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and have a hotline to it if he is ever criticised. If a Minister is-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr PEACOCK —Reflected upon-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr PEACOCK —He squeals-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr PEACOCK —And in a private conversation with me-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Mr PEACOCK —The Government excludes-- Mr SPEAKER —I warn the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition is speaking to a dissent from my ruling, not in a general debate. Mr PEACOCK —Mr Speaker, your determining to name the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Government then moving a motion that he be suspended from the House are consistent with the sort of action that this Prime Minister has taken. Through the courts, he has the reputation of being the quickest to serve a writ of any politician in the history of the Australian Parliament. His party-the Australian Labor Party-is now known as the Australian litigation party and it leads to the sort of behaviour we have had today. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will speak to the motion before the House. Mr PEACOCK —Mr Speaker, I submit to you, regrettably, that you had to sit in the chair today and see the nervous twitching and listen to the constant barrage from the Prime Minister saying: 'Control them, control them; oh, jees, control them'. It went on and on. During a private conversation between the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and me, you named him. The Government then moved for his suspension. It shows a disgraceful arrogance-not on your part, Mr Speaker, although, regrettably, naming him is a fault. It shows a disgraceful arrogance and a disregard of the freedom of speech and rights of individual members of Parliament in this place when the Government moves such a motion bearing in mind the way in which the incident came about. Mr Speaker, you also know that of all people to be suspended the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is one of the last who ought to be named. He is constantly adhering to the rules, constantly playing it straight down the line and no matter what else he does in here it is straight and to the point and played within the rules. The Government knows that and it picked the wrong man to throw out today because the community knows that he played a straight bat. If the Government had picked the right man it would have picked the man who lied this afternoon in this Parliament. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will take some notice of the Standing Orders. I ask honourable members on my right to cease the barrage of interjections. I call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr PEACOCK —It is very interesting because the Prime Minister cannot sit in this debate with clean hands. He could not sit in on the David Combe debate with clean hands. He could not even intervene with Papua New Guinea with clean hands- - Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will speak to the matter before the House. Mr PEACOCK —As I have said, in fact, what has transpired today is an extension of the behaviour of the Prime Minister in so many fields outside the Parliament, whether it is abusing of interviewers on radio and television or hectoring and lecturing the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Mr Speaker, I refer to your naming the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the following actions of the Government. The action taken by the Government, in relation to your wrongful act , has all the hallmarks of media control and restriction of freedom of speech. These flow through the actions of this Government. It is bad enough having the Deputy Leader of the Opposition suspended from the Parliament but it is worse to know that it reflects the standards of behaviour of the Prime Minister in relation to media control and restriction of freedom of speech. Every honourable member opposite knows the contrast in actions that occurred today. Firstly, there was a private conversation between the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and myself relating to the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). This should be compared with the actions and, indeed, the statements of the Prime Minister who lied to this Parliament in front of every member on this side of the House. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw that statement. Mr PEACOCK —The actions and the statement of the Prime Minister in misleading this House-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw unconditionally. Mr PEACOCK —Mr Speaker, I withdraw the word 'lie'. We have seen the actions of the Prime Minister in misleading this House and, as a consequence, misleading the Australian people. As I said earlier, we have seen the Prime Minister and his staff in action standing over the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the management of the ABC summoned to the Prime Minister's office. Today we see the extension of-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Leader of the Opposition that the motion before the House concerns dissent from my ruling. The Leader of the Opposition is indulging in a general debate. If he persists I will have to rule that he be no longer heard. Mr PEACOCK —Mr Speaker, I come back to the central point which was your naming of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. That was incorrect. The Opposition moved dissent from that primarily because it involved a private conversation which was not in breach of the Standing Orders. Mr Scholes —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call the honourable member for Corio on a point of order. Mr Scholes —Mr Speaker, the matter of the naming of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the decision of the House is not a matter which is under debate. It is contrary to the rules of this House that an honourable member should reflect on a decision of this House. Mr SPEAKER —I accept that there is substance in the point of order. I think that in the circumstances the Leader of the Opposition has forgotten that he has moved dissent from my ruling that he could not dissent from the previous naming, a matter on which the House had resolved. I call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr PEACOCK —I come to the primary element of moving dissent from your ruling, Mr Speaker, in relation to the naming of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. When I objected to that you ruled me out of order. As a consequence we have had to move dissent from that latter ruling. All of it comes about because of what has transpired in this House today. We will not stand by and see an honourable member of the stature, the ability, the decency and the integrity of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition being suspended from this Parliament for actions which in normal circumstances would be treated as private. Mr Speaker, because you brought this about we dissent from your ruling in not allowing us earlier to move dissent. The man who occupies the position of Prime Minister has brought it to the lowest standing in the history of this nation. He is in fact deceiving the people and he has deceived this House today and he knows he has lied-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr PEACOCK —The facade he puts on now and the selective morality in which he engages-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw those remarks. If he offends again I will name him immediately. The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw the remarks with regard to lying. Mr PEACOCK —I withdraw the word 'lie' and say the Prime Minister knows that he has misled this House. He knows, and all members of this Parliament know, that he started to do so today in respect of the answer to the first question that was put from the Government side to him, when he read from pieces of paper. Mr Speaker, you can imagine the feeling of honourable members on my side when he said he was not even quoting from them. That was the preambular part leading up to your naming the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Few honourable members on either side of the House would disagree with a viewpoint that conversations between members in this Parliament are not of the nature to bring about one or other of those members being named. Yet that is what transpired. When we sought to move dissent from that, Mr Speaker, you would not allow it, so procedurally we have to put forward our objections in this form of motion. We have, therefore, stopped short of the more serious motion, namely, one of no confidence in you, Mr Speaker. We think you were in error and we say so in our dissent motion. However, the Government is more than in error. It knows that it is flagrantly abusing the notions of free speech and it knows that its leader has misled this House today. I will be greatly disappointed if those honourable members who witnessed the event today do not hold him out for what he is. Of course, they run a risk, do they not? If certain honourable members on the other side of the House were to report on this Prime Minister in an unfavourable way Mr Barron or some other member of his staff would go around and complain, call editors and even have people removed from their jobs. In this Parliament we have this exhibition today. We have the Deputy Leader of the Opposition removed from this Parliament because the Minister for Finance objects to the term 'bottom of the harbour'. Why did the Minister for Finance object to some reference to the bottom of the harbour? What is objectionable about talking about going to the bottom of the harbour unless one has something to hide? Was it the Minister for Finance who capitalised interest? Was it the Minister for Finance who was able to avoid over $1m on behalf of his family company? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition should return to the motion before the House. Mr PEACOCK —It all led to the naming of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, which was carried out in a manner with which we do not concur and which has brought about this dissent from your ruling, Mr Speaker. I know of nothing in the Standing Orders or the Schedule attached thereto which lists objectionable words that says that 'bottom of the harbour' is unparliamentary. I know that it does refer to a Minister. I know that he capitalised interest and evaded taxation. I know that his family company saved over $1m. But that does not occasion the naming of anybody. Mr Beazley —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is in continual defiance of your earlier ruling on keeping relevant to a dissent motion, which is a highly specific motion. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is a great deal of substance in the point of order raised by the Minister, but it must be realised that when there is a dissent from the Speaker's ruling the Speaker has to show some tolerance in what goes forward. Mr Hodgman —They are treating you as though you are their property. Mr SPEAKER —That is nonsense and you know it. I warn the honourable member for Denison. I call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr PEACOCK —What did you warn him for? Mr SPEAKER —I warned him for interjecting on me and suggesting that I was the property of the Government and not of the House. Mr Hodgman —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I did not say that. I said that they are treating you as if you are their property and they are, Sir. Mr SPEAKER —That is exactly what I objected to. Mr PEACOCK —Mr Speaker, I have to say, in support of what the honourable member said, that anyone on this side of the House could see the Prime Minister seeking to intimidate you today, as he has sought to intimidate others in the community since he became Prime Minister. I come back therefore to the dissent motion. We moved this dissent motion, stopping short of a motion of no confidence, because it is our only way under the Standing Orders, firstly, to express our disapproval of what you did in naming the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and, secondly, to indicate that there is a linkage in these sorts of events between the behaviour of the Prime Minister outside the Parliament, the behaviour of the Government in the Parliament and, more particularly, the evasive and misleading behaviour of the Prime Minister today which led to a conversation which merely referred to the bottom of the harbour and, as a consequence, a member of parliament was suspended from the House. How outrageous can it be? The Prime Minister sought to have me charged with being in contempt of court because I was critical of some of his political statements. He would now take action in the Parliament to get rid of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as a consequence of a private conversation. I think it is a sorry day for this Parliament when we get to the stage where one of the most honourable and respected members can be suspended for a private conversation but the Prime Minister can mislead the Parliament and no action can be taken against him. Mr Speaker, as a consequence, we moved dissent from your ruling. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.17) —The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has moved dissent from your ruling and I second the motion. Mr Speaker, we wanted to stop short of moving no confidence in you and the very high position which you hold. The circumstances of no confidence apply to the behaviour of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and not to you, sir. The circumstances of the Prime Minister and his behaviour in this House, the extent to which the Government consistently seeks to abuse Question Time and seeks to avoid answering properly serious matters of moment which are the concern of the Australian people, are the basis of our moving dissent from your ruling. Our concern is that one of the most upstanding members of this Parliament, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), has been suspended from its service simply because he spoke correctly and accurately about the tax dealings of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). It is important that, in looking at the dissent from your ruling, we realise that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was concerned in a private conversation to identify the fact that the Minister for Finance was running away from the proper exercise of his responsibilities in dealing with his own finances in the way in which he would be expected to as Minister formally responsible for taxation matters. For the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to be treated in the way in which he was when he was in private conversation with the Leader of the Opposition is totally unacceptable to members of the Opposition. Indeed, throughout the proceedings today, from the deliberate misleading by the Prime Minister in answer to a request that he table his notes, to the obfuscation by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) representing the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) in seeking to avoid the answering of any questions pertaining to the assets test, to the answer by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) about flicks for parliamentarians, this Government has shown that it is in a pre-election mode, trying to abort all serious consideration of matters of serious concern to the Australian electorate. Mr Speaker, the only action we can take is to move dissent from your ruling which related to the suspension from the House of a man who was trying, in private conversation, to identify some of those causes of concern. Question Time is one of the most important procedures within our Australian democratic system. It is absolutely important that Ministers come into this chamber and answer questions instead of, for example, the Minister for Health telling us that the Government was off inquiring into something that it has had before it since last August. Mr Speaker, in moving dissent from your ruling, we are seeking to identify that this Government is running away from its responsibilities. I have no doubt that the Leader of the House (Mr Young), who I see is shortly to follow me, intends to cut off the matter of public importance. Why? Because of the Minister for Health. The Minister for Health has already indicated that he is not prepared to tell pensioners that there will be no retrospectivity in the new assets test. We have learned today that it will go back to August. What the Minister for Health tried to do was to hide, through the answers that he did not give to this House, the very real concern that about two million Australian pensioners now properly have about the implications of whatever form the assets test might take for their entitlement to pensions and whatever repayment obligation might be imposed on them. In moving dissent from your ruling, Mr Speaker, what we are doing is identifying the fact that that ruling involved the wrongful suspension from the House of one of the members of the Opposition who was properly engaged in a private conversation while the Government was avoiding answering questions in the way that it has done right throughout the proceedings today. Mr Speaker, it is important that we realise that it was the Prime Minister who started the uproar today from which the suspension from the House of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition arose by refusing to acknowledge that he had read from documents, from notes that were obviously in front of him. By hiding those notes underneath a pad in front of him, he ran away from giving, as he should have, the right answer to the question asked by my colleague, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) who subsequently rose and asked that he table the notes. Mr Speaker, it is all very well for those on this side of the House to be identified as you have done today. But our concern is not just with the manner of that identification. It is with the fact that, quite obviously, as the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who was warned by you, Mr Speaker, a little while ago, indicated, both the Prime Minister and members of the Government seek to impose on you, by their behaviour in this House, a direction that is unacceptable. Mr Speaker, we believe in your integrity. We believe that it is important that a man in your position be able to exercise impartially the judgment that is your lot. But for the Prime Minister and members of the Government to seek to intrude in the way in which you exercise that judgment is totally unacceptable. It is important that the Question Time of this House be allowed to proceed and that honourable members be allowed to conduct conversations, whether they relate to the tax avoidance of the Minister for Finance or to any other matter of public moment. It is totally unacceptable that a ruling be given by you which seeks to result, and in this instance has resulted, in denying a voice in this Parliament to the electors of the seat of the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) simply because he held a private conversation. Mr Hunt —There are a lot of pensioners there. Mr SINCLAIR —Of course that is right. There are a lot of pensioners in the electorate of Bennelong. The honourable member for Bennelong is the spokesman of those electors and, I have no doubt, quite properly would have liked to speak during the assets test debate that we were told is to be shortly cut off. The basis for that is to avoid the Government being scrutinised for leaving so many pensioners in a state of total confusion as to the Government's intentions. Four questions regarding the proposed assets test were asked today, Mr Speaker. The Minister representing the Minister for Social Security refused to remove any of the doubt that exists in the minds of pensioners. Four questions were asked, all of which could have been answered in a positive way, four questions, which, if answered, would have ensured that the circumstances in which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was suspended from this House did not occur. But, Mr Speaker, of course the genesis of all this is that the Government is trying to avoid serious debate and public scrutiny, and certainly parliamentary scrutiny, on matters that affect Australian citizens. This Government, in its behaviour today in the Parliament and in its answers or non-answers during Question Time, is showing that it is entering a phase where it is not prepared to have its actions or its general legislative policy intentions scrutinised in the way it should. Last week we saw how little consultation the Government was prepared to engage in. Today we learned from the Prime Minister a little about the prices and incomes accord. He gave us nearly 10 minutes on the accord and on circumstances which show that the consultation which should be now part of the pre-election processes is totally being ignored. The only consultation is passing over to the Australian Council of Trade Unions the responsibility of determining what sort of personal tax cuts the Government may or may not provide. Mr Speaker, the ruling that you have given goes to the very heart of the scrutiny to which this Opposition wants to subject this Government. It is important that men such as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are able to speak in this House. It is important that they not be disadvantaged by a ruling that we believe disadvantaged him as an individual member in a totally unacceptable way. Mr Speaker, you have a high responsibility which requires impartiality. It means that you do not look only to this side of the Parliament, you also look to the Government benches. When several honourable members rose subsequent to the suspension of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition it behoved you to act to them as you did to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in a private conversation. Any ruling that intrudes on the rights of members of this Parliament, be they on either side, to the disadvantage of their electors is properly a matter of concern. In our view the ruling you made was wrong. It was not in accord with the principles and practices that a Speaker should exercise in the proper fulfilling of his function. We believe that it was, in part, a product of the circumstances of misbehaviour in this House which were generated by the Government, particularly the Prime Minister, in its avoidance of the proper answering of questions in this place. We believe that the Prime Minister and his Ministers are seeking to avoid the consequences of proper exposure to questions. We believe that the ruling you made in relation to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was totally wrong. It should not have been proceeded with in the way in which it was. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(3.27) —One is not sure where to commence. It seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) have ranged over almost every subject that they could have thought of in 30 minutes. Mr Ian Cameron —Why not? Mr YOUNG —I do not mind as long as I have the same opportunity to say a few words about our stand on these questions. The one good thing that has come out of this for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), who is now out in his office, is the very big rap given to him by the Leader of the Opposition, who said what a great Liberal he was, how competent he was and what a great economist he was. Mr Peacock —So he is. Mr YOUNG —He believes it too. He is out there running off that statement and sending it around the Liberal Party all over Australia. Next time there is a ballot in the Liberal Party the Leader of the Opposition will be sorry he said it. The last time a person rushed into a circumstance like this his name was Custer . I am not kidding. The Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party looked scalped in this debate as they tried, with the only miserable tactic available to them, to move dissent from the Speaker's ruling. I am amused that the Leader of the Opposition tells us that we are not of equal value in this House and that somehow people have to be treated differently. He said the Deputy Leader should not be suspended from the House because he is the Deputy Leader. Honourable members know who was the mentor for the colt from Kooyong-the great and late Sir Robert Menzies. As Leader of the Opposition he was suspended from the House. If Sir Robert Menzies can be suspended from the House why should we have new rules which would protect the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Bennelong? The honourable member for Bennelong was warned by the Speaker. Mr Peacock —Bob was not engaged in a private conversation. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Today I have constantly reminded the Leader of the Opposition of his responsibility to the Standing Orders of the House. I do not know whether he is deliberately trying to provoke the Chair. I trust that he is not. I ask him to observe appropriate parliamentary behaviour which he has just spent 10 or 15 minutes talking about. Mr YOUNG —A person is not warned on the first occasion on which he interjects. Those of us who have been here for some time know that. I would be surprised if the records showed that in this session of the Parliament the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been warned on fewer than 30 or 40 occasions. I think that we have in this House the most tolerant Speaker for many years. The records will show that not only the honourable member for Bennelong but also many other honourable members opposite have been warned continuously by the Speaker, without the Speaker taking any action. The only action he can take is to name the member. If the House disagrees with the Speaker, it votes accordingly. But in this case, as in 99 per cent of cases, the ruling of the Speaker, in naming the member, was upheld by the House. Now we are told that we are running away from scrutiny, that we do not want Question Time, that there is something wrong with the Government. Let me remind honourable members opposite of the great questions that confront this nation and its economy. A quick check in the last few minutes shows us that the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) have between them received no more than fifteen questions from the Opposition in this session of Parliament. So much for the great scrutiny of the Opposition! It has replaced competence with stupidity. It does not know how to operate as an Opposition. It does not know how to bring scrutiny and pressure to bear on the Government. Of course, what it is doing-- Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I have placed on notice a question to the Treasurer about the Prime Minister losing money at the Boulevard Hotel and they will not answer that. Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Tuckey —I will not resume my seat. Mr SPEAKER —I name the honourable member for O'Connor. Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the honourable member for O'Connor be suspended from the service of the House. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 46 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, 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.Hawke, R. J. L. Wells, D. McM.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C.Carlton, J. J. Newman, K. E.Coleman, W. P. O'Keefe, F. L.Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours. The honourable member for O'Connor thereupon withdrew from the chamber. Mr YOUNG —In the few minutes that are left available to me, I point out that, in regard to the rulings that have been given, House of Representatives Practice states: A member cannot move dissent from a ruling which has just been supported by a vote of the House. If dissent is to be moved from a ruling, in this case it must be moved before the Leader of the House moves suspension of a member from the House. Mr Hodgman —That is impossible. Mr YOUNG —It may be impossible; it is the practice of the House. I remind honourable members opposite that many more Speakers have come from the other side of the House than from ours. Most of the precedents that have been set have been set by those Speakers. Let me also refer to the matter which again sometimes causes anxiety in oppositions. Having been a member of a shadow Cabinet for some time, I accept that we did get a bit angry about it. When Ministers have notes, members of the Opposition go off their heads because the Minister says: 'No, they are not public documents'. Let me read what House of Representatives Practice states: The Speaker has laid down procedural rules to be followed when a request for tabling is made under this standing order. The Chair will first ask the question 'Has the Minister read from the document?'. If the answer is no, the Chair accepts the Minister's word. If the answer is yes -- Mr Cadman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The whole point of this issue is that the Prime Minister lied to the House-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Cadman —When he was asked whether he had read from those documents-- Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Mitchell-- Mr Cadman —He said no. He was obviously reading. Mr SPEAKER —I name the honourable member for Mitchell. Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the honourable member for Mitchell be suspended from the service of the House. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 45 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, 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.Hawke, R. J. L. Wells, D. McM.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C.Carlton, J. J. Newman, K. E.Coleman, W. P. O'Keefe, F. L.Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Mitchell is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours. The honourable member for Mitchell thereupon withdrew from the chamber. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The time for the Leader of the House to speak has expired. Motion (by Mr Scholes) proposed: That an extension of time be granted. Mr Porter —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. On two occasions members of the Opposition, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) and the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), have raised points of order and in the course of submitting their points of order they have been thrown out of this House. I ask for your clarification, Mr Speaker. You will recall that the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) stood in his place and interjected in fairly strong terms. He was not raising a point of order, mind you. He was not warned. Mr SPEAKER —He was warned. Mr Robert Brown —Liar! Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hunter will withdraw that remark. Mr Robert Brown —I withdraw. Mr Porter —I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I did not hear the warning given to the honourable member for Hunter. It is of concern that there be equality on both sides. If honourable members are to raise points of order rather than just gesticulate and interject-- Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member should come to his point of order. Mr Porter —Mr Speaker, I am asking you for an explanation of how honourable members are to raise a point of order. Mr SPEAKER —Order! You are giving an example. You are not getting to the point of your point of order. I ask you to do so. Mr Porter —I merely seek clarification from you, sir, in relation to the interjections made by the honourable member for Hunter and the treatment meted out to the honourable members for O'Connor and Mitchell. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member has not really raised a point of order but I am prepared to respond. The two honourable members who were suspended did rise on points of order. As they proceeded they had not come to their points of order . They were told to resume their seats. They defied the Chair and they defied it further on warning. The honourable member for Hunter was warned and he desisted. That is the answer to the point of order. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG —If the absence of the parliamentary dining room staff has caused all this ruckus today, the sooner they get back to work the better. The former Speaker in House of Representatives Practice on the question of Ministers speaking from notes et cetera-a practice carried on by the previous Government, of course-laid down the following procedural rules to be followed when a request for tabling is made under Standing Orders: The Chair will first ask the question 'Has the Minister read from the document? ' If the answer is 'no', the Chair accepts the Minister's word. If the answer is 'yes', then the Chair will ask the further question 'Is it a confidential document?'. If the Minister replies that it is confidential, then it is not required to be tabled. If it is not a confidential document, and the Minister has read from it, he is then required to table the document. This has always been the practice of the House. It is a practice that has been well experienced by the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the National Party and other former Ministers who are now in opposition. They know what the practice is. Apart from the frustration that it might bring on the heads of Opposition members, it should not lead to the behaviour that we have had in the House this afternoon. Therefore I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Newman, K. E.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Peacock, A. S.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Robinson, IanFife, W. C. Rocher, A. C.Fisher, P. S. Ruddock, P. M.Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. F.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, L. M.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, 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.Hawke, R. L. J. Wells, D. McM.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Dobie, J. D. M. Hayden, W. G. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr Wilson —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the previous debate the Leader of the House (Mr Young) drew the attention of the House to the ruling of one of your predecessors about the circumstances in which a document could be called for to be tabled. That ruling was made against a background of circumstances of which you will be aware. In earlier debates on this topic you have indicated that if the Minister says that he is not reading from a document, that is the end of the matter. Is there a situation in which circumstances could arise whereby you would review that ruling, Mr Speaker, because it had become an established practice for Ministers to say, as an automatic response, that they were not reading when clearly over a long period they were in fact doing so? Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member will know that the House of Representatives Practice enlarges on what is in the Standing Orders. The statement in the Standing Orders refers to a document on public affairs. It is possible for Ministers to read from notes, which are not necessarily documents on public affairs. I think that that is the reason why it is not for the Chair to judge. The procedure has been laid down so that the Chair, in making the ruling, has those two questions as guidelines. If the House feels aggrieved, action is open to it by substantive motion. The Leader of the National Party raised this question with me several weeks ago. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House, I present a statement on issues from the Advance to the Minister for Finance for February 1984. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House, I present the report of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission for the 1985-87 triennium, volume 1, parts 1 to 5, and a summary report, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) relating to the report. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to section 79ZH of the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1977, I present the annual report for 1982-83 of the Special Broadcasting Service. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of Christmas Island for 1981- 82. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —Pursuant to section 12 of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance 1939, I present the Australian Capital Territory Registrar of Co-operative Societies annual report for 1982-83. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members I present a report entitled 'Non-Wage Incomes: The Professions'. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —For the information of honourable members, I seek leave to table the report of the panel of review of the proposed income and assets test, May 1984. Leave not granted. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. I seek leave to make a statement regarding the report. Leave granted. Mr WILLIS —On 10 November 1983 I announced in this chamber the establishment of an Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. The task of this body was to report to the Government on the details of a national strategy and framework for occupational health and safety. Today, I have pleasure in tabling the report and recommendations of the Interim Commission. The Hawke Labor Government has reiterated on many occasions its commitment to improving the unacceptably high national record of occupational death, injury and illness. I am convinced more than ever that only through concerted national effort and the commitment and goodwill of unions, employers, State and Commonwealth governments and the community generally will this dreadful toll be reduced. The Interim Commission was asked to report to the Government within six months. This was no easy task, particularly in light of the extensive consultation required. I would like to thank the Chairman, Dr Richie Gun, and members of the Interim Commission, and the secretariat, who all worked to achieve this blueprint for change. The dedication and commitment demonstrated in this inquiry are no small foundation on which to build for the future. The terms of reference of the Interim Commission were to advise on: The detailed functions, structure, membership, staffing levels, methods of operation and future consultative arrangements of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, the National Occupational Health and Safety Office and the National Institute of Environmental and Occupational Health; appropriate legislative proposals; interagency links for the common occupational health and safety interests of the proposed bodies and the proposed Environmental Contaminants Authority; aspects of cost-sharing with the States and cost-recovery through fees for licences and inspections and any other areas where user-pay principles might be applied; and a review mechanism to enable evaluation of the performance of the Commission. Method of Operation The Government asked the Interim Commission to ensure that an opportunity for extensive participation was provided. Consultations were held in every capital city and a total of 150 different groups and agencies were able to present their views on the Government's proposals. In addition 143 organisations and individuals with an interest in the area took the time to prepare written submissions for consideration. The Interim Commission also prepared a discussion paper headed 'Towards Implementing a National Occupational Health and Safety Strategy' which was released in January, 1984. More than 6,000 copies were distributed to a wide range of individuals and organisations. The discussion paper identified some of the major deficiencies in the field and advanced a number of tentative proposals for consideration and comment during the consultative process. The industry and community response confirmed that there is a wide range of committed organisations and individuals who not only desired to participate but also were prepared to contribute to the development of a national action plan and work with the Government to improve occupational health and safety. Significance of the Report Before outlining some of the major recommendations of this report I would like to comment on the significance not only of the work of the Interim Commission but also of this new Federal initiative. The need to develop our national occupational health and safety strategy is an essential component of the non- wage aspects of the prices and incomes accord. The very presence of this matter in the accord demonstrates a greater awareness and concern for the human costs arising from unhealthy and unsafe working environments. In recent weeks there has been much said about wage restraint and reports have focused on these elements of the accord. However, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and Australian Labor Party accord is also based on the objective of improving working conditions. At the heart of this is our firm belief that all workers have a right to a safe and healthy working environment. The Government's move towards giving greater priority to occupational health and safety is also a major response to the recommendations of the National Economic Summit Conference held in this chamber in April 1983 where the nation's leading figures in the spheres of government, industry, unions and community groups were unanimous in urging that concerted action be taken to improve Australian working environments. Of major significance throughout the work of the Interim Commission has been the extent to which the State governments have participated and expressed their support for a co-ordinated national effort. This has been demonstrated by the fact that all State and Territory governments and their departments met with the Interim Commission and provided input for consideration in the development of a national strategy. Over the past 12 months , several State governments have taken major initiatives in reviewing their responsibilities and legislative arrangements in this area. In the Interim Commission's view, this activity has highlighted even more sharply the need for co-ordination and collaboration of efforts between State and Commonwealth governments. I concur strongly with this view. At the time this Government established the Interim Commission we also established a broader National Consultative Committee comprising all State and Northern Territory governments, the ACTU, the Confederation of Australian Industry and Federal representatives, to ensure that State governments had a forum in which details of the national strategy could be discussed. The Interim Commission draft report was circulated to all State governments, and a meeting was held of the National Consultative Committee to discuss the report and recommendations. I am therefore confident that the State governments support the major thrust and recommendations of this report. This exercise seems to have provided an example of co-operative federalism working at its best. If there is to be a major improvement in occupational health and safety then there is a need to re-orient our activity and efforts to put greater emphasis on prevention. The key to prevention is action based on objective research and open access to information by those parties directly responsible and directly affected at the work place level. Not only is participation important at the State and Federal levels but also work place arrangements should be developed to ensure active participation by workers together with management. All will need training and information for this task. The Interim Commission recognised and accepted this basic premise. Its report and recommendations reflect this approach. Apart from a co-ordinating and facilitating role at the national level this Government recognises that it has responsibilities in areas of Commonwealth jurisdiction, particularly as an employer. We are committed to putting our own house in order. The Interim Commission was asked to advise the Government on what action it considered necessary to ensure that the performance of the Commonwealth in this regard is improved. We intend to honour our commitment in this area. This Government came to office with an avowed intention of promoting national reconciliation and consensus. Such a spirit should be, and can be, achieved in the area of occupational health and safety. I believe that through the tripartite mechanism of the Interim Commission, it has been demonstrated that parties with different interests can indeed agree to find solutions to common problems. Major Recommendations The report of the Interim Commission is extensive and provides some 81 recommendations for the Government's consideration. I would commend the report as worthwhile reading for all honourable members. In summary, the major recommendations include: That the Government establish, by statute, a tripartite National Occupational Health and Safety Commission comprising a chairperson and representatives of employee and employer peak councils, of all State Governments and the Northern Territory Government and of the Federal Ministers for Health and Employment and Industrial Relations-the total membership to be 16. The Commission, as the umbrella body, should be supported by two operational arms-a National Office to provide policy, operational and regulatory support; and a National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety to provide scientific and technical support and expertise. To ensure broader participation by persons with specialist knowledge and expertise, the National Commission should be supported by an infrastructure of standing committees, industry committees and working parties. Of particular concern is ensuring the participation of women, migrants and groups with special needs. The primary role for the Commonwealth through the National Commission should be one of co-ordination and facilitation-to develop national standards, establish priorities and sponsor research training and information collection and dissemination. The National Commission should develop proposals for appropriate legislation and standards, ensure the implementation of these within areas of Commonwealth jurisdiction and promote their adoption by the States and the Northern Territory . The Interim Commission recommended that the current and traditional practice, whereby State governments exercise their now jurisdictional control over occupational health and safety, should remain. Significant representation was made to the Interim Commission that there needed to be a rationalisation of responsibility at the Federal level. Therefore, it was recommended that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations have the Commonwealth responsibility for all aspects of occupational health and safety. In line with this recommendation concerning rationalisation at the Federal level, the Interim Commission recommended that in the important area of control of industrial chemicals, this function should be the responsibility of the National Commission. This would result in the Commission having responsibility for the notification, assessment and future licensing arrangements for industrial chemicals. The environmental impact and assessment of chemicals should remain the responsibility of the proposed Environmental Contaminants Authority. Considerable investment of both staff and financial resources needs to be made by the Commonwealth, through the proposed Commission, for standards development, research, training and information. The Interim Commission believes that the magnitude of this task requires a national training policy, with a national approach to the assessment of existing resources and future needs, accreditation of occupational health and safety courses, and the funding and subsidy of training programs. Specialised training is also required for particular categories of personnel, such as managers, safety officers, inspectors and professionals. It also believes that workers have a fundamental right to information on the potential hazards of their work environment such as physical and chemical exposures, and that it is especially important that scientifically accurate information be presented in a form intelligible to the user. This requires both translation of information into non-technical language and, where necessary, translation into languages other than English; more specialised information is also an essential requirement of others such as research workers, inspectors, safety officers and professional and technical health and safety personnel. As a tripartite body, the Commission should be responsible for determining the priorities for action at the national level. This should ensure that there is a closer link between the identified 'real' needs of the work place and any consequent corrective action. The Interim Commission expressed its concern about wholly inadequate occupational health and safety legislation and activity in areas of Commonwealth jurisdiction-Commonwealth employment and the private sector in the Australian Capital Territory and external territories. It recommended that new comprehensive legislation is urgently required and that its development should be considered as a top priority by the proposed Commission. Further on this matter, the Interim Commission made several other recommendations including: There should be no Crown immunity from prosecution in any future health and safety legislation in areas of Commonwealth jurisdiction. There should be no dichotomy in legislation covering the public and private sectors under Commonwealth jurisdiction. The principal body for occupational health and safety in Commonwealth jurisdiction should be the National Commission; the implementation and enforcement activity should be carried out by the office. Appropriate consultative mechanisms should be established to ensure co- operation and participation between interests in Commonwealth employment and the Australian Capital Territory and external territories, in developing legislation for Commonwealth jurisdiction and ongoing implementation of national standards. Government Response I have stated that the Government considers this national initiative in occupational health and safety to be of the highest priority. My intention is therefore to respond to the Interim Commission's report as soon as possible. Considerable momentum of public interest has been developed in this issue over the past six months. It is imperative that this momentum is maintained. In the meantime there will be two important vehicles to ensure that ongoing work and basic developments are continued. Firstly, the National Consultative Committee on Occupational Health and Safety will continue to provide a forum for State and Federal government, union and employer interchange. It will continue also to provide a source of advice for developments at the national level. Secondly, I have decided to continue the secretariat of the Interim Commission. Considerable expertise and experience has been developed within this group during the preparation of the report. I agree with the Interim Commission's recommendation that this group should be retained to progress a number of important ongoing tasks. Conclusion If the goals set by this initiative are to be met there is need for participative and co-operative efforts in the work place, a determination among administrators and a strong political will. I am confident that the Interim Commission has achieved much and achieved it through the commitment of unions, employers, State governments and the Federal Government to work together; to combine their resources and to ensure that a preventive strategy for occupational health and safety becomes a reality in this country. I present the following paper: Interim Commission on Occupational Health and Safety-Ministerial Statement, 29 May 1984. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(4.17) —The Opposition welcomes the tabling of the report of the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). As I said on 10 November last when the Minister announced the establishment of the Interim Commission, the Opposition embraces the objectives of a national strategy on occupational health and safety. That remains the case and I, along with the Minister, congratulate the Interim Committee, the representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Confederation of Australian Industry and the State and Commonwealth governments on the work they have done. In the six months the Commission had to prepare its report it undertook some 150 meetings in all States and territories of the Commonwealth. It considered 143 written submissions and some members went on a two-week fact finding mission to Europe. This report is therefore a long one; it runs to over 280 pages and includes appendices. I have not the time and this is not the appropriate occasion on which to comment in detail. The report has some 81 separate recommendations which require careful consideration by the Opposition as well as the Government. The appropriate time for detailed response will be when the Government makes a detailed response to the report, and the Minister has indicated he will do that as soon as he can. Also, subsequent to that, presumably in the Budget session, the Government will introduce legislation and we again will examine that responsibly and appropriately. As I said on 10 November, the Opposition strongly supports the role of the Commonwealth in co-ordinating a national occupational health and safety strategy . Indeed it pursued that objective when in office. The question is how it is most effectively done and cost-effectively done. Conservative estimates indicate that occupational ill health and injury cost the community something like $6 billion a year, which is twice the widely publicised road accident figure of $3 billion a year. That, of course, does not count the cost in human terms of family tragedy and psychological trauma. Of course, it is always observed that the cost of industrial accidents and occupational ill health far exceeds the cost of strike action even in the record years of strike action. In saying that I do not condone or exonerate the cost due to strike action; this merely highlights the condemnation that ought to surround our bad record of industrial safety and occupational ill health. Some 300 people are killed each year and l50,000 are injured through accidents at work and occupational disease. That is the tragic economic and human cost and one which deserves the highest priority from all sections of the community, particularly employers and State governments. The recommendations of the report are based on: The commitment of employers, employees and their respective organisations and government, to an equitable and prevention oriented occupational health and safety system based on the principles of participation and acceptance of appropriate responsibility. They are intended to build upon what currently exists in an effort to prevent work-related death, illness and injury. Other key aspects of the report include the understanding that the Commonwealth' s role is primarily a co-ordinating and facilitating one as the major jurisdiction over occupational health and safety will continue to lie with the States. Also the report recognises that a healthy and safe work place cannot be achieved solely by regulation and also reveals a need to establish national standards and priorities with the greater emphasis on prevention. The Opposition agrees with the Minister that prevention is the key. As the report itself says: A determined effort must be made to recognise, measure and control the causes of occupational injury and disease. I observe that for too long State governments have believed that it has been enough to provide employees with a compulsory workers compensation scheme. Some States have largely failed their employees in respect of rehabilitation programs and they have all really failed the community at large in terms of the cost of workers compensation. Persons with any involvement in the area are only too well aware that a large proportion of available funds is dissipated in medical and legal fees rather than going to employees who are affected. Nor has there been, as I have observed, sufficient emphasis on rehabilitation. I remember being involved 12 or 13 years ago in an inquiry in New South Wales where the trade union movement and the employers, whose case I was co-ordinating at the time, almost had agreement in what was required in respect of prevention, insurance including second injury cases, and rehabilitation programs. But the Government of the day and its successor have not acted in accordance with recommendations of that report. That seems to be a picture applying pretty much State by State. Now we have the situation of a rapid increase in workers compensation premiums which, as a labour on-cost, is now a matter of serious national concern. The rise in workers compensation on-costs far exceeds the rise in wages. It is paralleled only by the unpardonable increase in payroll tax. It is important that this be grappled with in a co-ordinating way by the Federal Government. There is an urgent need to tackle occupational health and safety at the prevention level and certainly to look at the cost of handling this. The burden of on-costs has a very adverse impact on our competitiveness. They have seriously strained the spirit of federalism itself. I join with the Minister in expressing concern about the way in which this work has been tackled by State governments in the past. I do not believe the business community or the wider community will tolerate a continuation of the administration of workers compensation as it currently is, where it is a major cost on employment. I take this opportunity to call on the Minister to ensure that the question of on-costs and employment consequences is high on the agenda of next month's Premiers Conference. Ultimately, the Federal and State governments must determine their collective expenditure needs and rearrange the taxation mix so that workers compensation costs are reduced and payroll tax is abolished. The Interim Commission has asked that the minimum level of funding should be $24m in the first full year, increasing to $41m in the following year. The Opposition will have to reserve judgment on these figures, of course, until the Government is in a position to give details of how those funds will be spent. One hopes they will be in lieu of some expenditure now being carried out at a State level. The amount of $24m may sound little enough compared with the $6 billion which accidents are estimated to cost the community. Nevertheless, it is the proper role of the Opposition and this Parliament to examine a detailed cost benefit analysis of that expenditure. The Minister in presenting his statement went on at some length about the relevance of this report to the prices and incomes accord. In doing that he has given the impression that this work is really the result of that accord. I do not deny that it has a prominent place in the accord but the truth is that the National Labour Consultative Council has long been looking at this on a tripartite basis. It has a long-established committee seeking to bring about national co-ordination in this area. Of course, the employers who have given at all stages the most wholesome co-operation in examining this problem are not parties to the accord; they are co-operating not because of the accord but because of their own sense of concern about the human and economic cost of the current state of prices. I believe that as a matter of bipartisan approach, which we are still seeking in some areas of debate in this House-this is certainly one-we should not lay all the credit for this co-operation at the feet of the accord, although that certainly prompted the Government to give it a high priority. The employers' contribution to this report has been extremely constructive and has nothing whatsoever to do with the accord. At the risk of appearing a little churlish I also refer to the current campaign for site agreements on occupational health and safety in Victoria. This campaign is being co-ordinated by the Victorian Trades Hall Council whose secretary, Mr Ken Stone, served on the Interim Commission. I know of very few people in this country with a greater record of active work in the matter of occupational health and safety than Mr Stone. My remarks are not aimed at him personally but as the servant of the Victorian Trades Hall Council he has been leading a campaign which is totally incompatible with the national approach advocated by the Interim Commission. I believe it is most regrettable that this is continuing . I believe it is most inappropriate that this is so. I ask the Minister to call on Mr Stone and the Victorian Trades Hall Council to abandon this unfortunate move in the interests of promoting the national initiative of co-ordination which is espoused in the report just tabled. Also in respect of the Victorian Government I ask that the Minister call for an abandonment of legislation which is currently causing great consternation to employers in Victoria and which has led to a great deal of debate which I believe is counter-productive to the objectives of improved occupational health and safety. I put the Minister on notice that when this matter is discussed substantively here I will be asking for an explanation for the way in which the actions of the Victorian Government- which are provocative to say the least-can be made compatible with the approach outlined in this report. Finally, I make it clear that although the national employers have participated energetically and willingly in the preparation of this report it does not imply that they are giving the Government carte blanche to impose a burdensome system of regulations and greater costs on industry and commerce. The report makes it clear that a healthy and safe working place cannot be achieved solely by regulation. The measures which the Government finally introduces must have due regard to economic circumstances and the need not just to contain costs but also indeed to reduce costs to improve our international competitiveness. I believe that we certainly must give the reduction in industrial accidents and the improvement in occupational health and safety standards a very high priority of real action. However, this must be done by a major overhaul of laws and practices and by a reduction in the costs of administration of those laws and practices, not simply by adding to those already demonstrably inefficient and expensive means a further bureaucracy which will only add to the hamstringing of industry, add to the unemployability of some people and add to the uncompetitiveness of our industries. The Opposition cannot be blamed for being suspicious of the tendency to resolve problems by allocating more money without going to the heart of the bureaucratic problems; I believe that in many respects that is what they are. I assure the House that, probing though we will be, we will be most constructive in the eventual debate. Having attended Federal-State Ministers for Labour conferences regularly from 1976 to 1979, where the subject of industrial safety and occupational health arose, when I returned to those conferences three years later I was most disappointed to see how little progress had been made. Therefore, I do recognise the need for action. We will adopt a most positive, practical, humane but nonetheless cost effective approach to the substantive debate. Debate (on motion by Mr Morrison) adjourned. (Quorum formed) The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Pornographic Publications 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 before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulation and Customs (Cinematograph and Films) Regulations and supersede the ACT 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 videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from Customs. 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 the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; That further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; That, because of the importance of this issue to the whole community a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew,Mr John Brown,Mr Robert Brown,Ms Fatin,Mr Goodluck,Mrs Kelly,Mr Lusher,Mr Reeves and Mr Snow. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: 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 principles involves, 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 Blunt,Mr Cohen,Mr Fisher,Mr Maher,Mr Ian Robinson,Mr Simmons and Mr Spender. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Robert Brown,Mr Charles,Mr Child,Mr Chynoweth,Mr Connolly and Mr Maher . To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we, the loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our strong opposition to any proposals to remove or undermine the importance of the place of God and/ or the Queen in our national life, and democratic institutions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Parliament assembled reaffirm our nation's total dependence on God the Creator in accordance with our Australian Constitution, which commences with the words ''Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God'', and 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 Blunt,Mr Carlton,Mr Mildren and Mr O'Keefe. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that. 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a ''first strike'' attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne . 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped, if we are to survive. Your petitioners pray that Members and the House assembled will close Omega. by Mrs Child,Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Steedman. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty-two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action nor legislate in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cowan,Mr Fisher,Mr Goodluck and Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows : That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens 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 assembed ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. by Mr Hawker,Mr Maher,Mr Porter and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The Federal Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements; and 2. the Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. scrap its proposed assets test legislation; 2. either institute a broad enquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter; and 3. following the report of such a wide enquiry institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourges self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that the current discriminatory application of sales tax on confectionery at the rate of 20 per cent is an unfair and unjust burden on this important manufacturing industry and your petitioners therefore pray that confectionery be treated in a similar fashion to all other foods, including snack foods, which are exempt from sales tax. by Mrs Child and Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, parents and teachers working for and in the interests of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout Australia, respectfully showeth that: We support the Federal Government's determination to restore the community's confidence in public education. We support the Federal Government's opposition to base grants to ALL non government schools (a) by reducing funds to those schools already operating above community standards and (b) funding other schools according to need. We support the Federal Government's policy of negotiations and planning with State/Territory Governments regarding joint programmes for improvements in Government schools in the next decade. 1. We ask that the Federal Government increase recurrent funding for Government schools as promised. 2. We ask that the Federal Government provide promised funding for special programmes to assist primary children with learning difficulties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Everingham and Mr Hayden. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognize that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognize that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognize that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fry and Mr Milton. 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 Hurford and Mr Scholes. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: We protest the proposed relocation of the Artillery and Infantry Schools from North Head, Singleton and Holsworthy to the Central Tablelands of New South Wales, and the Cobar district. We humbly pray that the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will ensure that the current investigation being carried out in the Central Tablelands is ceased forthwith and that no Military Establishment be located in the Central Tablelands of New South Wales. And in duty bound, do we pray. by Mrs Kelly and Mr Simmons. To the Right 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. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia , namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation 's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable house will: Propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change.' And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully believing that: There is demonstrated evidence of a need for child care facilities by staff, users, and potential users of the National Library of Australia and surrounding buildings in Parkes, ACT; There are at present no such existing facilities; Provision has already been made for inclusion of the facilities in planned extensions to the Library, Humbly petition that your Honourable House reverse the decision by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment disallowing provision for child care facilities in the extensions to the National Library of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows : That Bozlin Pty. Ltd. trading as John Bozic Automotive Services, have provided for many years good and reliable service to customers near Parliament House, and represent the only Automotive Service Station available in the Parliamentary triangle, convenient to visitors and persons working at, or near Parliament House. That the National Capital Development Commission has indicated its intention to close the access road between Coronation Drive and Kaye Place. That access has existed in one form or another between Kaye Place and Coronation Drive for most of the last fifty five years, and in the judgement of petitioners that access road is convenient, and represents no traffic hazard. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will ensure that the traffic link between Coronation Drive and Kaye Place is not closed. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers and parents working in and for the interests of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout Australia, respectfully showeth that: 1. We deplore the unprincipled and self-interested attacks being orchestrated by minority sects and groups against the policies and person of the Commonwealth Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, the Hon. Senator Susan Ryan. 2. We fully support the Federal Government's actions in reducing funds for the wealthiest private schools, and in breaking the nexus between government and non -government school costs. 3. We endorse the Federal Government's principled opposition to the provision of 'base grants' to all non-government schools, as a positive step towards fulfilling their commitment of primary obligation to Australia's government schools. 4. We call upon the Federal Government however to recognise that its failure to create an adequate general recurrent resource base for government schools through providing increased recurrent grants, will undermine its own Special Programmes and thus frustrate its own stated educational objectives of greater equity and participation. 5. We support the Federal Government's stated policy of entering into direct negotiations for joint agreement on these grants with State/Territory Governments, to ensure a planned programme of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decades. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The petition from parents representing the government schools in New South Wales respectfully showeth that : 1. They call on the Federal Government to re-affirm publicly that its primary obligation is to government schools. 2. They support the Federal Government's policy decisions which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government school costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent resource base which is adequate for government schools through the provision of increased recurrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State/ Territory Governments which will ensure a planned programme of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the prospect of the proposed Plant Breeders' Rights legislation. The reasons are as follows: (1) We believe it will eventually lead to the restriction of sales of many varieties of seed; (2) We believe it will cause the disappearance of many useful plant varieties as evidenced by similar legislation in Europe; (3) We believe that it will cause the Australian seed industry to become foreign controlled; (4) We believe that a full public debate has not taken place and should take place before any laws are passed on the patenting of a life form. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly request that Parliament take positive action as soon as possible to arrest the implementation of such legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms Mayer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The service provided by Telecom to the subscribers on the automatic telephone exchange known as Manobalai situated at Wybong, 30 km from Muswellbrook in N.S.W . is intolerable and has been since January 1984. We have no telephone during wet weather to provide us with flood warnings hence high costs to farmers in loss of stock and irrigation equipment and danger to motorists using low-level creek crossings. Given fine weather the few lines to town are so congested that it can take several hours to make a call and in an emergency this could cost a life. Our livelihood is at risk also-if we can't ring a Vet., place or reply to an advertisement, make an appointment, order parts etc. by telephone it means driving to town. We all live 25 to 50 km from town and feel a reliable telephone service is a necessity. We pay for a continuous service. We have not had one since early January. We want it restored. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr O'Keefe. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the introduction of Medicare has not resulted in a cheaper, fairer system of health care as promised by the Federal Government. Rather, it is an expensive, bureaucratic scheme, depersonalising medical services and conducive to medical mediocrity. While recognising the responsibility which exists to assist those in need, we humbly request the Government to review this system which moves towards the nationalisation of Australian medicine. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That some doctors are charging pensioners for consultation and other services. This is causing grave concern and anxiety among our members. Therefore your petitioners urge that: The Government make it obligatory for all doctors to bulk bill pensioner patients. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr West. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned electors of North Queensland respectfully showeth: that the National Highway is the responsibility of the Federal Government, the Bruce Highway in North Queensland is of inferior standard for a National Highway, Queensland has suffered a 15% disadvantage over other states during the past ten years in road funding, and the state of the Highway is deteriorating as maintenance expenditure is insufficient to maintain even the present standard. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will allocate sufficient expenditure, to raise the standard of the National Highway in North Queensland to Department of Transport standards, in conjunction with the Queensland Government, within ten years. 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 assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia, namely the students of Catherine McAuley High School, Darcy Road, Westmead, N.S.W., draws to the attention of the House, the urgency and necessity for an extension of our Junior Secondary School to accommodate Years 11 and 12. Reasons for the request: 1. Lack of spaces in surrounding Systemic Senior High Schools to accommodate girls leaving Year 10. 2. Disruption to a settled learning environment in the following ways: (a) Curriculum-subjects studied at Catherine McAuley are not always available at surrounding Systemic Senior High Schools. (b) Having Years 11 and 12 at Catherine McAuley Girls High School, Westmead, would encourage more of our students to complete their High School studies, therefore giving them greater employment opportunities. (c) Last year and this year our enrolments at the Year 7 level have increased greatly, placing stress on available classrooms. When these girls reach Year 11, they will find it hard to be accommodated in surrounding Systemic Senior High Schools. (d) We, ourselves feel a great sense of pride and belonging in our School and wish to have the chance to continue this feeling of growth and pride to the completion of Year 12. Your Petitioners therefore pray that you give earnest consideration to our submission and afford us any financial help possible. by Mr John Brown. 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 Mr Cross. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned electors of the Division of the Mallee 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 Fisher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled- The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria showeth our concern over the continuing taxation of parents' Club bank accounts by way of the Bank Account Debit Tax. Your petitioners therefore pray that- Parent clubs being set up by Government Regulation in the State of Victoria ( Regulation XLII) be recognised by the Australian Government as education auxiliaries, in the same way as are School Councils. The Treasurer move immediately to exempt parent Clubs from the tax in the same way as are School Councils. Your petitioners, in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the citizens of New South Wales respectfully 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 commerical television and radio. 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: The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of Local Governments in Australia shows that General Revenue Grants to Local Government under Personal Income Tax Sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2% in 1983-84 over 1982-83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2%, The increase in grants to State Governments over the same period was 11.8%, Increased demands are being made on Local Government Authorities to participate in Federal Government programs, e.g. Community Employment Program, The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in General Revenue Grants to Local Government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to Local Government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. by Mr Maher. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The continuing uncertainty and alarm felt by Australia's elderly because of the Government's reactions to the latest proposals for an assets test. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(4.38) —Mr Deputy Speaker, more than two million pensioners-- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 43 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. 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.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hawke, R. J. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C.Carlton, J. J. Newman, K. E.Coleman, W. P. O'Keefe, F. L.Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr MORRISON(St George) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence I present the Committee's report entitled 'Regional Conflict and Superpower Rivalry in the Horn of Africa'. I ask for leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr MORRISON —This is the third report dealing with Africa that has been presented to the Parliament by the Joint Committee within the last six months. Honourable members will recall that previously the Committee tabled a report titled 'Some Observations on Australia's Diplomatic Representation in Africa and Adjacent Indian Ocean Island States' and a report titled 'The Provision of Development Assistance and Humanitarian Aid to the Horn of Africa'. The purpose of this report is somewhat different. It is designed to contribute to a better understanding of a little known or understood region, particularly in view of the fact that information on the current conflicts and problems of the area is not readily accessible, certainly in Australia. This we regard as an important function of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. The report concentrates on the three countries that comprise the Horn of Africa. Those countries are: Somalia, Ethopia and Djibouti. There is also reference in the report to Kenya and the Sudan. To understand the current issues one must recognise the legacy of the colonial occupation of the African continent, particularly the boundaries that cut across ethnic and national groups which the new states have perpetuated. In fact, in a series of decisions in 1963-64, the Organisation of African Unity underlined the inherited boundaries. In fact, those decisions made those inherited boundaries sacrosanct. We can get some example of the difficulties arising from those boundaries when we recognise, for instance, that the ethnic Somalis are dispersed through Ethiopia, Kenya and Djibouti. So any understanding of the Pan- Somali movement is vital to any comprehension of Somali politics. We also reported that among the difficulties associated with this part of the world are the grinding poverty and the refugee problems. But these are dealt with in much greater detail in the report that I mentioned previously on development assistance and humanitarian aid to the Horn of Africa. In understanding the problems of the Horn of Africa, we must also be aware of the intervention and the involvement of outside powers in the countries of the region. As we would all be aware, the Horn of Africa is strategically located. It is close to the great oil producing areas of the Middle East and the transport routes from those areas to the West. We would also be fully aware that bases in the Horn of Africa allow the projection of naval power into the Indian Ocean. I would like to draw the attention of honourable members particularly to the section of the report-in fact, it is part III of the report-which deals with what I can describe only as the manoeuvrings of the big powers in this region. I am reminded of an Asian proverb, which is: 'When an elephant walks, wise ants get out of the way'. But unfortunately for the people of this region, they have not been able to get out of the way. The cynicism of big power politics is all too well revealed in the recent history of the Horn and is documented in the report which I have presented. The Horn has been a cockpit for big power influence. Until 1977 the United States was influential in Ethiopia. At the same time, the Soviet Union exercised influence in Somalia. But after 1977, that situation was reversed. The Soviet Union is now influential in Ethiopia and the United States is influential in Somalia. As the report points out, what we can observe in this area is an interest by super-powers and great powers which wish not so much to take a position of influence in the region for its own sake as to be in a position to deny access and advantage to the opposing super-power. It is in this context that the main victims have been the ethnic Somalis of the Ogaden region of Ethiopia and the Eritreans. While the United States exercised influence in Ethiopia the Soviet Union supported the Eritrean independence movement. Now that the Soviet Union exercises influence it has supported Ethiopia in stifling Eritrean independence. It is clear from the information available to the Committee that history, especially recent history, has not been kind to the Eritrean people. It is also clear that the Ethiopians are adamant that they will not relinquish their claim to Eritrea. In this they are supported, for very complicated and, I might say, tortuous processes, by the Organisation of African Unity. Regrettably, a peaceful solution to the problem does not appear possible. The Committee, as distinct from the major part of the report which provides detailed background, does make one specific suggestion to the Government. It arises out of many submissions made to the Sub-Committee relating to the Ethiopian conduct of its war against Eritrean nationalists. In the report we point out that there seems to be sufficient substance in the allegations about human rights violations in Eritrea to warrant Australia seeking an official explanation from the Ethiopian Government. The Committee considers that the Australian Government should seek to ascertain the truth of these allegations. As I have mentioned, the report is a background paper and, apart from the observation I have just made, does not contain recommendations and conclusions, as we have done in previous reports. On the other hand, it is an analytical report and, therefore, must contain some biases. If it were to be otherwise, it would merely be a bland catalogue of uninterpretative factual information. Other matters which the report analyses and to which I have not yet referred include the relations of the Horn countries with their neighbours, including the Organisation of African Unity countries, and a history of recent internal political developments in Ethiopia, Somalia and Djibouti. Because of the analytical nature of the report, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would make a response in the usual way. The current Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has been good enough to provide comprehensive responses to previous reports to the Committee and we look forward to his reponse to this report. On behalf of the Committee I wish to commend the former Chairman of the Sub- Committee on Middle Eastern and African Affairs, the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie), and members of the Committee during the Thirty-second Parliament. I would also like to commend Senator Sibraa under whose chairmanship the terms of reference of the Sub-Committee were completed, along with his deputy, Senator Hill. Last but not least, I commend the work and particularly the devotional interest of the Secretary of the Committee, Mr Ron Wiber, who saw the report through to its final production. I commend the report to the House. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —by leave-The report entitled 'Regional Conflict and Superpower Rivalry in the Horn of Africa' is the third report of the Sub- Committee on Middle Eastern and African Affairs established to examine the geo- political situation in the Horn of Africa and peripheral countries and to report to the Parliament through the full Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. The first report was entitled 'Some Observations on Australia's Diplomatic Representation in Africa and Adjacent Indian Ocean Island States' and , of course, concluded with a number of recommendations. The second report, which was debated, I think, on 1 March this year, was entitled 'The Provision of Development Assistance and Humanitarian Aid to the Horn of Africa'. It was intended that that report be produced earlier than the one before us today so as to be in time for submission to the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program in its investigations of foreign aid. The current report before us, on regional conflict and super-power rivalry in the Horn of Africa, is, as the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison) put it, an analytical report and not one containing recommendations. Nevertheless, the area is one of those cockpits of the world of super-power rivalry. It is an area of tremendous strategic importance. Its three-quarters of a million square miles is, for the large part, desert. But it is of great importance, being in close proximity to the oil rich Middle East and the transport routes to and from the Middle East, to the industrial oil-consuming countries. Its 50 million people live lives which have been described as 'nasty, brutish and short'. It has produced half of the world's refugees, about 10 million. In the recent terrible years of famine some 200,000 died there. It is not surprising that Australia's aid to the Horn has increased from 2 per cent of total foreign aid to some 10 per cent which it is at the moment. As far as super-power rivalry is concerned, the position is that the Soviet build-up in Ethiopia places the Horn in a similar position to Libya and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen. The build-up has arisen from what the report calls 'the diplomatic swap-over of 1977'. Until 1977 Ethiopia was allied with the United States and Somalia with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Since the civil wars of 1977 the position has changed. There has been a swap, with Somalia now being the United States' ally and Ethiopia being the Soviet Union's ally. As the report states, by 1982 the USSR had given approximately $2 billion to $3 billion worth of weapons to Ethiopia. It airlifted l0,000 to 12, 000 Cuban troops between November 1977 and January 1978. Two thousand Soviet advisers and 500 Bulgarian advisers as well as Libyans and Southern Yeminis are present to bolster the Ethiopian forces. All this followed, as I said, the 'Red terror', as the report calls it, of 1977-the period when some 30,000 political prisoners were in detention, 100 people were killed every night in Addis Ababa and 30,000 were reported to have died from executions or torture at the hands of the Provisional Military Administrative Committee. Whereas most people are familiar with the Soviet and Cuban build-up in Angola, there is a larger Soviet and eastern European military personnel presence in Ethiopia. As the report makes clear in a table published on page 78, there were some 1,400-these are 1978 figures-Soviet military personnel in Ethiopia as against 1,300 in Angola. Although Angola had 19,000 Cuban troops then, Ethiopia already had 16,500. So there is a very significant Soviet build-up, not only of military personnel but also of technicians, in the Horn, especially in Ethiopia. Not only do the Soviets have access to the port of Aden, air facilities in Yemen , not only do they visit Indian Ocean ports and use the air fields of Afghanistan, but also they have a significant presence within Ethiopia, which is so close to the significant Middle Eastern areas. Nevertheless, an interesting point that the report brings out on page 84 is that Ethiopia continues to be a beneficiary of substantial aid from the European Economic Community and, to a lesser extent, from the United States. There are indications that the present Ethiopian Government is keeping the door open to the West in the event that it may follow the example of Sudan, Egypt and Somalia and return to a pro-Western position. The report states that a factor which Ethiopians are said to be aware of is that Western aid is far preferable for economic development than anything the Soviets can provide or are willing to provide. The failure of the Mengistu Government to institute a fully operational civilian Marxist political party can be seen as reluctance on the part of the Ethiopians to embrace fully Soviet style communism. Although at first glance one feels pessimistic about the future of Ethiopia in terms of super-power rivalry, in fact the position is not completely cut and dried. The fact that Ethiopia continues to welcome, need and receive aid from the West and the fact that it has not allowed the build-up of a Soviet-style communist party are signs that all is not lost. There are no recommendations in this report; it analyses the situation. In view of the fact that we have no diplomatic representation in the Horn-the closest is in Nairobi-and in view of the fact that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in his address to the House on the Middle East the other week mentioned a large number of problems in that area but did not mention the Horn at all, it seems to me that this report from the Sub-Committee can fill the blanks that were left in the Foreign Minister's statement although it is to be hoped, as the honourable member for St George put it, that the Foreign Minister will in due course make some comment on the analysis by this Sub-Committee. Mr FIFE(Farrer) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the third, fourth, seventh, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth reports for 1984 of the Committee, together with the minutes of evidence relating to the redevelopment of the Royal Military College, Duntroon, Australian Capital Territory; the development of the 7th Camp Hospital, Kapooka, New South Wales; the redevelopment of facilities at Darwin International Airport ; the redevelopment of surgical and support facilities at Repatriation General Hospital, Greenslopes, Queensland; the redevelopment of surgical and diagnostic facilities at Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, New South Wales; the provision of navigational aids, Hydrographers Passage, Great Barrier Reef; and the development of the Royal Australian Air Force Base, Tindal, Northern Territory, respectively. Mr FRY(Fraser) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory I present the Committee's report on proposals for variations of the plan of layout of the city of Canberra and its environs, eighty-second series, second report, together with the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr FRY —by leave-The report I have just tabled recommends approval of 15 items from the eighty-second series of variations to the city plan and involves work valued at $4.5m. The Committee approved two items in the series in its first report tabled on 3 May 1984. Only one item, variation 8 relating to a cycleway from Kings Parks to Telopea Park via Jerrabomberra Wetlands, now remains outstanding from this series. The Committee has deferred this item while further evidence is taken on the proposal. I wish to comment on only three of the variations in this report. Firstly, variation 2, Hawker, which was deferred in the first report, is now approved by the Committee. The supplying of misleading information on this variation by the National Capital Development Commission, which led the Committee to defer the variation and which led the objectors to the proposal to have a false expectation of what their objection might achieve, has been explained by NCDC. The Committee asked that NCDC be more careful in the information it provides about the extent to which its proposals can be changed. In cases where people are mistakenly informed explanations should be provided to those affected as soon as it is realised that a mistake has been made. While the Committee recognises the level of concern of the objectors about the creation of a 'T' intersection opposite their properties, the importance of providing urgently needed residential blocks and the lack of suitable alternative access proposals mean that, on balance, the Committee believes the variation should be approved. The only other variation in this report about which an objector gave evidence to the Committee was variation 17, Macarthur. The objection was based on road safety, ecological and personal grounds. The Committee believes that the road safety and ecological aspects of the variation as proposed by NCDC are satisfactory. With regard to the objector's personal concerns, it was unfortunate that the objector was not informed by the former lessee of the land use proposals for the area opposite his block. The Committee suggests that NCDC examine its public consultation procedures to see whether it is possible to inform people in the objector's position of proposed land use policies in areas in which they intend to buy. As with the variation discussed earlier, the Committee, while being fully aware of the concern of the objector at the creation of a 'T' intersection opposite his property, has approved the variation on the basis of other important considerations. In relation to variation 6 which provides access to the site of the proposed Australian Federal Police headquarters, the Committee reiterates its concern, expressed in the 81A series report, about the lack of car parking facilities in Civic. The Committee was informed that the Australian Federal Police building and the White Industries development together would provide additional office space equating to 40 per cent of the available space now in Civic. The Committee believes the long term planning implications of the new developments need to be recognised and adequate provision made for them. The Committee therefore asks that the second recommendation of its 81A series report, which recommended measures to deal with the significant additional demand for access to Civic generated by these new developments, be implemented urgently. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —by leave-Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you and the Government for permission to speak briefly on this matter. I do so because I wish to draw to the attention of honourable members the importance of a number of variations in the report as they relate over the longer term to the future role of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. The Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory at the moment considers important planning questions for the Australian Capital Territory only in relation to variations to the layout of road plans for the Australian Capital Territory. That involvement of the Parliament and the Committee in the consideration of Canberra's planning is very late in terms of any program for development and late in any program of realistic contribution to planning and design of the national capital. Occasionally, we do have the opportunity, however, to look at matters in a longer term perspective. A number of the variations on this occasion gave us the opportunity to highlight planning questions, and I think that is a very constructive role for the Committee and one which the Parliament ought to note. I draw to the attention of the House particularly variation 4, which relates to the planning of additional car parking facilities for the National Sports Centre at Bruce. Of course, this is a very important area in the national capital, an area which contains important facilities. I know that it interests the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) because the facilities are to be used in the not too distant future in relation to the 1985 World Cup Athletics which will take place in Canberra. Of course, the Committee report not only highlights the importance of building additional car parking facilities for the National Sports Centre but also addresses the longer term problems of providing access to that venue for the crowds that are expected for the 1985 World Cup Athletics events. We were aware, as a result of the briefings we received, of the steps that are to be taken. But it also became apparent that planning must be done now and commitment must be undertaken now to ensure that those facilities are accessible at the time when this very important national event takes place. In relation to variation 6, which provides for the building of the Australian Federal Police headquarters in the city, some other questions were raised, particularly in relation to car parking facilities in the Civic centre. This is important, and the importance of it was raised in the report of the Committee on the 81A series of plans. On that occasion, when the Committee looked at another development, it emphasised the importance of addressing the car parking problems now. People often assume that in the national capital there are no problems in relation to such matters; that all of the planning has been carried out adequately and properly, and that there is very little problem in this area. But at the moment we are seeing development of such a size and magnitude in the Civic area that undoubtedly the problem of car parking over the longer term needs to be addressed. We saw the need for an accelerated program for the construction of car parking structures, ensuring that the elimination of free parking took place in such a way as to ensure that there are still facilities for shoppers and trade services , and that in association with future private and public developments there will be-as there is now, for shoppers-provision for free, covered, casual parking for those who are visiting premises. We saw it also as being important that the National Capital Development Commission undertake the necessary investigations to ensure that the city is planned so that a more automated form of public transport might be able to be incorporated in planning for that important centre . Finally, the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry) mentioned T-intersections associated with developments to take place in Hawker and Macarthur. The Committee in its report emphasised the awareness of members of the particular problems associated with those people who bought land and built homes opposite vacant land and later found a subdivision was to take place and that road access was to be constructed immediately opposite their residences. In each case there was a concern that the people who built the homes were not aware of the way in which they might be affected in the future. The Committee was very concerned about the importance of consultation and the importance of people being apprised of the way in which future developments that might take place might affect the amenity of their homes. We have a real problem in relation to this matter. The honourable member highlighted it. There is an urgent need for land to be developed in Canberra for housing to eliminate an acute housing shortage at this time. Of course, the servicing of land, particularly land that is readily accessible and can be quickly serviced, must be undertaken to alleviate this problem. The Opposition recognised that, and it was a 'balance' argument. We had to weigh up the amenity of the homes that are to be affected against the urgent need to provide accommodation and serviced land in Canberra. On balance, we came down in favour of meeting the community need against the needs of the individuals. But it was a hard decision to make and it was a position in which we found it difficult to be placed. I encourage the NCDC in its future planning to try to avoid these sorts of problems, where people are not aware of the way in which future developments might impact upon them. Assent to the following Bills reported: Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 1984 Apple and Pear Levy Amendment Bill 1984 Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill 1984 Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1984 Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(5.17) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill I am introducing today is to reform and modernise, on a national basis, the law relating to contracts of insurance. These measures were foreshadowed in a joint Press statement issued by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 17 October 1983, in which they announced the Government's intention to introduce legislation to implement the major recommendations of the Law Reform Commission's report on insurance contracts. The Bill as introduced in this place today takes account of a number of amendments made during the debate in the Senate. Those amendments were made as a result of the review of the Bill which took place after submissions were received and consultations held with a cross section of private and State government insurers as well as industry and consumer representative groups. I will outline, for the benefit of honourable members, the background to the need for reform in this area and some of the principal reforms proposed. A detailed description of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated to honourable members for information. The Need for Reform In September 1976, the Australian Law Reform Commission was given a reference by the then Attorney-General which required the Commission to report upon the adequacy of the law governing contracts of insurance. This reference resulted in two related, but self-contained, reports from the Commission. In its first report on insurance agents and brokers-ALRC 16-the Australian Law Reform Commission dealt with the rules applicable to the conduct of insurance intermediaries. That report was completed in 1980. The former Government failed to implement the recommendations in ALRC 16, notwithstanding the clearly demonstrated case for the regulatory control of insurance brokers. The Labor Party has, however, long recognised the need for these reforms and, as shadow Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, introduced the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill 1981. This Bill, based squarely on the draft Bill appended to ALRC 16, was subsequently passed by the Senate though not by the House of Representatives. The recent spate of broker insolvencies has further underlined the urgent need for controls and on 7 December 1983 the Treasurer introduced the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill 1983 which implements the major recommendations made by the Law Reform Commission. Public submissions on the detailed provisions of the Bill were called for on its introduction and have now been considered. The second report of the Law Reform Commission on insurance contracts-ALRC 20- was completed at the end of 1982. A commitment to give immediate priority to the consideration of this report, with a view to the early implementation of its major recommendations, was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the Labor Party policy speech on 16 February 1983 and by the Attorney-General in launching the Party's business regulation policy on 24 February 1983. The Law Reform Commission reported that reform of the law relating to insurance contracts was long overdue. The case for reform was stated succinctly in paragraph 16 of ALRC 20 as follows: Insurance contracts are subject to a bewildering variety of laws. First there are principles and rules developed by the judges. Superimposed on these rules are statutes of the Imperial, State and Commonwealth parliaments. The Imperial Acts are expressed in archaic and obscure language. Many of the problems they were designed to remedy were different from those of today. State intervention has generally been piecemeal and sporadic. In some cases, it has been limited to particular types of transaction and has been enacted on a uniform basis. In others, individual States have passed legislation applying generally to deal with particular insurance problems. In many of these cases, the legislation dealing with insurance contracts has been restricted to the field of life insurance. It, too, has given rise to anomalies and uncertainties which need to be corrected. The Law Reform Commission recommended the making of a national law regulating insurance contracts that would be superimposed on, and effect reform of, existing laws. The Government has accepted this recommendation for the following reasons: Insurance, other than State insurance within the boundaries of the State concerned, is a specific Commonwealth power. The insurance industry is now organised on a national basis. The Government accepts the Law Reform Commission finding that insurance contracts are subject to a bewildering variety of laws which have given rise to anomalies and uncertainties. These existing laws have not kept pace with social and economic developments in the community. The level of complaints from dissatisfied policy holders shows that there is a need for change. Public Consultation The insurance industry and other interested groups and individuals were extensively consulted by the Law Reform Commission in preparing its report. In introducing the Bill in the Senate on 1 December 1983, the Attorney-General announced that it would be allowed to lie on the table to enable public submissions to be made on its detailed provisions. He also announced that consultations would be held with the insurance industry and consumer and other relevant groups before passage of the Bill. Submissions were received from a cross section of private and State government insurers as well as industry and consumer representative groups. Detailed discussions with representatives from such bodies have been held at both ministerial and officer level. Further consideration of the Bill led to the Government's introducing a number of amendments to the Bill during the Committee stage in the Senate. In most cases these were to clarify the intent of the Bill and to meet specific difficulties which became apparent from the submissions and discussions. State Insurance Because of limitations on the Commonwealth's constitutional powers with respect to insurance, the Law Reform Commission recommended that the legislation should not extend at the outset to State insurers or to co-insurance involving a State insurer except to the extent that the insurance extends beyond the limits of the relevant State and, further, that the Commonwealth should consult the States about the application of the legislation to intra-State insurance activities. The Government has decided that it would be undesirable to apply the legislation at the outset to only part of the activities of the State government insurance offices. Nevertheless, the view has been taken that private and government insurance offices should, in competing for business, be subject to the same legal rules and constraints. Any other situation could result in unfair advantages to one or other group of insurers. For this reason the Attorney-General has been pursuing, through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, the question of complementary State and Northern Territory legislation to apply the provisions of this Bill to State and Territory insurance. Those discussions have revealed general agreement with the principle of equality I have just stated. This is in fact already the position in Victoria by virtue of the State Insurance Office (Extension of Franchise) Act 1983. In addition, the Victorian Government is taking steps to prepare State legislation applying the Commonwealth Bill, together with any subsequent amendments, to the State Insurance Office. With regard to the remaining States and to the Northern Territory, I can report that progress is being made and I am confident that there will be agreement to apply the Bill to their insurance offices. Content of Bill The basic purpose of the Bill is to improve the flow of information from the insurer to the insured so that the insured can make an informed choice as to the contract of insurance he enters into and is fully aware of the terms and limitations of the policy; and to provide a uniform and fair set of rules to govern the relationship between the insurer and the insured. As recommended by the Law Reform Commission, the Bill will not apply to reinsurance, medical and hospital insurance written by any organisation registered under the National Health Act 1953, workers' compensation and compulsory third party insurance and insurance to which the Marine Insurance Act applies. The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation-EFIC-and friendly societies will also be excluded from the operation of the Bill. EFIC has been involved in the provision of export credit and investment insurance but its business does not involve competition with private insurers and does not embrace life and general insurance which were examined by the Law Reform Commission. EFIC's exemption will, however, be kept under review in the light of the operation of the legislation. Friendly societies differ from other insurers in that they are non- profit making organisations offering insurance for their own members only. The benefits of that insurance are determined by the society's rules. Friendly societies have been the subject of specific legislation in the States. This has been tailored for those societies and, in some respects, is inconsistent with the Bill. Some of the more important reforms in the Bill are set out below. Standard Cover Contracts Existing law does not regulate the terms of insurance contracts and so does not provide for minimum cover. Clause 34 of the Bill provides that regulations may prescribe the standard cover to be given by certain classes of contract. The Law Reform Commission recommended that those classes should include motor vehicle, houseowners, householders, sickness and accident, consumer credit and travel insurance. Should the insurer seek to provide less than the minimum cover provided by the standard cover-for example, by excluding liability for loss caused by earthquake-he will be required, under clause 35 of the Bill, to prove at the outset that he gave notice to the insured, or that the insured knew or could reasonably be expected to have known that he would be entitled to a lesser cover. (Quorum formed) In accordance with the Law Reform Commission's recommendations, regulations are now being drafted to prescribe the standard cover to be given in motor vehicle, houseowner's, householder's, sickness and accident, consumer credit and travel insurance. Those draft regulations will be made available to private and State Government insurers as well as industry and consumer representative groups for comment and review before being tabled in the Parliament. Provision of Copy of Contract and Notification of Certain Terms The present law is based on an assumption that the insured and the insurer are on an equal footing. Consequently, the insurer is generally not required to advise the insured of any particular terms in the contract or even to give him a copy of the contract. The Bill recognises that the insured is often less well- informed than the insurer. Accordingly, unless the insurer has already done so, the Bill requires it to give the insured a copy of the policy document where the insured makes a written request for it. The insurer will be subject to a penalty of $5,000 should it fail to give the statement. Furthermore, clause 37 requires the insurer to give the insured a copy of the policy document or to notify the insured of the effect of any term in the contract that is not usually found in contracts of insurers providing similar cover. Should the insurer fail to do so, it will be unable to rely on that unusual term. Other clauses in the Bill require the insurer to give the insured notice of the effect of particular terms in the contract if such terms are included, for example, clause 39 relating to terms limiting the insurer's liability for non- payment of a premium instalment under an instalment contract of general insurance, and clause 44 relating to average provisions. Insofar as interim short term contracts, cover notes are concerned, the Bill recognises that a similar obligation to give written notification in relation to them may lead to a marked increase in administrative costs and a subsequent increase in premiums payable by the insured. In some cases, it may lead to their total withdrawal. Therefore, the effect of clause 38 is that, in most cases, the insurer will not be required to comply with the notice provisions of the Bill when an interim contract of insurance is concerned. It will, however, be required to inform the insured of his duty of disclosure before any contact of insurance, interim or otherwise, is entered into. Reasons for Cancellation to be Given Under the present law, an insurer may cancel a contract or refuse to renew it without giving reasons to the insured. This can give rise to great hardship when the insured tries to arrange alternative cover. Under clause 75 of the Bill, an insured may make a written request to the insurer to give the insured a written statement of its reasons where it has cancelled a contract or refused to renew it. The insured may also ask for reasons where the insurer has refused to enter a contract at all or has offered insurance on less advantageous terms than it would otherwise offer. Non-disclosure and Misrepresentation Contracts of insurance require that both the insurer and the insured display the utmost good faith. The Bill recognises this but mitigates the common law rule of duty of disclosure. At common law an insurer may avoid a contract whenever the insured fails to disclose, whether innocently or fraudulenty, a fact which is material to assessing the risk and which is known to the insured. There have, however, been conflicting authorities at common law as to the appropriate test to determine materiality. Some authorities support the proposition that the insured's obligation is to disclose every fact which he knows to be material and which a reasonable man would know to be material. Other authorities-and these seem to have found favour in Australia-have rejected this approach in favour of the prudent insurer test; that is, a fact is material if it would have reasonably affected the mind of a prudent insurer in determining whether it will accept the insurance, and, if so, on what terms and conditions. This rule imposes too strict a duty on the insured. Clause 21 both clarifies and ameliorates the existing law. It clearly states that the insured's duty is only to disclose those facts which he knew, or which a reasonable person in the circumstances could be expected to have known, to be relevant to the insurer's assessment of the risk. As an examination of what a reasonable man would know cannot take place in a vacuum, a court would not be precluded from considering an insured's position and circumstances in applying the test. (Quorum formed) Only fraudulent misrepresentations by the insured will entitle an insurer to avoid the contract, as provided for in clauses 28 and 29 of the Bill. A court will be empowered under clause 31 of the Bill to disregard that avoidance if it would be harsh and unfair not to do so. Should the court exercise its power, it may allow the insured to recover the whole, or such part as the court thinks just and equitable in the circumstances, of the amount that he would have recovered had the contract not been avoided. These powers may be exercised only where the court finds that, in respect of the loss that is the reason for the matter coming before the court, the insurer has not been prejudiced by the fraud or, if prejudiced, the prejudice is minimal or insignificant. The court must also balance the culpability of the insured in his fraudulent conduct against the loss he would suffer if the court were not to disregard the avoidance. Application of this test should ensure that the insured suffers for his fraudulent actions but not to an extent which is entirely inappropriate or excessive. Consequently, for example, an insured who fraudulently failed to disclose that he had been fined for speeding could ask the court to disregard any avoidance of the contract if he were to suffer a loss, totally unrelated to his fraud, by having his vehicle written off while parked. Should the insurer choose not to avoid the contract or should the misrepresentation or breach of the duty to disclose be innocent rather than fraudulent, the insurer's liability will be reduced by an amount which represents the loss suffered by the insurer by reason of the misrepresentation or breach of duty. Furthermore, clause 60 of the Bill will enable the insurer in these circumstances to cancel the contract as regards future liability. Insurable Interest As the law now stands, an insured must, under most contracts of insurance, hold an insurable interest at the time of the execution of the contract. In the case of contracts of general insurance, he must also hold an insurable interest at the time when loss occurs. The Law Reform Commission took the view that in most cases of general insurance these rules were based on historical accident rather than on any clear legislative policy. Clauses 16 and 17 of the Bill therefore provide, in effect, that an insured may enter into a contract of general insurance even when he does not have an insurable interest in the subject matter and that he may recover under the contract provided he has suffered economic loss by damage to, or destruction of, the subject matter. Under clause 18 of the Bill an insured will still be required to have an insurable interest at the time he enters into a contract of life insurance or a contract providing for the payment of money on the death of a person by sickness or accident. Privity of Contract At common law, the doctrine of privity of contract will generally mean that a third party who is not the insured but who it is intended should be covered by the insurance contract, is in fact unable to claim. In State jurisdictions, the common law has been modified so that third parties can recover at least as far as compulsory third party insurance is concerned. Clause 48 will further modify the law. It will permit a third party, who is specified or referred to in a contract of general insurance as a person to whom the cover extends, to recover his loss from the insurer. Clause 48 will also make a similar modification to the doctrine of privity of contract in relation to a contract of life insurance. To a certain extent, this modification has already been in operation by virtue of section 94 of the Life Insurance Act 1945. Section 94, however, is much more cumbersome, difficult to interpret and limited in its operation. Subrogation Unless expressly excluded by the terms of a general contract of insurance an insurer is subrogated-that is, substituted-to any rights the insured has against a third party in respect of loss or damage to the subject matter of the insurance contract. The right of subrogation does not exist in relation to contracts of life insurance or to the forms of personal accident insurance. The Law Reform Commission considered that the insurer's right of subrogation was not appropriate where the issue of double indemnity is not likely to arise. Consequently, clause 65 of the Bill provides that the insurer is not entitled to be subrogated to the insured's rights against a third party who: has a family or other personal relationship with the insured or, in the case of motor vehicle insurance, had his consent to use the vehicle concerned; and is not himself insured. As recommended by the Commission, the insurer will have no such right of subrogation where the insured's rights were against his employee-clause 66. The Commission concluded that such a right can damage industrial relations and thus runs counter to the reasonable expectation of both employers and employees that the employer and his insurer will bear the risks attendant upon employment. Under both clauses 65 and 66, the insurer will retain his rights to proceed directly against the employee or family member, as the case may be, where that person's actions amounted to serious or wilful misconduct. This will discourage collusion between the insured and the person causing the loss. Power to exclude certain contracts from operation of Bill In discussions with the insurance industry, it became apparent that the operation of clauses 46 and 53 may not be appropriate in respect of all types of insurance contract. It may not, for example, be appropriate that an insurer should, under a contract of commercial insurance, be liable under clause 46 for pre-existing defects in materials used by an insured who is a building contractor. The insured may, in those circumstances, have rights to proceed separately against the supplier of faulty goods. Similarly, an insurer may wish to vary a contract of commercial insurance where the risk changes, for example, an insured changes his warehouse to a manufacturing workshop. To take account of these situations, clauses 46 and 53 provide that certain classes of contract may be excluded from the operation of these clauses by the regulations. Proposals in Law Reform Commission Report not taken up in Bill The Law Reform Commission recommended that an insurer should not be able to cancel a group of general insurance policies without the approval of the Insurance Commissioner who would need to have regard to the insurer's financial position and its risk exposure if the group of policies was not cancelled. Furthermore, it recommended that the Insurance Commissioner and the Life Insurance Commissioner should have wide powers to compel the withdrawal of misleading insurance documents. These will not be provided for in the Bill which is to be self-regulating. The Treasurer will consider both these proposals separately. A number of other recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, which do not relate to the law governing terms and conditions of contract, will also be dealt with separately. I outline the more important of these recommendations: Reviewing insured's complaints Insurers and industry associations should be encouraged to develop more effective procedures for reviewing complaints made by insureds and to investigate the possibility of introducing an industry-based system of review, such as those developed in the United Kingdom-recommendation 66; Insured's priority In the case of an insurer who becomes insolvent, consideration should be given to whether insureds should be given priority over other unsecured creditors- recommendation 71; Investment controls The Insurance Commissioner should have the power to require an insurer to reduce its level of investment in any category of investments where that level of investment puts at serious risk the insurer's ability to meet actual and potential claims under existing or future contracts-recommendation 72; Guarantee scheme A guarantee scheme should be established providing protection up to 75 per cent of claims not exceeding $200,000 per property or $1m per liability claim- recommendation 75; Role of Insurance Commissioners The Life Insurance Commissioner and the Insurance Commissioner should have power to order an insurer not to appoint or replace a manager who has been found guilty of an offence against the Life Insurance Act 1945, the Insurance Act 1973 or any other law in respect of conduct relating to insurance or dishonest conduct, provided that the offence is one which, in the opinion of the relevant Commissioner, renders the person unfit to be a manager or director of an insurer - recommendation 74; Consideration should be given to empowering either the Life Insurance Commissioner or the Trade Practices Commission to enforce legislation prescribing the manner in which life insurance policies should be replaced and information concerning their replacement provided to the insured-recommendation 14; Discrimination Pending an overall review of discrimination in areas of Commonwealth responsibility, the Human Rights Commission should have jurisdiction to receive and investigate complaints in respect of discrimination in insurance on the grounds of sex or marital status, physical or mental handicap-recommendation 77. This recommendation will be further considered in the course of the Government's review of human rights and anti-discrimination law and machinery. Jurisdictional issues The draft Bill attached to the Law Reform Commission's report does not contain any provision relating to jurisdiction. However, the Commission recommended that State and Territory courts should continue to exercise original jurisdiction to determine cases concerning the rights and duties of parties to a contract of insurance. The Government has accepted this recommendation. The Law Reform Commission made no recommendation regarding appellate jurisdiction. The Government has decided that, due to the fact that the Bill does not create new causes of action but will modify rights and liabilities under the general law of contract as applied to some contracts of insurance, appellate jurisdiction will vest in State Supreme Courts. Appeals from Territory Supreme Courts will be to the Federal Court consistently with appeals in other matters. Financial impact statement The Bill is concerned with the law applicable to terms and conditions of contract and will be self-regulating. It will not provide for any additional powers and controls to be vested in any public official such as the Insurance Commissioner. The Bill will, therefore, have no impact on Government revenues. I commend the Insurance Contracts Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.45) —I move: Customs Tariff Proposals No. 6 (1984). The Proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 6 (1984) will operate on and from tomorrow. These proposals introduce changes arising from the Government's decision on the arrangements to apply to imports of motor vehicles for the remainder of 1984. At a later date I will be introducing a further customs tariff proposals to give effect to the Government's decision on the assistance arrangements to apply from 1 January 1985. The Government has decided that four-wheel drive vehicles-other than utilities or pick-ups-without an independent chassis are to be subject to the same treatment as motor cars and station wagons. Such vehicles will therefore be dutiable at a general tariff rate of 57.5 per cent and be subject to import licensing control. These vehicles were previously dutiable at 25 per cent and exempt from import licensing. Similar treatment is also to apply to panel-van type variants of passenger cars or station wagons. Such vehicles were previously dutiable at 45 per cent and exempt from import licensing control. No changes are occurring in regard to forward-control vehicles. Utilities and pick-ups which were previously treated as variants or motor cars or station wagons have now been grouped with non-variant type utilities and pick-ups. They will therefore be dutiable at a general tariff rate of 35 per cent. This represents a rate reduction of 10 percentage points. The Government has taken the opportunity to introduce a legal note covering vehicles imported without their engines. This note ensures that the classification of such vehicles complies with a ruling set out in the explanatory notes to the Customs Co-operation Council's nomenclature. A summary of the alterations contained in these Proposals has been prepared and is being circulated for the information of honourable members. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Steele Hall) adjourned. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services) —I present the official report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to Italy, Spain, Greece and Cyprus. I ask leave of the House to make a statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr JOHN BROWN —In October-November 1983 I had the honour to lead, jointly with the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford), an official Australian parliamentary delegation to the southern European and Mediterranean countries of Italy, Spain, Greece and Cyprus. Mr Beazley —That was a hard trip! Mr JOHN BROWN —I do all the hard work around this place! Formal parliamentary exchanges between Australia and Italy, Greece and Cyprus had not taken place for at least 20 years and there had never been a formal parliamentary exchange between Australia and Spain prior to the visit. Consequently, the delegation's schedule provided the opportunity to establish or to strengthen formally links with countries on a legislator to legislator basis which had not been exercised for a substantial period. The delegation saw the main purposes of its official visit as enhancing Australia's understanding of the political, economic, social and cultural environments of these countries; to present Australian viewpoints on matters of mutual interest; and to exchange views frankly on these aspects and, more particularly, on trade, tourism and industrial affairs, It was hoped to strengthen existing links of friendship and esteem, to examine matters of mutual concern and interest and to further goodwill and understanding between the four countries, their parliaments and Australia. I believe the visit was most successful in accomplishing its purpose. Delegations of this kind play an important role in strengthening existing links and furthering goodwill as increased understanding flows from a frank exchange of views and personal contact on a legislator to legislator basis. The delegation was impressed by a commitment to democracy in each of the countries visited. It was also heartened to assist with plans for reciprocal visits to Australia at the elected representative level in each of the countries visited. The delegation found a willingness for a frank exchange of views on a wide range of matters of international interest in all the parliamentary representatives with whom it had the opportunity to hold discussions. Of particular current interest was a visit to building projects in Italian towns struck by a massive earthquake in 1980. Honourable members will be aware of the most recent devastation in Italy caused by earthquakes in recent weeks. The recent earthquakes were in a different area from that visited by the delegation. However, it is a timely reminder of the warmth and enthusiasm felt by the Italian people at the reconstruction projects sponsored by Australia. I am sure all honourable members would wish to extend to the Italian people our sympathy in their recent tragedies. Some problems were experienced during the delegation's four weeks abroad and the delegation has determined to make some comments and recommendations in its report in the hope that future delegations might benefit from our experience. These include recommendations of a machinery kind and more substantial recommendations relating to the standard of gifts the delegation presented to parliaments and officials. This was particularly felt in Spain where the Parliament and the people first astounded, then impressed and finally overwhelmed with their hospitality, generosity and friendliness. The delegation felt that the gifts presented to the Spanish President were unworthy of the Parliament and unrepresentative of Australia. I indicated earlier that the honourable member for Banks, Mr John Mountford, was co-leader of the delegation. When I was recalled at very short notice on official business the honourable member for Banks assumed the responsibilities and duties of leading the delegation. His role in ensuring the success of the delegation was greatly appreciated by me and I am sure other delegation members. I would also like to pay tribute to the co-operation of the delegation members to whom is due in great part the accomplishment of the delegation's purpose of enhancing our knowledge of the countries visited and strengthening existing links, understanding and goodwill between Australia and those countries. In conclusion I take this opportunity to invite parliamentary delegations from all four countries-Italy, Spain, Cyprus and Greece-to visit Australia. Although I was unable to visit Spain with the delegation I am looking forward to meeting the Spanish and other delegations in Australia. I commend the report to the House. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks) —by leave-I thank the House for the opportunity of speaking briefly on the visit of the Australian parliamentary delegation to Italy, Spain, Greece and Cyprus during November 1983. Let me say at the outset that the opportunity to visit those countries to see their level of progress and to learn from their experiences was indeed a privilege. The conferring of leadership responsibilities during the absence of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) was a further honour. I thank the Minister for his kind remarks in this respect and pay tribute to the assistance given to me as leader by the honourable member for Wide Bay, Mr Clarrie Millar, who acted as deputy leader. I would also like to place on record at this point my thanks to Miss Balogh, who acted as secretary to the delegation. The House will observe that this fact finding mission had an exacting program of formal and informal discussions with senior members of the governments of those countries and other official engagements designed to enhance our closer relationships with those countries. Countries visited have a long history of political, social and economic development. On the political side they have all at various stages of their development, including during the last 50 years, enjoyed democratic government and sustained periods of dictatorship by totalitarian regimes. It had been at least 20 years since a formal parliamentary exchange had taken place between Australia and Italy, Greece and Cyprus and our visit to Spain was the first formal one by a parliamentary delegation. The visit to Spain and Greece had added significance for government members because those countries, like Australia, now have democratic socialist governments elected to lead them during this very difficult period of history. Australia's links with the countries visited have been forged not only through trade but also through the migration of people from those lands to Australia, particularly since the end of the 1940s. Settlers from those lands came to Australia to make a new life for themselves and their families. In doing so they not only contributed greatly to the industrial and economic development of Australia but also widened our social horizons. I would now like to mention briefly some of the particular aspects of the fact finding mission as they relate to the countries visited. The first country visited was Italy where, apart from important discussions on economic and trade matters, the delegation saw its major function as being that of opening and inaugurating Australian funded projects in the southern provinces of Salerno, Avellino and Benevento, the areas which received the severest damage from the disastrous earthquake in November 1980. At the time of the disaster a national fund was established with an initial donation of $250,000 from the Federal Government. The fund quickly reached a total of $5m and representatives from the Australian and Italian communities in Australia and Italy were elected to a committee to determine the best manner in which the donations should be disbursed. Members of the delegation were pleased to see what had been achieved by the Italian sub-committee under the chairmanship of General Pasqua by the funding of projects which would be of the greatest practical benefit to those local people who had suffered so much in the earthquake. The warm welcome given to the Australian delegation by people living in the earthquake zone and the genuine expressions of thanks for the completed projects were appreciated by all of us and brought to life the strong bond of friendship that exists between our two countries. Delegation members were unanimous in the view that the funding of the projects was a significant contribution by Australia which warranted our attendance in the area to inaugurate them. As the projects involved the provision of accommodation to the aged and homeless and provision of accommodation and care of the very young and orphaned youth of the areas, community involvement was very high. The next country we visited was Spain, a country which in the last few years has undergone a radical transformation from being the oldest surviving dictatorship in Europe to a country having a social democratic government and enjoying all the civil liberties which we consider a basic right. Apart from the restoration of the monarchy, which has served to cement the many sectors of government and society together, the most remarkable feature of the transition to democracy has been the positive and sincere role played by political parties. Their sense of national pride and duty to their country has enabled the continuation of stable and responsible government. Delegation members were very appreciative of the manner in which they were treated by their Spanish hosts and we were impressed with the level of technological changes that have taken place in industry in recent years, changes which have brought Spain into the spectrum of being a major trading nation in advanced technology. Whilst in Spain we had many useful discussions with government and opposition members of parliament, with the country's two major unions and with the employers federation. We were impressed with the general desire of all concerned to improve the standard of living of their people and the economic standing of their nation. Members of the Parliament of Spain are very proud of their advances since democracy was restored by the Spanish Constitution of 1978. The President of the Congress of Deputies presented to the Australian Parliament, through me, a beautifully bound copy of the Spanish Constitution in recognition of the friendship between our two democratic parliaments. I have that copy here today and in the very near future I will be presenting it to the Speaker of this House . From Spain we travelled to Greece where, again, we had fruitful discussions with members of the Government. In visiting the island of Crete we not only had the opportunity of holding discussions with representatives of the regional monarchies and the mayors of local cities and municipalities to ascertain the manner in which local administrations are progressing, but also were able to speak with many of the local Cretans who had fought with the British, Australian and New Zealand armed forces during the 1940s when heroic efforts were made to defend the island from German attack and occupation. Australians are held in very high regard in Crete because of the comradeship forged during that dark period. I assure the House that members of the delegation were responsive to and appreciative of the hospitality extended to them. Whilst in Crete we also had the privilege of laying wreaths at the war graves cemetery at Suda Bay and at the local memorial at Rethimnon to honour the 166 of the 274 Australian soldiers of the Sixth Division killed during the conflict. The last country we visited was Cyprus. It was intended that the delegation should visit both the Turkish controlled north and the southern parts of the island so that it would be in a position to assess the problems facing the country subsequent to the de facto partition of the island in 1974. Our visit was overshadowed by the declaration of 15 November by the Turkish Cypriot leader which declared the northern part of the island to be an independent state. Because of Australia's condemnation of this action our visit was restricted to the southern part of the Republic of Cyprus. We had discussions with the Acting President Mr Ladas and other senior members of the Government. We were able not only to inform personally the Government of Australia's support for the Republic but also to discuss other matters of mutual concern. Whilst in Cyprus we also held discussions with the officer in charge of the United Nations peacekeeping force and also met with and spoke to members of the Australian Federal Police who carry out duties which are humanitarian in nature. They supervise the ceasefire and control the buffer zone in which civilian activities continue under their escort. The small force of 20 police under the command of Chief Superintendent Don Morrison are carrying out their duties in a humanitarian and exemplary manner. They are to be commended for their diligence and attention. In conclusion I thank the House for the honour extended to me in for being able to visit the countries concerned as I am of the firm opinion that delegation visits are mutually beneficial in that they provide an opportunity for open and frank discussions between members of this Parliament and members of parliaments from other countries so that we all may be in a better position to understand trade involvement, technological advances and our concerns for the social advancement of our peoples. I thank the House. Mr KENT(Hotham) —by leave-I wish also to join my colleagues and use this opportunity to enlarge on the report submitted to the House by the Australian Parliamentary Delegation in connection with the visit to a number of European countries in October-November last year. I joined the delegation in Venice on 29 October last year since I had left Australia a couple of weeks earlier to visit Yugoslavia and France. During my short time with the delegation I had the benefit of learning much and observing many things. Time will not permit me to relate my experiences here so I will draw on one matter only. Before I do that I mention that in my travels through Italy I rarely saw foreign made cars on the road. Certainly there were not any Japanese cars to be seen nor were there, in other fields of consumer goods, any traces of heavy domination of foreign goods on Italian markets. I wish I could say this for Australia. One has to travel overseas to countries such as France and Italy to realise that our own country becomes a dumping ground for many Asian products. It is time that we learned from Italy and France how to keep cheap labour products out. I mentioned previously that I was only a short time with the delegation. Unfortunately I had to return from Italy as my party was involved at the time in a serious debate on the mining and export of uranium. The Press at the time reported that members, including myself, were recalled for the vote on uranium. I put here on record that I was not recalled but came back because I personally considered that the debate on this issue was more important than my stay with the delegation. I sensed that my return would not alter the balance and I had a fair idea of the numbers for and against the issue in the debate. However, I consider the fight against the nuclear industry and its ultimate product, the nuclear missiles, paramount. There is nothing less at stake than the survival of our species and, indeed, the survival of life on this planet. My opposition to uranium mining and export has many reasons. I will mention only a couple. Firstly we cannot separate the peaceful atom from the warlike one. Mr Steele Hall —This is not part of the trip. Mr KENT —It is very much part of the trip. I will come to that in a second. We can talk about safeguards and guarantees. However, let us not forget that every nuclear power station, built for the so-called peaceful use of nuclear energy, produces every year 250 kilograms of plutonium, the basic ingredient of the hydrogen bomb. Secondly, the money invested in uranium mining would bring a better return and create more jobs if it was invested in the manufacturing industry. Thirdly, I am opposed to the mining of uranium because of environmental damage and pollution. The most important thing is that uranium is the beginning of the nuclear fuel cycle of which the other end is the hydrogen bomb-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I ask the honourable member for Hotham to return to the subject of the delegation on which he has sought leave of the House to speak briefly. Mr KENT —Madam Deputy Speaker, I am coming to that. I am explaining the reasons why I left the delegation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I now consider that the honourable member has explained that pretty well. I ask him to get on to the subject of the delegation . Mr KENT —During the delegation I met people in Italy who were just as opposed to nuclear missiles as we are here. (Quorum formed) During my visit to Italy I spoke to many people who were at the time, and who still are, very worried about the possibility of a nuclear war. That is a problem that we encountered there. In our talks with the Foreign Minister of Italy, Mr Andreotti, I asked him the following question: What is the advantage to either side, East or West, of increasing its capacity to kill the enemy from 16 times over to 64 times over? One has to remember that the installation of the Cruise missiles in Sicily was very much a topical matter at that time in Italy, as it still is. Signor Andreotti in his reply admitted that it is crazy to increase the capacity of either side to obliterate our planet when that capacity is already there many times over. He added immediately 'But we cannot afford to lag behind the nuclear capacity of the Soviet Union' et cetera. I ask: When intelligent leaders of the Western world, such as Mr Andreotti, do not see arms reduction as an alternative to arms race, what hope for survival does mankind have? Of course he agrees that there should be an end to the escalation but, like a leader of a rival street gang, he says that the other side should stop the gang war first. When leaders of the Western world, and for that matter the Eastern bloc, cannot decide who should take the first step back from the brink it is time for the community to step in and take an interest in its own future. Twice this century our leaders led us into catastrophe. Our kings, kaisers and tsars led us into the First World War-- Mr Steele Hall —I rise on a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are listening to a statement which is opposing nuclear armaments and the nuclear industry. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member for Hotham is reporting to the House conversations he had with the Italian Foreign Minister while he was in Italy. Mr KENT —If honourable members opposite do not want to listen to the opinion I heard from the Foreign Minister of Italy that is just bad luck; they will have to. As I say, twice this century our leaders led us into catastrophe. Twenty years later, after the First World War, our kings and Prime Ministers led us into the Second World War, which claimed many more millions of lives than did the First World War. We just cannot afford to leave the decision of war and peace in the hands of our leaders for the third time, because if we do we will not be here to pass judgment on their decision. During my visit to Europe I met many people. Marches against nuclear war were reported across Spain, Italy and Germany. When I returned here a few months later 250,000 people marched in our cities on Palm Sunday. That gives me hope that people there and people here will join forces against war and will stop the nuclear arms race. (Quorum formed) Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay) —by leave-I am very pleased to have the opportunity, as a member of the delegation, to endorse totally the remarks of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) and the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford), who very competently acted as co-leader of the delegation. I will not erode the time of the House, which was substantially eroded by unfortunate circumstances earlier in the day, but I would like to touch on two particular matters. Without personal acrimony towards the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent), let me say that his remarks did trigger a recollection of something that rather concerned me as a member of the delegation. I feel that all honourable members, when accepting a position as a delegate on an overseas mission, must in advance very seriously address themselves to the question of whether or not they will be consistently able to discharge their responsibility to this Parliament and, by extension, to this country. It cannot be denied that on occasions our host countries have been somewhat taken aback, and in many cases obviously have not been very pleased, to find a delegation become fragmented or reduced in number. They could be excused for believing that this was a reflection on the degree of sincerity with which the delegation was addressing the exercise, or for questioning whether we were at all serious about it. I do not concentrate my observations on the honourable member for Hotham, whose actions in his judgment were warranted, but even on this delegation in the very early days there were mutterings of discontent as to whether our application was all it should be. Happily that matter was resolved. I sincerely say to honourable members that before they embark as emissaries for this country they should seriously address the question of whether or not circumstances may arise which would require them to make a judgment as to whether or not they should 'desert their post'. I leave that thought with honourable members. I come to the other matter which does really concern me. I felt very keenly for our co-leader, the honourable member for Banks, on this. He mentioned how enthusiastically we were received by the people of Spain. They were utterly delighted to have the first Australian parliamentary delegation visit to that country. Whilst we may excusably have been a little blase about our reception in this country or that country, we could not help being impressed by the sheer, undisguised delight they manifested at our visit. Accordingly, they treated us in rare style. They gave the delegation gifts, as was demonstrated here by the honourable member for Banks. We also received modest, personal gifts which demonstrated that considerable thought had gone into their selection. I have never been more embarrassed in my life than I was, at a grand farewell dinner that was accorded the delegation, to see my colleague ironically having to fumble through copious wrappings and containers to draw from it some mediocre little wooden bowl and present it to the expectant President of the Senate. I almost admired the manner in which he received it and with a flourish despatched it over his shoulder. It removed the offensive article. I do not know who is responsible for selecting gifts, but I certainly hope that future delegations will be spared the embarrassment caused by a lack of address to the quality and the level of the encounter we may have with particular countries. But in a personal sense I shall retain forever a clear impression of the utter, undisguised delight of those simple people in the earthquake areas in Italy who virtually fought over each other to clutch the hands of delegation members in sheer, undisguised gratitude. I also remember our visit to the battlefield in Crete. I will take advantage of the House's good humour to recount briefly what happened. We stood at a site where nine young Australian warriors had died. They fought, trying to traverse l4 paces to get behind a well, which still stands-I can feel the coldness of the stone in my hand now-to fire on the German trench. They were shot down one after the other. It was rather sad, because an elderly Cretan lady came out wearing the attire of the centuries and untethered a goat that had been staked there to graze. I was reminded that goats had probably been grazing there for centuries before man engaged in his folly at that time. The goats graze on. That should surely destroy any conceit in man that makes him believe he is master of his own destiny. People should get together and appreciate that, in the ultimate, it is man himself, simple man, who warrants the best intentions of institutions such as our Parliament. If this is achieved, I would say that our excursions overseas and people's visits to our country are well and truly justified. I compliment the Minister and our co-leader for the manner in which they acquitted themselves in leading a delegation which temporarily was fraught with some challenging situations. We came back sound in wind and limb and the richer for our experiences. I thank the House. [COGNATE BILL: COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Young: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Madam Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Commonwealth Electoral 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 STEELE HALL(Boothby)(6.21) — When the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 was brought into the House as a major amending Bill to the Commonwealth Electoral Act last year, it presented a mammoth task to those who studied it to come to grips with the changes which were promulgated. A number of useful amendments were proposed and the reforms took place. It was said at the time-I remember saying it on one occasion-that there were so many changes that one would expect that, after an election, the Bill would have to be looked at again and certain deficiencies, which would automatically crop up under the heat and test of an election, would require amendments. I do not think any of us expected these rather wholesale amendments to the Bill to be introduced before it had been put into operation. It would appear, from a study of the amendments, that there has been some hasty, sloppy or, at least, careless drafting in the original Bill which has resulted in many of the amendments which are proposed today. In looking at the Bill one is reminded-I relate this to the actual redistribution which is now being carried out round Australia-that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), who is at the table, claimed in ringing tones in the original days that he was looking for the ultimate in democracy and that, under the new arrangements, whoever received 50 per cent plus one of the votes in any State should get the majority of seats. It is rather ironical that, in my home State, the proposal put by the Minister's own Party for the redistribution plan of South Australia is anything but a proposal standing in support of that democratic principle which the Minister has so avidly espoused publicly and in this House before. I remind the Minister-he would know from his studies because he is not an innocent in these matters-that my Party, the Liberal Party of Australia, in South Australia received 35 per cent of the seats in the last election with something like 47 per cent of the vote calculated on a two-party preferred result. The Australian Labor Party's proposal, as submitted to the redistribution commissioners, would push the Liberal Party down to 30 per cent of the seats on 47 per cent of the vote. I think this stands as something of a monument to the Minister's true, practical definition of democracy. I assume that his Party consulted him about the proposal it presented to the redistribution commissioners. If it did not I would find that rather strange. The proposal of his Party is a simple, straightforward gerrymander; a redrawing of the boundaries from the coast of South Australia across to the environs of Adelaide, to reduce the safe Liberal seats of Sturt and Boothby from two to one; to reduce a party which got something like 47 per cent of the votes, as I have said, on a two-party preferred calculation to 30 per cent of the result. So much for the Minister's definition of democracy as he sees it. I say to the Minister: I referred to the comprehensive amendments which were concluded last year. I think it is fair to say that it was a mammoth task correlating these amendments with the existing Bill. With the work of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and so on this task was carried out with a good deal of expedition. If honourable members thought that was a mammoth task, I suggest that they try to follow through every proposed amendment to these Bills, try to apply them to the now amended Bill from last year and try to apply the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill to the Referendum ( Machinery Provisions) Bill. They would have a task that would last not days but weeks. It is an enormous task to be certain that the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill means what it says; that it is a simple transposition , a simple putting together in a mechanical framework of the amendments to a Bill which is not, as yet, a reprinted, consecutively numbered Bill, which will result from these amendments before the House. It is a mammoth task. I am sure that the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) would have found that if he had tried to examine every proposal that these Bills put forward. I suggest that, following this debate, the other place will have to examine carefully these proposals if we are to be certain that every line is checked out . It is true that many of these amendments are minor amendments correcting drafting errors and the like. As parliamentarians, we ought to know, despite that assurance-we would be derelict in our duty if we could not assure ourselves -that we can understand the Bills. It is a task of a major dimension to achieve that understanding about Bills which, in themselves, are rather minor in their effect. That is the frustration of it. One does not expect to find tricks or large scale determinations by the Government to effect changes when it is claimed that this is not so. Although, as I understand it, when I read a particular clause of the cognate Bill it seems to make nonsense to me, and I believe that it would make nonsense to the Minister, there is one rather large error contained in the Bill. I will draw it to his attention directly and in the Committee stage. However, I mentioned the difficulty of not yet having a consecutively numbered Bill. One could say that that would be rectified by these amendments. When we apply the Electoral Act to the referendum Bill we find again that this is a very difficult task because we are referring to clauses for which, we have to assume, we must place numbers ourselves. It is a very difficult task indeed. There are several matters of some interest in these Bills. The Minister, in speaking about the matter of personnel serving overseas, said: To avoid a situation where some 1,500 servicemen are disenfranchised, clause 6 of the Bill provides that they have until the issue of the writ for the next general election to apply for registration as eligible overseas electors as if they were about to depart for their postings. As one would expect, that amendment seems to be a necessary amendment which would have the support of any reasonable person who wanted to meet that need. There is an interesting amendment in relation to the matter of records in court- I would like at a particular time to know exactly what it means-which allows for copies of the electoral roll to be used as prima facie evidence in court but, as I understand it, not the original roll. That reference, which is on page 19 of the amending Bill, states: A record made and kept under sub-section (1) of particulars contained in a claim for enrolment or transfer of enrolment is admissible in evidence in any proceeding and is prima facie evidence of any such particular. I do not know the significance of that; I am not attributing anything to it. I would like the Minister to explain what that is about because it seems to alter a position. I take it there is a reason for it, but it is just not evident. Dr Klugman —It tells you at page 13 of the memorandum. Mr STEELE HALL —I find that the explanatory memorandum is not altogether a very explicit document. In fact I think it goes very much the other way. I think one has to look further than that if one is to get an explanation for any of the changes that are made. I guess that some of the changes were so minor it was thought that a full explanation was not necessary in many cases. I point the Minister to what appears to be an error. I would not have thought that, if there were an error, he would have allowed this Bill to come into the Parliament in this form. I would have thought that the Minister would have gone through all the Bills and spent the days and weeks that I have mentioned that one would have to take to understand this Bill and he would have picked this up. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr Ruddock —Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House. The bells having been rung- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — As a quorum is not present, the sitting will be resumed at 8.15 p.m. Sitting suspended from 8.05 to 8.15 p.m. The House having been counted and a quorum being present- Mr STEELE HALL —My remarks were first interrupted by the normal suspension of the sitting for dinner and I looked forward to the resumption of the debate at 8 o'clock this evening. However, we found at 8 o'clock, after the bells had rung for the required time, that Government members were not willing to support their Ministry in the processes of forming the House for this evening's debate. We have seen for the last quarter of an hour a waste of time while the Government has assembled a sufficient number of members of its ranks who are interested to form the Parliament. That is a strange event considering the importance of the issues before us. They deal with electing members of the Parliament and the rules for conducting referenda in the future which could change the Constitution . It is rather strange that facing these important issues the Government has been unable for a quarter of an hour to assemble its members to support the formation of the House for this evening's debate-a very strange occurrence indeed. However, before the dinner break I was about to point out an error in the Bill before the House. I know that the Minister has been rather slap-dash in his attitude to his portfolio. He has been reckless at times and has spent time out of the Ministry as a result of his recklessness. But this evening I perceived in the Bill an error which I would be grateful if he would attend to. If I am wrong, I would be grateful for his putting me right. Page 15 of the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill states: Sub-section 135 (17)- Omit the sub-section,- That is sub-section 17 of section 135- Substitute the following sub-section: Mr Young —What page is that? Mr STEELE HALL —I am referring to page 173 of the original Act and page 15 of the amending Bill. I cannot find a correlation between the omission of sub- section 17 and the sub-section with which the Minister is intending to replace it. I would be most grateful for his guidance on this matter. It seems to me that the sub-section to be omitted is of some substance. It states: (a) the order of election of candidates in a Senate election shall be taken to be in accordance with the order of the count or transfer as a result of which they were elected, the candidates (if any) elected on the count of first preference votes being taken to be the earliest elected . . . Paragraph (b) in the same vein deals with the rules of electing candidates at a Senate election, a most important part of the Bill. The Minister says we are to omit that sub-section. Unless I have been directed to the wrong section by the amending Bill-I cannot believe that I have-we are to include in its place some rules about scrutiny. I do not quarrel with the rules about the scrutiny; I believe they are necessary, but it seems to me that the sub-sections do not fit together. I believe my perusal of the Bill is correct. I pointed out to the Minister that he has presented to this House possibly one of the most hazardous Bills that has ever been before the House in that it has been very difficult to correlate the amendments with the original Bill. I hope I am wrong in this assessment because it will make the processes much simpler if I am. But the amending Bill refers quite clearly to section 135 (17). The Minister no doubt has the Bill in front of him. I cannot see a connection between the omission and the substitution. Dr Klugman —You have got the numbering wrong. Mr STEELE HALL —Do you mean that I have the numbering wrong? In that case I stand to be corrected. However, I seem to have that number in front of me. Dr Klugman —It depends on the Senate. It has inserted another sub-section which is not there. Mr STEELE HALL —It may well be that that is correct. If that is so, the explanation of this Bill is faulty. I put it to the Minister that it is almost impossible to make sense of the legislation which has been presented to the House. I have had assistants who have spent days in trying to put together the amendments with the Bill. I am instructed by the amending Bill to take note of section 135 (17). That is the instructions which appear in the amending Bill. So I have gone to section 135 (17), which is contained in a copy I got from the records. I know of nowhere else where I could obtain a copy of the printed Act. I looked at the Act and I saw an incomprehensible amendment. If I were a member of the public looking at this proposal, I would also be looking at it in that way. I know of no other way in which one could look at it. Therefore, I assume that what the Minister is saying in this regard is nonsensical. He has some other explanation, but it is not a sensible explanation to put before the House. That is the point I make about this matter. As I said earlier, one of the most frustrating parts of the amendments is that we do not expect to find fault with a Bill which deals with minor details, but we have an obligation to ensure that we study it fully, to the nth degree, to understand it. It is difficult, in the way in which the Minister has presented it to the House, to understand it in that fashion. The latest printed material provided to me by the Government is nonsense. I put that point to the Minister. The last part of the Bill contains amendments to the Representation Act 1983. The amendments relate to the interim provisions whereby, if the House meets before 1 July next year, additional numbers of senators must be in place when the House meets in order to meet the constitutional requirements of the two to one-or nearest to two to one-ratio that we must establish. That, by itself, is an interesting operation. The provisions of the Representation Act as amended bring in a random effect as to the power structure of the Senate if an election is held this year, or the new House must meet before 1 July next year. The randomness, of course, arises out of the fact that the two senators who must take their places from each State are the two first elected, non-sitting senators. I am sure the Minister at the table would understand that the randomness may occur when there are new teams, because of retirements, when a party might pre-select a different arrangement of old and new senators, either to take advantage of this provision or because of the capriciousness of their pre-selectors. There may be all sorts of reasons, but I have given three reasons -retirement, capriciousness of pre-selectors or planning by a party to achieve an interim advantage. That may or may not be the case. Mr Young —There would be a few senators not very interested in that planning. Mr STEELE HALL —Yes, I am the first to agree with the Minister. I will give a prize to the first party that can consciously plan to take advantage of that provision and still be a successful party, based on its State membership at the time. It would be a most difficult thing to do. But that capriciousness does exist. If an election were held this year we could have an autumn session where the balance of power in the Senate, for that short period only, could alter simply because of this randomness of the way in which the replacements take place under the Representation Act. But it raises the question of the ethics of the Government in promoting the possibility of an election this year. One of the things about which this Government and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) criticised the previous Government was having too early an election. That was a strident criticism of the Prime Minister both before and after he came into office. It has been a strident criticism of the Special Minister of State, who is handling this legislation. Yet this Government is already floating the possibility of an election this year, in November or December, or early next year, to bring together, as it states, the elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives. So far, despite the writing of the pundits in the papers, one finds that the betting in this country at the moment is on an election this year. If the Government takes note of its criticism of its predecessor-it said that early elections are wrong-why would it have an election this year? Why would it need the special provisions of the Representation Act to bring in two senators from each State before the autumn session next year? It would only do so if it were entirely pragmatic and selfish about this issue, and if it believes that at the end of this year it will advantage the Australian Labor Party to put the Australian people to great discomfort and disorganisation to have an early election so that it might have a better chance of winning that election. That is the only reason that it would have one this year and bring into effect the interim provisions of the Representation Act. The Minister knows that. Mr Young —The only reason you hold an election, and you know it, as a Premier of South Australia, is when you think you will win. Mr STEELE HALL —That is exactly what I am talking about. One of the most abject criticisms that the Minister has made of his opponents, with regard to electoral matters, has been about early elections. Now he is saying: 'Because it is good enough for my opponents, it is good enough for me, and if I think I can win in December, let us have an election'. That is not the morality with which the Government came to office. That is not the sort of thing that this Government promised the Australian public. Yet it has been willing to prate publicly that in some way it will manage the electoral machinery better and it will have longer periods between elections. At one time the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) talked about fixed four year terms. How quickly he resiled from that policy when he heard the thoughts of the Prime Minister and the Minister at the table. They said: 'Be quiet; forget principle. There might be some advantage to us electorally if we have an early election, and forget the convenience of the public'. The reference in this Bill to the Representation Act and the fine tuning of that Act brings to mind the failure of this Government to live up to its promise that it would not have early and unnecessary elections. The only way this government can get out of that is to have an election later, in the first half of next year, when it can fulfil the necessity to put together the elections of the Senate and the House of Representatives, yet not need to have the House meet before 1 July. That is the test it must meet. If it does meet that test, I will rescind the criticism I make tonight. But all the comments and criticisms we have had, and all the public acceptance that the Government has so far allowed to go on, indicates that it will be cruelly selfish about this matter and it will put the public to additional expense simply to advantage the Labor Party. The parallel Bill, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill, will put into the referendum scene the new provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. One, of course, is reminded of the Government's track record about referenda. Mr Hodgman —Shameful. Mr STEELE HALL —As my colleague the honourable member for Denison reminds me, the Government has a most shameful record on this matter. In the last reference to referenda in this country the Government decided to step outside the necessity of providing equal funding of the Yes and No cases to the Australian public and to use one and a quarter million dollars of taxpayers' funds to support its own view of the referendum-that is, the Yes case. I do not refer to whether members in this House or members of my Party support the Yes or No case. I refer to the proposition that the Government was willing to use money out of the pockets of ordinary Australian citizens to support a Labor Party view in this referendum campaign. That is absolutely indefensible. I remember the remarks at the time of the Attorney-General, who knew no principle about this matter. I recount his remarks in the debate on this matter in the Senate. He said: It is palpable tendentious nonsense to say that there are some either high order-- He was interrupted there and he said: Calm it down; then you will not have to put your hand behind your ear. It is palpable nonsense to suggest that there is some high order constitutional principle involved here or some legislative or legal constraint, let alone a moral constraint on this occurring. He knew no morality on the Government spending money out of the taxpayer's pocket to support a Labor Party view at the referendum campaign. I need not develop that point further. It was a disgusting manifestation of partisanship in using public funds. All the talk by the Special Minister of State, who is at the table, of preventing corruption in the political system was undermined by what was then a quite corrupt political motive. I foreshadow that in the passage of this Bill I will seek to insert at the relevant place an amendment which I have had drafted to ensure that no future government of any colour can take public money to support its own view at a referendum, that an even-handed case must be put to the Australian people. The morality of the situation is quite clear: A government going to the public in a referendum must be even-handed. If it wants to put a case it should go to its party, fund that case through its party and do so as vehemently as the resources it can get for that campaign allow. That is fair. But it is not fair to use the numbers on an individual issue of a referendum which may not have intervened in the election campaign in the slightest. It may not have intervened; it may not have been part of it. There is no sanction and no mandate for a government to be involved in such a way. I think the Government will support the amendment I will move to this legislation. On electoral matters the Attorney-General has resiled from what he used to hold as great areas of principle-matters related to the parliaments and their tenure, simultaneous elections and the like. He has shifted his ground on numerous occasions. On other issues, such as fighting crime in Australia, he has had so many positions that we are unable to recognise where he really stands as Attorney-General, the law officer of the Commonwealth. I do not believe that his view should prevail. I believe that the view of this House should give a lead to him and that this House should support my amendment to ensure that in the future there is no wastage in the manner I have mentioned. I have studied the legislation at some length. I certainly recommend that my colleagues in the Senate give it a longer study because of the very great difficulty experienced in translating the numbering of the various clauses in the assumed newly numbered electoral legislation to the referendum legislation. I suggest that a great deal of time needs to be spent on these Bills. I mention one or two things about the operation of the roll. I notice, for instance, that page 72 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act provided to me by the Records Office-I can only go on the copy that I have and if the Minister has some better notations it is up to him to explain this-indicates that under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 47 of the Act at any time an alteration may be made to the roll for general elections. As I understand the Referendum (Machinery Provisions ) Bill, it has a different reference and we may not delete from the roll in similar fashion. At page 5 the Bill states: a name shall not be removed from a roll under sub-section 118 (1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 after the issue of the writ for a referendum . . . Whilst it is a very small matter, I wonder whether the Minister could have it examined to make sure that here is no chance of challenge on a very minor fact that some alterations to the roll may be made under one Act and it is disqualified under another Act for referenda. As we seem likely to have a referendum at the same time as an election, those two Acts should work together. They should mesh in and there should not be any question of illegality of the roll because of inconsistency. I make no assertion about it. It is something that seems to be there. It may disappear, as I have said, after more explanation is given, but the explanatory material that the Minister has provided with this Bill is, I believe, deficient and does not come up with that important explanation. Overall, the Opposition does not wish to obstruct the passage of these Bills, which are necessary to fine tune material which has been subjected to great alteration after great study in recent months and last year. However, I believe as I study the Bill that a great deal more information should have been provided . It seems to me that the immense amount of drafting that had to go into these Bills has precluded a proper explanation because of the great detail in which the Bills are presented to the House. We in the Opposition reject the Government 's desire to have an early election but generally we support the machinery provisions. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr Ruddock —Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. In relation to the quorum that was called at 8 o'clock, I ask: How long did the bells ring? Did they ring for three and a half minutes? If so, was that in breach of the Standing Orders? As the Government does not abide by the Standing Orders in these matters, as the Standing Orders appear to be so flexible, will you now permit the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) and the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) to return to the House? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Is the honourable member for Dundas questioning the times for which the bells rang pre-8 o'clock, post-8 o'clock the first time or post-8 o'clock the second time? Mr Ruddock —I refer to the quorum that was called by me at 8 o'clock. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am afraid that I am not in a position to tell you how long the bells rang. The bells normally ring for the length of time for which the sand runs through the sand glass. I cannot imagine why they would ring any longer because they cut off when the sand has run through. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(8.38) —Tonight we are discussing the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill 1984. The first Bill seeks to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act 1983 and the Representation Act 1983. The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), who spoke before me and who is Deputy Chairman of the Joint Committee on Electoral Reform, knows that the recommendations made by the Committee last year with the help of what is now the Australian Electoral Commission-it was then the Australian Electoral Office-(Quorum formed). These are pieces of amending legislation arising from recommendations, and the passing of legislation following those recommendations, from the Joint Committee on Electoral Reform last year. The honourable member for Boothby indicated clearly that he shares with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) an extreme fear of an election later this year. If there is anything to encourage us, I hope, to have an election this year, it must be the performance by the Leader of the Opposition, by the honourable member for Boothby, and probably by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who may follow me in this debate-Enoch, as he is commonly called, after a prominent member of the British House of Commons. The honourable member for Boothby complained that the Australian Labor Party's proposal for South Australia would allegedly give the Labor Party, under certain conditions, 70 per cent of the seats and would give the Liberal Party of Australia 30 per cent, even though the Liberals received 46 per cent or 47 per cent of the vote. That is one of the possibilities that occur with single member electorates. As the honourable member for Denison well knows, in the State of Tasmania, where the Labor Party received well over 40 per cent of the vote, it received zero per cent of the seats at the last election. It is one of the things that occur with single member electorates. The only way to overcome that is to have proportional representation for the lower House. All of the parties represented in this House opposed that proposition when it was considered by the Joint Committee. The honourable member for Boothby raised the question of the new section 216B ( 1), which he could not follow in the legislation, which provides for the destruction of claims for enrolment or transfer of enrolment where a record of their particulars is kept on microfilm, microfiche or another approved permanent form. It provides that these new forms are admissible in evidence in any proceedings and shall be prima facie evidence of any such particular, so that it is no longer necessary to keep the original enrolment form once the enrolment has been transferred to a-- Mr Steele Hall —Yes, but the original was not available in such a way, as prima facie evidence. Dr KLUGMAN —No, because it is destroyed once it has been transferred on to the microfilm. If one wants to save on storage, there is not much point in transferring it on to microfilm or microfiche and then keeping the original in addition to the new form of enrolment. That is the explanation for it. The Committee considered it, and obviously the honourable member for Boothby has forgotten that episode when we unanimously decided that that ought to be followed. It is just an advance in technology. One of the other points mentioned by the honourable member for Boothby was the proposition which was originally floated, I think, by a legal correspondent in the Canberra Times two or three weeks ago, that a party could obtain a temporary majority in the Senate if there were a Federal election at the end of this year, because senators elected at that election who were not already senators would take their seats immediately. In other words, they would be additional senators between, say, an election in December and 30 June 1985, provided that they were the first ones elected. All that parties have to do in that case is to persuade their sitting senators to move from the No. 1 and 2 positions to the No. 3 and 4 positions on their party tickets. I think that the honourable member for Boothby agrees with me that it is not an easy proposition to sell to sitting senators. I have noted that in New South Wales all of the Liberal Party Senate candidates endorsed at the convention last weekend would be new senators. The first two would therefore take their seats as additional senators, and the Liberal Party will temporarily, between the time of the election and 30 June 1985, have relatively more people in the Senate, certainly from New South Wales, than it would be entitled to after 1 July 1985. That arises from the fact that the number of senators has been increased and under the Constitution the number of senators must be approximately half the number of members of the House of Representatives, and once the House of Representatives election is held on the new boundaries, with the additional seats, this means that the additional senators will have to take their seats immediately, and not after 1 July 1985 as would normally occur. The question of the way in which the coming election will differ from previous elections has been raised. One of the important matters that ought to be emphasised repeatedly is that the ballot papers will look different. They will contain the names of the political parties after the names of the candidates. Until now there has appeared on the Senate ballot paper the letter A, for example before everyone in the first group on the ballot paper, the letter B before each member of the second group and so on. That is no longer necessary because we do not have to distinguish the groups on the basis of A, B or C, since the name of the political party will now appear after the names of the candidates and on top of the grouping for that party. So it will no longer be necessary for the Labor Party, for example, or the Liberal Party, to advertise the fact that people should vote for group B, C or D; they will be able just to advertise that people should vote for candidates in the Labor Party group or the Liberal Party group, for the group that they support. It will be much simpler to count the votes. It will be much simpler for people to vote in Senate elections, which is most important. People will have the choice of voting under the old system, under which one had to fill in a figure for everyone on the ballot paper, which in the case of New South Wales often amounted to 50, 60 or even 70 Senate candidates-one had to vote 1, 2, 3, and so on, up to about 72-or it will now be necessary only to fill in the figure '1' on the alternative which is provided on the ballot paper, on which one just votes for the registered how to vote advice of the particular party of one's choice. A vote there, a single figure 1, will be taken to be a vote for the how to vote ticket registered by that particular political party. This will be a great advantage. On the other hand, the counting for the Senate will be more difficult, and it will take longer to count the votes of those people who vote in the previous fashion of numbering all the squares. That is one reason why I think it important to have the Senate election late this year rather than in May, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, who has just walked into the House. The previous system, honourable members may recall, was that people voted for individual senators but only the surplus of votes was transferred. The most extreme example was in Queensland in, I think, 1974 when the former Senator Bonner was endorsed for the No. 2 position on the Liberal-Country Party team, as it was in those days. He received a large number of No. 1 votes which then did not follow the party ticket. People voted No. 1 for Bonner because he received a lot of publicity and then voted all over the place. His No. 1 votes were not transferred because they were the basis of his quota. Let us say that the quota at that time for a Senate seat in Queensland was 70,000 and that he received some 40,000 votes. All 40,000 No. 1 votes for Senator Bonner were counted as his primary votes and were not transferred whilst the votes which followed the Liberal-Country Party how to vote ticket, starting with whoever was No. 1 on that ticket, and which then spilled over to Bonner were counted towards Nos 3 and 4 to be elected from that team. We, that is the Committee, felt that that was unfair because it would encourage parties to endorse prominent people, be they from football or cricket or have other great qualifications for becoming a member of the Senate, not in the No. 1 position but in the No. 2 position, because people might then not follow the party ticket while those votes would be wholly counted as supportive of that party. So the Joint Committee recommended, again unanimously, that all the votes count when votes are transferred. For example, if previously some 25 per cent of the votes were surplus for whoever was No. 1 on a ticket-it would usually be more than that, of course-the direction to the local electoral officer was to pick up 25 per cent of No. 1 votes for the leading candidate on the ticket, at random of course, count the preferences and then allocate those preferences. Now all those votes will be transferred but will have a value of less than one. In other words, all the No. 1 votes will be counted. If that person has twice as many votes as he requires for his quota each one of those votes will have a value of 0.5. Every vote will have to be counted. It becomes a lengthy business. Of course, on top of that there has to be a transfer not only of the excess votes for people at the top of the ballot paper but also of the votes for people eliminated from the bottom of the ballot paper because they have not received enough votes. Of course, their No. 1 votes have a full value when transferred because nothing has been taken out for those people' s quotas. But some of their votes will be diminished previously transferred votes. It becomes a quite difficult and involved system of counting. What the Committee recommended and what is enshrined in the piece of legislation we are dealing with-I know that people who have not thought about it might find it difficult to follow the proposition-is that the votes for that method of transferring be counted at a central counting station organised by the electoral office of that State; but there will be hundreds and thousands of occasions when decisions will have to be made by the allocation of values. It could be quite a lengthy business. It is hard to predict how long it will take because it will depend on the number of people who accept the proposition that they should vote for the registered how to vote ticket and the number of people who will stick to the old system of voting from No. 1 to whatever the number of candidates is. My view is that relatively few people will do the latter, but obviously we cannot be sure what will happen. That is one reason I think it absolutely essential to have an election relatively early; it could take months for the counting to be completed. It is good that the honourable member for Denison is following me in this debate because basically we have adopted the Hare-Clark system that exists in Tasmania, but instead of using it for individual electorates we will be dealing with millions of votes in the case of New South Wales and it will obviously take a very long time to carry out all that work. In addition, I think it important to emphasise the proposition, which I think the Opposition has now accepted, that there ought to be a joint House of Representatives and half-Senate election because of the saving in money. Quite a significant cost is involved in running an election and there would have to be two elections within a year if we do not combine the two. And this would recur in 3 years. My view is that this is essential legislation to update the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act. It is just as essential that the Government go to the polls as early as possible after the Budget and after redistributions have been carried out in all States, which will mean for all practical purposes that an election cannot be held until about November or December of this year. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(8.58) —The Hawke socialist Government stands condemned for its scandalous handling of this legislation. Its performance is such that, were it a first year law student, it would fail. I do not say that it is a matter for just the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) to resign. I say it is a matter upon which any honourable government a few short decades ago would have resigned . I want to tell the people of Australia listening to the debate the way in which this scandalous electoral legislation has been handled by the Government over the last few months. Armed with a committee report, it brought in legislation called the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1983 which contained 154 sections, as it finally went through the Parliament. The Special Minister of State, who is at the table, was kind enough to remind me that it was proclaimed on or about 21 February this year. There was legislation of 154 sections which took weeks to go through the Parliament, even though there was a committee report upon which much of it was based. It was proclaimed on 21 February 1984. What do we have today? We have the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill. Let me tell the people of Australia what that comprises. Just a few months after proclamation of the legislation containing 154 clauses we now find that the Bill before the House, brought in by the Special Minister of State, comprises eight sections containing 20 clauses. That is not too bad, but then I look at the schedules. If one adds them all up one finds that Schedule 1 has over 140 clauses, Schedule 2 has nine clauses. Schedule 3 has a facsimile of the Senate ballot paper and Schedule 4 has a further two clauses. So barely four months after the Government proclaimed its mammoth electoral reform legislation it is back in this Parliament asking this House, and shortly the Senate, to approve in total a further 180 amendments. I think that that is nearly a world record. If the Guinness Book of Records does not write up this as one of the greatest performances of legislative ineptness, I do not know what is what. The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) is a thorough gentleman. He said-I use his words-that this legislation has been necessary because of the careless and sloppy drafting in the original Bill. The honourable member was somewhat restrained. I think it is criminal negligence. I am quite sure that if the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) had been in charge of the Bill we would not be in the mess we are in today. Less than six months after the Government got a 154 clause Bill through the Parliament, this great electoral reform, it is back in the Parliament with amendments which comprise in total about 180 clauses. How many more weeks will it be before we have a further Commonwealth electoral legislation amendment Bill? Mr Young —Not this session. Mr HODGMAN —It is very interesting to look at the history of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The Minister said: 'Not this session'. Of course we are about to rise. The Commonwealth Electoral Act was passed back in 1918, the year World War I ended. If honourable members check it through they will find it was amended in the 1920s and 1930s but not very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you certainly are too young to remember that. What happened when Sir Robert Menzies became Prime Minister of Australia in 1949? In the 17 years that R. G. Menzies was Prime Minister of Australia the Commonwealth Electoral Act was amended on only four occasions. Dr Everingham —Shame! It's amazing. Mr HODGMAN —We did not fiddle with the system and I will be coming back to this in a moment. In the 23 years of Liberal-Country Party government the Commonwealth Electoral Act was amended in total on five occasions. But what happened in the years 1972-75-the Whitlam years? In the Whitlam years the Commonwealth Electoral Act was amended five times and two more amendments were in the pipeline when the Whitlam Government was turfed out of office. What I suggest that demonstrates, and demonstrates very clearly, is that as soon as the Australian Labor Party-or as it is more accurately described the socialists-gets hold of the Treasury benches the first thing it does is fiddle with the electoral system, to set it up so that it will be able to guarantee it is in power for a longer period than would be the case if the legislation remained unchanged. Of course it came as no surprise to anybody in Australia when the Special Minister of State was put in charge of the Electoral Act. The Special Minister of State said the Government was going to change the Electoral Act in a number of areas-I will deal with some in a moment-including public funding. Mr Young —It was an election promise. Mr HODGMAN —That is quite true. He said it was an election promise; I said it was an election threat. Unfortunately, the people of Australia were conned by the Minister's Irish charm and they do not realise, and they will not realise until it happens, exactly what he has done because he is both cunning and capable. I knew that the Minister would be back in the Ministry because I knew that he was the only person on the Government side who could fix the election boundaries and fix the election conditions to give the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) a chance of being returned for a second term in office. The Minister came into the Parliament and said: 'This is it: democracy at last'. I talked with a senior member of the Labor Party in a hotel lobby in Melbourne in early May last year. I said: 'I hope Mick is not going to be too savage in the redistribution'. He said: 'No, he won't do anything flash. We are looking at about only 2 per cent to 2-1/2 per cent'. That is very modest. I concede that the swing on the pendulum was 0.7 of a per cent in the Opposition's favour. It seems to be accepted by most psephologists that there was a bias against the Labor Party or the socialists of 0.7 per cent. The Minister apparently was quoted as long ago as May of last year as saying he would not make it too hot-2 per cent to 2-1/2 per cent. However, in came the legislation. Unfortunately the Minister then had a short term out of the Ministry but he came back and the legislation went through the Parliament. It contained 154 clauses and the Minister still could not get it right. Tonight the grand total is 150 clauses plus 180, which puts the legislation into the 330 clauses bracket . I repeat: Under non-Labor governments this legislation has not been fiddled with; the system has not been rigged. The Minister, of course, is the honourable Michael Jerome Young. I really think it should be Michael Jerrymander because what we are seeing effectively is a changing of the system the like of which this country has never before seen. My prediction is that the Government will have an inbuilt bias in favour of its Party of at least 3 per cent to 4 per cent as the result of the proposed changes. In other words what the Government is doing effectively is to shore up the electoral system with a bias. The Minister should never again criticise the Hon. Joh Bjelke-Petersen. He makes him look like a choir boy, as innocent as the whitest snow. The Minister should never talk about Sir Thomas Playford. He was on the other side of the fence from the Minister but, my word, he has turned out to be a fine apprentice of his. Madam Deputy Speaker, I turn directly to some of the provisions in the legislation. Quite frankly, the honourable member for Boothby is correct. We now have the unfortunate and, I think, scandalous situation that one really needs to have a law degree to be able to read the electoral law of this country. Dr Klugman —And you cannot follow it. Mr HODGMAN —With the greatest of respect to the honourable member, I can follow it for a fee. Any barrister, let alone a Queen's Counsel, can follow anything for a fee. Mr Young —The electorates of Tasmania? Mr HODGMAN —I will come to Tasmania. The Minister interjected to suggest that it is undemocratic that in Tasmania the Labor Party got 45 per cent of the vote but it has not a single member in the House of Representatives. The plain fact is that Tasmania is one State whose fair boundaries are very easily checked because the State uses the same boundaries for its elections. If there were any serious imbalance, any serious inaccuracy or gerrymander in the boundaries in Tasmania, it would have been picked up because not just five Federal members are having a close look at the boundaries but 35 members of the Tasmanian House of Assembly. They look very closely at the boundaries because 40, 50, or even 100 votes can decide whether a person is in or out of Parliament. I dare to say that the boundaries in Tasmania are probably the fairest in Australia. I do not know what the Commonwealth Electoral Commission will do. Mr Young —What did Bruce say in his submission.? Mr HODGMAN —There are all sorts of stories about what is happening in Tasmania. I do not know and frankly I do not want to hear. However, I can tell honourable members one thing. If the Government wants to make me blue ribbon safe that will be very nice but if it cuts my little mate- Mr Goodluck —I heard that. Mr HODGMAN —I think the honourable member for Franklin has heard something and I am not even prepared to look at him but I warn the Minister if he has done anything to hurt this great little Aussie battler, the Federal member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), he will have all five Tasmanians-they will, of course, all be Liberal after the next election-chasing him around, but he will be on the Opposition benches. Mr Young —But have you seen his submission? Mr HODGMAN —Of course I saw his submission; it was an excellent submission. In fact it was identical to the Liberal Party's submission. Of course the Minister knows the submissions are made public. I had better get back to the Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker; you have been very tolerant indeed. The point that the honourable member for Boothby so eloquently made-I want to reinforce it-is this: It is a basic presumption of the law that one knows what the law is. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Every citizen is obliged to know the law and every citizen obliged to exercise his or her democratic rights should be able to read and understand the law. I am a great supporter of those who advocate simple English in the drafting of legislation. I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, you have spoken on this very subject in the Parliament. The plain fact is that good legislation is legislation which a member of the public who has average intelligence, should be able to pick up, read and understand. That is not to say that lawyers would become obsolete but it is meant to say that the language used in drafting legislation should be comprehensible to the ordinary Australian man and woman. No more fundamental is that right than when it comes to the question of Australian democracy. We now have the situation that a politician with the experience of the honourable member for Boothby, who served as Premier of South Australia, and who serves in this Parliament with great distinction, correctly pointed out to the House that an amendment that the Government proposes to sub- section 135 (17) simply does not make sense. The honourable member for Prospect very helpfully on his way back from the walkie-talkie with the departmental advisers said that there is an explanation. The Special Minister of State has said that there will be an explanation. What the Minister's explanation is is not the law. The law is what is in black and white. Mr Young —It is in there. Mr HODGMAN —I am sorry. Unless the Minister has a separate Act from the rest of us-I would not put it past him-I am referring to sub-section 135 (17). That does not relate to the amendment which the Government has proposed. Sub-section 135 ( 17) deals with the order of the election of candidates in the Senate. I now turn to the Bill-which any member of the public can get a copy of I guess-and look at sub-section 135 (17) which describes what the Australian Electoral Officer shall do at the conclusion of the scrutiny. Sub-section 135 (17) states: At the conclusion of the scrutiny, the Australian Electoral Officer shall place in parcels all the ballot-papers transmitted to him under sub-section (4), seal up the parcels and endorse on each parcel a description of the contents thereof. What that has to do with the order of election of Senate candidates I do not know. Dr Klugman —Look at the previous one. Mr HODGMAN —Is the honourable member saying that there is another mistake in the Bill? Dr Klugman —Sub-section (16) is the one. Mr HODGMAN —It is the wrong number, is it? Dr Klugman —That is right. Mr HODGMAN —Well, that is incredible. We are now getting our numbers mixed up. The Minister is starring. The sooner we can get this place televised the better. I do not say it unaffectionately-the Minister is a very pleasant person-but we now have a situation that on an important matter such as this we cannot even do our sums. If there are 154 sections in the Act and 180 clauses in the Bill, how many will there be in the next piece of legislation? Is the Minister telling me that when the Government intends to amend sub-section 135 (17) we really ought to understand that the Government really means sub-section 135 (16)? Is that what the Minister is saying? Mr Young —No, (17). Mr HODGMAN —Sooner or later at the end of this debate-- Mr Young —Where did you get your Bill from? Mr HODGMAN —I got it from the same place as the Minister, unless he has a special copy. Mr Young —The Liberal Party must have its own printer. Mr HODGMAN —By gosh, we do not do things like the Minister does in Port Adelaide . Let us make absolutely certain that we are talking about the Bill officially printed by the Australian Government Printer. Have we got two Bills now? Have we got one Bill for the Australian Labor Party and one for the rest of us? Mr Young —I tell you what, you had better get with us and get ours. Mr HODGMAN —Is the Minister telling me that both the honourable member for Boothby and I have made the same mistake? I could not believe that. I will leave it to the great Australian jury. Sub-section 135 (17) describes the order of election of Senate candidates and the amendment describes how we parcel up parcels of votes and mark them in the various sections according to the Australian Electoral Officer determination. I say to the Minister that if he can confuse the honourable member for Boothby and the member for Denison then the legislation is in a hell of a mess. Mr Young —I do not want to confuse you, I want to educate you. Mr HODGMAN —The Minister is not doing a very good job. With respect, no matter how well the Minister speaks-- Mr Young —You never listen to me. Mr HODGMAN —With respect, I listen to the Minister all the time. I am in half the trouble I am in because I do listen to the Minister. I am one of the few members on our side who did not sink the fangs into the Minister. By the way, I say in passing that it does not matter how the Minister explains the legislation because what he explains goes in the Hansard but does not become part of the law of the land. I repeat that, unless the honourable member for Boothby and I have both made the same mistake, the Government's legislation on this point is incomprehensible. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a cognate debate-- Mr Goodluck —He has changed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! I think perhaps there should be a limit to the confusion presently prevailing. Mr HODGMAN —I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have never been confused on the sexes. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, just the same. The Referendum ( Machinery Provisions) Bill 1984, as the honourable member for Boothby pointed out, effectively lifts over most of the amendments of the 1983 Electoral Act and applies them to referenda. There are some notable and, if I might say so with respect to the honourable member for Prospect, proper exceptions on that matter. For example, on this matter the Government has said, in its charity, that it does not require to know the names and addresses of those who have donated their funds to a yes or no campaign. I say that that is a small concession. I think that the rather convoluted logic of the Minister in his second reading speech is well worth recalling because he says effectively that we do not think that in a referendum we will have the possibility of corruption which we might have in an election and in order to get the donors off the hook we will not have to know their addresses, their full names and, no doubt, telephone numbers where they can be set upon in the fullness of time by those who want to pry into their affairs. The Minister said in his second reading speech: In addition, the electoral provisions relating to the disclosure of donations to political parties and candidates are not readily translatable to referendums. Referendum donations do not give rise to potential corruption in the way that undisclosed election donations might. Therefore there is little point in requiring their disclosure. I commend the Minister on that. I still ask why the Government hounds those people in the Australian community-as the Government is now going to hound them under the Electoral Act-so that if they dare to put their money where their mouths are and support a political party or political candidate they have to be disclosed as soon as their donation exceeds a certain amount. I appeal to the Minister and say that I honestly do not believe that he knows what a mortal blow he has struck at democracy in this country. I am with the Minister when he talks about big donations from very big companies with ulterior motives. I must say that we never get them in Denison or Franklin. I do not believe that a campaign in Denison has got to within a tenth of the figure that some Government members spend in Sydney and Melbourne in those big electorates. I am told that one Party -I will be frank and say that it was the Australian Labor Party-spent over $100, 000 in one campaign in a Sydney metropolitan seat. I see that the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) is laughing. Obviously he is not getting the big money ; he is getting the little stuff. I am telling honourable members that the short point is that we have not been tied up with these big donations. I frankly do not know about them. What I do say is that the Government is striking a death blow at democracy. The honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown), who is trying to interject, should listen to this. Having struck the death blow the honourable member's Party has said: 'When we have our next referendum we are going to spend $1.5m of taxpayers' money on the yes case and nothing on the no case'. The Government is taking the money from the pensioners, the widows and the poor and will spend it on only one side of the argument. Mr Mountford —That is nonsense. Mr HODGMAN —That is not nonsense. The honourable member for Boothby is going to move precisely again an amendment in relation to this so the Government will not be able to use the taxpayers' money for the purpose of supporting the political campaigns of the Australian Labor Party. We hope that this amendment will go through, if not in this House, in another House so when we have referendums there will be an official booklet with the yes case and the no case. The Government has been dishonest enough to take taxpayers' money and must be stopped. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Before calling the honourable member for Eden-Monaro I point out, having been reluctant to interrupt the honourable member for Denison, that honourable members when speaking to the question are required by Standing Orders to address the Chair and not to engage in direct conversation. I call the honourable member for Eden- Monaro. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(9.18) —The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has talked about manipulation of boundaries and elections by this Government. I ask whether a far simpler Senate voting system is manipulation? Is a simpler ballot paper, showing the name of the parties, manipulation? Are electorates, varying not more than 10 per cent, manipulation? I am afraid I cannot compete with the honourable member's eloquent disregard of the highly democratic reforms of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young). The Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 results from a review of electorate legislation. It is mainly a machinery measure. Long overdue reforms proposed by this Government will mean a much lighter burden for voters, particularly in Senate elections. The existing legislation means that we no longer have to mark every square on a Senate ballot paper. Instead of marking every name on our ballot papers, for example up to 60 in some cases, we can now choose. We can mark all names as before or we can mark a box next to the names of the chosen party. This will make voting far less complex, but it does bring in a new counting method. The new counting method involves what the Special Minister of State calls 'fractional transfer'. This means many more counts will be required at a typical Senate election. More work in counting, of course, is more democratic than more work in voting. There will be more work in counting and this means a centralised scrutiny of the Senate count is needed. The alternative would be frequent communication between the divisional offices and central State offices of the Electoral Commission and, therefore, a longer time in counting. Simplicity in voting is vital to democratic elections in this country. The Parliament has approved simpler voting for the Senate. Another complication in voting is postal voting. With less polling booths more people need to apply for postal votes, especially in some country areas. One of the complications of postal voting has been the inability of people to tell who they have been voting for. Now, when people receive their ballot paper on a postal vote, the ballot paper will show the names of the parties, again making it easier for the voter. These amendments assist the counting of those votes. Preliminary scrutiny of postal votes will be permitted and scrutineers will be permitted to attend. Other points cover registration by candidates prior to nominations and transfer of surplus votes. The need for retention of claim cards by the administration is removed where another approved form is kept and the provision for disclosure of gifts has been altered to exempt those of an entirely personal nature. Armed service personnel and overseas electors are provided for if they intend returning to their place of living. The other Bill that we are discussing, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill ensures that pamphlets on the Yes and No case reach electors at the appropriate time. It requires expenditure returns by publishers, broadcasters and printers only. Referendum donation disclosures is not required as are donations to parties and candidates. Churchill made a statement which, while true to his age omitted the voting woman, did make an important point. He said: At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy is the little man. let us add woman-- walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross-- let us say a couple of figures for Australia-- on a little bit of paper. No amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of that point. It is easy for people to think: 'My vote will do no good'. It is suggested that they take a step and think 'One vote will do no harm', and then another step and realise that it may do some good. These amendments are machinery provisions to ensure democratic elections. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(9.24) —I wish to speak only briefly. I am sure the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) will not mind me at least flagging the position of the Opposition in relation to a particular aspect of amendments that are to be put tonight; they are the amendments to be moved by the Special Minister of State associated with the incorporation of the territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands in the Northern Territory. Mr Young —You will do that at the Committee stage? Mr RUDDOCK —Yes, I will address those amendments at that time, but I think it is appropriate that I at least put on the record the reasons why we will oppose these particular provisions. We will oppose these particular amendments not because we are opposed to the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands being able to participate in referenda. As I address the House later tonight in relation to the debate that will take place on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Self- Determination (Consequential Amendments) Bill honourable members will learn that the Opposition does have some reservations about the way in which the Government is intending to ensure that the people, particularly the Cocos-Malay people on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, are to be enfranchised. We are very conscious of the need for those people who have voted to become part of Australia and to be integrated with Australia, to be enfranchised at the earliest possible date, but we are concerned that the proposals that have been advanced are not proposals that have been the subject of full and complete consultation with the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The proposals that are being advanced are proposals which will be a forerunner of further amendments to deal with the people on Christmas Island. I do not believe appropriate consultation has taken place with the people on Christmas Island. The proposals that are being advanced might well be the forerunner of proposals to ensure that, at some future date, the people of Norfolk Island might well be enfranchised to participate in referenda and also elections for the Australian Parliament, but the arrangements whereby we incorporate or facilitate votes for people in those external territories in electorates of mainland territories are, I think, fraught with all sorts of doubts and difficulties. I will expand later on the difficulties that I foresee in relation to dealing with each of those situations and the reasons why we are pressing in this situation to defer-that really means that we need to defeat these proposals at this stage-consideration of this matter until there has been proper consultation with the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands in particular. We will be pressing that in this case and I will be expanding on the reasons for doing so when we discuss the later Bill. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(9.26) —in reply-I thank the honourable members who have taken part in the second reading debate on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill and the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill. Two or three matters were raised by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) and also by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) in relation to the Bills which I think I should clear up. There seems to have been some mix-up in that the members opposite may have had an incorrect copy of the legislation so that the numbering has brought some confusion into the debate. The Act is now available in the Table Office. If honourable members have got hold of an earlier copy which was used in the earlier debate, of course they will have some difficulty. As the honourable member for Boothby said, it did look as though we were taking out a section of the Act which, of course, is needed for the operation of the election. In relation to the section to which the honourable member referred, when the Bill went to the Senate the Senate inserted a new sub-section 135 (15) (a). However, when the amendments are presented to the Governor-General for assent and incorporated in the Act they are renumbered so that sub-section (17), which the honourable member for Boothby thinks is being omitted, is in fact sub-section ( 18) and is regarded by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel as such. The Bill is correct in that the provision being omitted is the one relating to the parcelling of votes at the end of the count. If honourable members have a look at sub-section (17) on page 132 of the Act they will see that. I do not wish to refer in detail now to the points raised by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. We have some amendments, and I will refer to them later. He is quite correct; they cannot be incorporated in the territories without very complex machinery being put into operation in terms of State referendums. I think he understands that. We will go into that in the debate in the Committee stage. In relation to the matter of the electors claim card raised by the honourable member for Boothby, the record referred to in proposed section 216B (2) is a microfiche copy of the electors claim card. The sub-section authorises such a microfiche record to be used as evidence in court proceedings; for example, if the elector who recorded the original claim card is being prosecuted for making a false declaration in that claim. It is to be prima facie evidence of the information shown in the record. Of course, it is the only occasion on which the Electoral Office would use such evidence in relation to this Act. (Quorum formed ) In relation to the Representation Act, I do not wish to get into a debate about when an election should or should not be held. I can say to the honourable member for Boothby that the amendment that we are suggesting allows a much later election to be held than does the existing Representation Act. The Leader for the Opposition suggests that it might be held in May, but I think honourable members opposite would realise that a joint election could not be held in May because, as the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) pointed out, that would be too late for the count to take place for the members to take up their office. In relation to the alleged anomaly between the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill and the Commonwealth Electoral Act, clause 4 (2) (b) of the Bill states: A name shall not be removed from a roll under-renumbered sub-section 118 (1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act currently 57 (1)-after the issue of the writ for a referendum and before the close of voting at a referendum. This is precisely analagous to a provision with respect to elections in the renumbered sub-section 118 (1), presently 57 (1), of the Electoral Act. So there is no anomaly between what is in the referendum Bill and the Electoral Act as it now exists. Hopefully, I have answered the points that have been raised by the honourable member for Boothby and the honourable member for Denison. I will reply to the amendment to be moved by the honourable member for Boothby in regard to the funding and I will reply also to the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) on the questions raised about the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 3 (Interpretation). Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(9.34) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 3, page 3, after the definition of 'mobile polling team member' insert the following definition: '' 'Northern Territory' includes the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands;''. (2) Clause 3, page 4, lines 37 and 38, omit 'specified in a notice published under sub-section 79 (1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918'. (3) Clause 3, page 4, at the end of the clause add the following sub-clause: '( 3) This Act extends to the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands.'. The first amendment inserts in clause 3 of the Bill a new definition of ' Northern Territory' which includes the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The second amendment, to sub-clause 3 (2) of the Bill, provides that a reference to a sub-division shall, unless the contrary intention appears, include a reference to a district of the Northern Territory specified under sub-section 79 (1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. However, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands are declared to be such a district by the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Self-Determination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984 rather than by a specification under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. The amendment is required to give effect for the referendum purposes to the declaration made in that Bill. The third amendment formally extends the operation of the Bill to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. In the absence of such a provision the Bill would, by virtue of sub- section 10 of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955, not so operate. Advice from Attorneys-General has always been that the Cocos (Keeling) Islands can be included in a division in a State only if the islands are actually made part of that State. This would require support from both a State parliament and the majority of electors in a State at a referendum. This leaves the placement of such a Territory as the Cocos (Keeling) Islands in the electorate of the Northern Territory, Canberra or Fraser. Those are the three electorates into which the islands can be included electorally. I think all honourable members would recognise the greater community interest between the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and the Northern Territory than between the Islands and Fraser or Canberra. I know that this statement may attract some argument because other territories may be involved. In this case very few voters are involved. It seems to me that as we are now moving, with the incorporation of Cocos (Keeling) Islands, into mainstream Australia this is a proper way for us to deal with these people and to give them entitlements in future referendums. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(9.37) —This may be a forerunner to a debate that is later to take place, as I have said, in relation to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Self- Determination (Consequential Amendments) Bill. What we are dealing with, of course, is the provision of the franchise to the Cocos-Malay people in relation both to referenda and participation in Federal elections. As the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) has mentioned, there is some difficulty which would have to be overcome to ensure that the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and perhaps the people of Christmas Island were able to vote in electorates in Western Australia which would be the most appropriate place-I think all honourable members would acknowledge-for people of the Territories to participate in Australian elections. I think the Minister would well understand that all the available information indicates that the people of Cocos (Keeling) Islands in particular and the people of Christmas Island, which is the other Territory which we will be examining, I guess at some later point, have a much closer relationship with Western Australia than with the Northern Territory; all their communication and transport links are through Western Australia. Most of the people of Cocos-Malay descent who have settled in Australia have settled in Western Australia in, I understand, the electorates of O'Connor and Kalgoorlie. I acknowledge that, to ensure that the people are able to vote with their fellow Cocos-Malay people who have settled in Australia where there may be some community interest and where they may wish to settle, assuming people seek to be reunited with families if they make such a move, it is obvious that it would require a constitutional amendment to ensure that the people of the Cocos ( Keeling) Islands are able to participate in a Western Australian electorate in Federal elections. I do not believe that that is a possibility that should be rejected out of hand by the Government. Madam Chair, I will tell you why. There are a number of other external Territories, one of them being Norfolk Island, where, at some point in time in the future, a decision might well be reached that the Norfolk Islanders should be able to participate in Federal elections, and vote, as do all other Australians, in elections. I do not think that ought to happen in advance of any desire of the Norfolk Islanders who wish to vote in Australian elections, nor do I think it ought to happen in relation to Christmas Island in advance of any wish on the part of Christmas Islanders to participate. I believe that a variety of situations have to be addressed. While we are looking at this situation in the first instance, the mechanism that we are establishing-the incorporation of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands in the electorate of the Northern Territory for voting in Federal elections-might not be the most appropriate solution. I think the alternative, to address the question over the longer term, would be to propose a referendum question to amend the Constitution . I believe that it would be quite appropriate for the Australian Constitution to be amended in such a way as to ensure that the franchise was extended to people living in a Territory without having to incorporate them within the boundaries of a State for all other purposes. Of course, if such a referendum were carried-I do not believe that there would be any opposition to such a proposal-it would ensure that there was a proper mechanism for dealing with the other Territories. I certainly acknowledge that that, of course, may take some time. If, of course, the Government were mindful of not proceeding with a referendum question of that sort immediately and wanted to hold it at the next election, it would mean that there would be some delay. But my view, of course, is that there are certain referendum questions which the Government has put off to this point which ought to be addressed now. The simultaneous elections referendum proposition is one which would overcome all of the posturing problems that the Government has in relation to when the next Federal election ought to be held. If the simultaneous elections propositions were put and carried, the whole of the argument that the Government intends to advance for running for election early would, in fact, be overcome. Of course, a referendum on this question could be put at one and the same time. I think that it is important, however, that the Government have in mind some other problems which I am about to address in proceeding to incorporate the Cocos (Keeling) Islands for electoral purposes in the Northern Territory electorate. The fact of the matter is that whilst one might be able to regard section 122 of the Constitution, liberally interpreted, as permitting the incorporation of two Territories together for electoral purposes, there is another problem that I do not think the Government and its advisers have properly addressed in relation to section 121 and section 29 of the Constitution . Of course, the situation I am referring to is the eventual self-government arrangements for the Northern Territory wherein the Northern Territory will proceed to statehood. The fact of the matter is that the problem that the Government advances as being a realistic problem now in relation to incorporating the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island in the electorates of Western Australia will be the same problem that will have to be addressed when self-government is ultimately attained in the Northern Territory. The relevant section is section 121 of the Constitution, which states: The Parliament may admit to the Commonwealth or establish new States, and may upon such admission or establishment make or impose such terms and conditions, including the extent of representation in either House of Parliament, as it thinks fit. I repeat: 'As it thinks fit'. It may be thought that those words are sufficient to enable the Parliament to provide for the Northern Territory electorate to include a Territory. But if one reads that section in conjunction with section 29 of the Constitution, one will see that there is a real problem in terms of including additional areas outside a State for the purposes of establishing divisions within a State. If one reads section 29 of the Constitution-I will-one will see the point that I am making. It states: Until the Parliament of the Commonwealth otherwise provides, the Parliament of any State may make laws for determining the divisions in each State for which members of the House of Representatives may be chosen, and the number of members to be chosen for each division. A division shall not be formed out of parts of different States. It may be argued that what is meant there, of course, is that Territories are not different States. But I do not think that is beyond doubt. I think the clear intention was that divisions should not go over State boundaries. When one seeks to run them over State boundaries, of course, one has a real problem. So the problem that we are putting off today in relation to Western Australia is the same problem that the Government is going to face, in my view, when the Northern Territory proceeds to statehood. In fact, it may well be an impediment to the Northern Territory proceeding to statehood. If the Government has some legal advice that it thinks might clarify that situation, I would be happy to see it. But certainly, to my mind, there is considerable doubt. The very doubt that the Minister has raised in relation to the inclusion of those islands for voting purposes in electorates in Western Australia would be the same doubt that would arise-- Mr Reeves —No, read the Constitution. Mr RUDDOCK —I have read the Constitution to honourable members. Mr Reeves —The boundaries of new States can be determined by the Parliament. Mr RUDDOCK —So the honourable member wants to incorporate the Territory as part of the Northern Territory? That, of course, is a proposition that the Minister himself has denied. The Minister has said, of course, that it is not the intention of the Government to incorporate the Cocos (Keeling) Islands in the Northern Territory. It is only for electoral purposes. Of course, if he maintains that that is the appropriate distinction to be made, a very real problem exists in relation to the question of Northern Territory statehood. The Opposition is strongly of the view that this matter should be deferred at this time-it will be putting that view in relation to other matters-so that these questions can be looked at properly and so that the people of Cocos (Keeling) Islands can be consulted in this matter. The Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) was good enough to arrange a meeting for me in Canberra with the Chairman of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council. I put to him that very question. It was quite clear that the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands were quite easy as to whether they should be incorporated in the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory for electoral purposes. If they recognised the particular problems that I have addressed, I am sure that there would be no difficulty in agreeing to voting in the electorates of Fraser or Canberra and that would be an appropriate response. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(9.47) —I want to make a couple of brief comments about two aspects of clause 3 of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill 1984 which, of course, is the definition section and to applaud the Government and the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) for the definition in relation to Antarctic electors, provisions for whom occur in Part V, but, of course, the definitions are in clause 3. I think that most honourable members would know that the headquarters of the Australian Antarctic Division are situated at Kingston, Tasmania, in the electorate of Denison. Macquarie Island is part of the State of Tasmania, and is, in fact, in the division of Franklin. My colleague the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and I have made numerous representations over the years about the situation whereby Australians in Antarctica have been deprived of the opportunity to vote. It is indeed pleasing to see that anomaly has now been picked up and the definitions contained in clause 3 read in conjunction with Part V are most welcome and, I am certain, will be applauded by those who work in the Antarctic. As many as 120 electors can be working in the Australian Antarctic Territory at any time. It is therefore very important that their right to express an opinion through the democratic process of the ballot box is protected. One of the problems that will arise-I will not speak again on Part V-is how one gets results back. Effectively, it could be argued that the secrecy of the ballot is, to some extent, destroyed, in that the returning officer has to indicate the States from which the votes have been cast because of the majority of votes and the majority of States provision. It would be possible, for example, that there might be only one elector from one State or perhaps two at the most in one of the smaller States and so one could have a situation where effectively the secrecy of the ballot was disturbed. The matter I want to raise in continuation of a comment I made during the second reading debate concerns the question of drafting the ballot paper and of making it legible and understandable to an ordinary person. I take the definition of 'officer' which appears in section 3 of the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act. I will read it without comment and ask the Minister at the end of my remarks to indicate why we have to persist with this sort of draftsmanship which really I think could be improved upon in 1984. The definition of 'officer' states: 'Officer' includes the Electoral Commissioner, an Australian Electoral Officer for a State or Territory, a Divisional Returning Officer, an Assistant Returning Officer, an Assistant Divisional Returning Officer, an Antarctic Returning Officer, an Assistant Antarctic Returning Officer, a Presiding Officer, a Substitute Presiding Officer, an Assistant Presiding Officer, an Electoral Visitor, a Mobile Polling Team Leader, a Mobile Polling Team Member and a Poll Clerk; Can we not do better than that in 1984? Quite frankly, terms such as 'officer' and 'public place' are an absolute nightmare from the point of view of a draftsman. My friend, the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) who is walking out of the chamber, would be the first to agree with me that the ethnic communities have difficulty in understanding the law of Australia. Mr Kent —They have difficulty understanding you. Mr HODGMAN —They understand me very well. They understand the honourable member too. The short point is that if we are to have a law we should move into a new era of drafting. I think we can do better in 1984 than the sort of thing which I have just read to the chamber. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(9.52) —I do not want to hold up the chamber but the Opposition's view on the inclusion of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands in the Northern Territory for electoral purposes raises a matter of some principle. As we all know, the Government has provided the islands with the opportunity to decide whether they want to become independent or be integrated with Australia. It seems, if only to give an equal position of justice, that we should ask them in which part of Australia they would like to be included for electoral purposes . We know that constitutional matters have been raised by my colleague in that regard but they are not insuperable. I am sure the people of Australia would by referendum ratify a decision of the Cocos Islands as to which area of Australia they would like to be allied with in the electoral sense. Certainly, there are those in the trade and commerce area who say that Western Australia is the correct area. As I have said, this raises a matter of some principle. To establish our view firmly we will have to divide on the first of these amendments. We will not follow through with divisions later and be frivolous about the matter but I hope the Minister understands our desire. We are not being obstructive but we want to state firmly our view on the matter. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(9.53) —I will conclude the debate. Difficulties may lie ahead on the question of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The Australian Capital Territory may become a State; many people in the Australian Capital Territory would like to achieve statehood. Another problem which the Opposition has not taken into account is that the Australian Capital Territory has to undergo a redistribution. That is not a problem in the Northern Territory at the moment. The emphasis on community interest is written into the Commonwealth Electoral Act as a guideline for electoral redistribution. There can be no doubt as to which of the Territories the Cocos Islands is closer to out of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) has probably visited the Cocos Islands . I have not had that great joy. Mr Ruddock —I have not had either; the Minister would not take me with him. Mr YOUNG —I think he should. If he asks me for the privilege of letting the honourable member go on the plane I will give my approval. I think that even a person like the honourable member for Dundas who has had a good urban upbringing would identify the great parallel between the Northern Territory and the Cocos Islands. What lies ahead may well be a problem. I acknowledge the point made by the honourable member for Dundas. In this attempt to alter the Acts, which has taken place over the last year, inasmuch as we made it compulsory for the Aboriginal people to enrol and vote in the same way as everybody else in Australia we do not think we can properly treat the people of the Cocos Islands by saying to them: 'Now you are in Australia but we will take longer to work out how or where you will vote and you will not vote in the next election'. As I said, so few votes are involved. I take it from what the honourable member said that if the Cocos Islands were incorporated in the Australian Capital Territory he would not oppose that. He is opposing only their incorporation in the Northern Territory. To that extent, the Government has obviously made the correct decision. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) raised the definition of an officer in the Act. He does not have to go that far. He has only to read the Remuneration Tribunals Act affecting members of parliament to see what an officer is. He might be amused to know that there is a certain definition of an officer of the Parliament. It includes the Speaker, Ministers and so forth but certain people who hold office in the Parliament are not defined as officers, for example the leader of the House in opposition. The Leader of the House in the Government is defined as an officer. Certain things are peculiar to the interpretation of what that may mean. In my Department at the moment we have a program of writing government documents in plainer English. Hopefully, in the not too distant future, we will achieve some success so that people outside the Parliament can understand what parliamentary draftsmen are doing. Question put: That the amendments be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 41 —— 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. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 4 to 10-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 11 (Distribution to electors of arguments for and against proposed law). Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(10.04) —I move: Clause 11, page 8, after sub-clause (3) add the following sub-clause: '(4) No moneys shall be expended by the Commonwealth in respect of the presentation of the argument in favour of, or the argument against, a proposed law other than in respect of- (a) the publication of the pamphlet referred to in this section and any translation into other languages which may be authorised and advertised by the Electoral Commissioner; or (b) meeting travelling, accommodation or other ordinary expenses of Members of the Parliament, including Ministers, that are lawfully payable by the Commonwealth.' The moving of that amendment follows my remarks in the second reading debate which, of course, followed a previous debate in the Senate during which this amendment had been moved. It was moved for the reason which I outlined and which was that there should be established by legislation procedures whereby a government-any government of the day-is unable to intervene in a decision in a partisan fashion. The example set before us is the one I stated to the House, where the Government tried to apply one and a quarter million dollars of public funding to the Yes case for a referendum, which happened to be the view of the Australian Labor Party. It may well have been the view of the vast majority of Australians, but that is beside the point. The point is that because the Government happened to take a particular view it desired to appropriate public money to achieve that aim by persuading electors. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) denied that there was any lack of morality in the Government proceeding in that fashion. I will quote from another couple of paragraphs of the Attorney-General's speech to outline the Government's view at that time- December last year. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) might like to be reminded of his colleague's statement, when he said: There is an excellent chance of that kind of emotional rather than intellectual appeal carrying the day because of the well-known psychological disposition of individuals, when confronted with something about which they do not feel very strongly and which they do not really understand, to vote No. That is his view, and he might be right. But what he is saying is that it is more difficult to persuade some people to vote yes, and therefore we need public money to do so. In another paragraph of his speech he stated: . . . I would say and argue very strongly, the expenditure of some additional resources just to make it impinge upon the voters' consciences to give it a chance of competing with the raw crude, vulgar emotion of the kind which gets generated in referendum campaigns. So the Attorney-General clearly saw the role of the appropriation of public funds to promote a Yes campaign as being a partisan move. Quite clearly, he foresaw the forces that would advocate a No campaign as having an advantage in the public argument. He wanted to be quite partisan and to say: 'Let us use public money to influence the public voter because he is wrong if he votes no'. That particular attitude will not stand up in any examination of the position- the moral one or the one which I would like to think has pervaded the Minister's attitude in general to his view of the legislation that he has introduced into the House over the last months. Mr Scott —That is not what you said before. Mr STEELE HALL —The honourable member for Hindmarsh would know that his colleague the Minister has consistently said that he has sought fair legislation , that he has sought to include in all the legislation the basis of a fair distribution and a fair operation of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I put it to the Minister that, in regard to the attitude adopted previously-and I think he was out of the office then for a short while and, of course, he possibly would not have taken part in the decision-if he is to be consistent in his views and to carry that consistency in legislation, he would not oppose a clause such as this which would simply establish that the moneys to be spent would be confined to the traditional role that has always been played-that is, to present a Yes and No case to the populace of Australia. Therefore, without further wearying the House of an argument that it knows about, which the Minister knows about and which his Party knows about-he knows the merits of this case-I say that I hope he will not use the brute force of numbers to maintain a position which I believe would attract public censure. Nevertheless, I put it to him that the inclusion of the amendment which I have suggested to page 8, after sub-clause (3) of clause 11, would overcome all of the difficulties and would ensure that the Government could not proceed along the lines which we find objectionable. It would mean that when we return to office, whenever that may be, our government would also be constrained by that same discipline, which is fair to all who govern Australia and to those who are governed, in this important matter of who shall convince the public, and how the public shall be convinced in relation to voting in a referendum. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.10) —I have pleasure in supporting the amendment moved so capably by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall). I appeal to the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) to accept the amendment in the spirit in which it is brought before this Parliament. The honourable member for Boothby is quite correct. Nobody can blame the Minister for what the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) did in the Senate last December because the Minister was at that stage, if I can use the phrase, under suspension. Mr Young —In the sin bin. Mr HODGMAN —The Minister was under suspension, in the sin bin. My official information is that he returned on 19 January. It was in the Senate on 6 December that this matter was debated in full. The shadow Attorney-General, Senator Peter Durack, leading for the Opposition, as recorded on page 3307 of the Senate Hansard for 1983, said: First and foremost, we are very concerned indeed by the decision of the Government to spend $1 1/4m of taxpayers' moneys, public money, in promoting the Yes case in the referendums on the five topics that will be put to the people at the end of February. As we all know, the referendum proposals did not go ahead, but the people of Australia must never forget that this Government, the Hawke socialist Government , was so unprincipled that it was prepared to spend $1.25m of taxpayers' money in putting one side of the case in a referendum involving five questions to be put to the people of Australia-one side of the case only. As Senator Shirley Walters said, I think very aptly, in the Senate debate, this is George Orwell's 1984. It must never be tried again. There was a double bias. There was not an appropriation for the purpose. There was no appropriation to the Attorney- General and there was no appropriation to the Special Minister of State. The Government was going to take $1.25m out of the slush fund of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) of $53m. In other words, there had been no parliamentary approval. As the honourable member for Boothby said, there had been no legislative authority. The Ministers were going to spend $1.25m, which should have gone to the pensioners of Australia and the other people who need the money , on one side of the case. I and the Opposition are dead against the Government using public money, taxpayers' money, for the funding of political parties and for the funding of referendum arguments, for or against. Our Party has made a clear commitment that it will repeal the Government's public funding proposals, which are now legislative proposals, in the election later this year or whenever it comes. The people of Australia will see taxpayers' money being given to political parties for the purposes of the campaign. I think that will cost the Government an enormous number of votes. It is anathema to democracy that money which is taken from the people of Australia through taxation is given to political parties, to politicians, for election campaigns. The amendment of the honourable member for Boothby is one which the Minister can accept honourably. I exonerate the Minister totally from the outrageous arguments of Senator Evans in the Senate. The honourable member for Boothby quoted part of what Senator Evans said, but a little earlier in the same speech, as recorded on page3327 of Hansard, Senator Evans said: The first- That is, the first point he wanted to make- is this: The No case, whatever the quality of its proponents within the Parliament, always goes into a referendum campaign with an intrinsic advantage. A little later he went on to talk about what was obviously a recent referendum. He said that the psychology of those supporting the No case was well understood, and honourable members should listen to this, by miscellaneous troglodytes, neanderthals and by more sophisticated campaigners who in the past have propounded the No case. That was a calculated insult to the people of Western Australia, Queensland and Tasmania who had rejected simultaneous elections. Mr Leo McLeay —Well, they are. Mr HODGMAN —I would advise you, comrade, not to make that comment. It will ensure that your Party will not win a seat in Tasmania for at least a generation and will lose seats in Queensland and Western Australia. The honourable member cannot call the people of Tasmania, Queensland and Western Australia neanderthals and troglodytes because they voted against the simultaneous elections. To come back to the honourable member's amendment which I second, the first and fundamental point is that one does not rip money off the taxpayers of Australia and then use it to support one side in a referendum campaign. The fact that the senior law officer of the Commonwealth, Senator Gareth Evans, QC, was prepared to argue in the Parliament that there was some moral right to fund one side of the case and not the other was an outrageous perversion of logic and raises very severe questions as to his capacity even to understand the principle. If there were to be any funding, and the Opposition says there should not be, at the very least it should have been even-handed. But the Minister's Government, while he was in the sin bin, was going to flog $1.25m from the people of Australia and put it into one side of the campaign. I conclude by saying that if the rules that apply to the legal profession were applied to members of the Hawke socialist Government they would all get at least seven years gaol for that sort of thing. I ask the Minister to do the honourable thing: Support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Boothby, whose integrity and fairness in electoral matters is known and respected throughout the Commonwealth. I think that by accepting this amendment we can ensure that we never again have the corrupt, dishonest situation of somebody proposing to use $ 1.25m to support one side of a case. If that is the Government's idea of democracy, if that is what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) thinks is consensus, I have to say with the greatest respect that honourable members opposite should remember that this place is Canberra, not Moscow. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(10.17) —First of all, the question of expenditure by governments will always be controversial. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) said that the $1.25m proposed for the Yes case was outrageous because it was such a large amount. I remind him that his Government when he was a Minister in 1982 spent $3m telling the Australian people how good its Budget was. Obviously, that was a controversial way of expending taxpayers' money-that amount was $3m. The Government does not accept the Opposition's amendment. It seems to me-- Mr Hodgman —You want to do it again. Mr YOUNG —No, there is much argument about the way in which these things ought to be funded. It seems to me that the amendment is throwing the baby out with the bath water. If the Parliament, 100 per cent of members of both chambers, ever thinks that it is important to alter the Constitution and supports 100 per cent a certain case in a referendum, it does not seem to me to be outrageous that the Government should be funding the Yes case if it is thought to be in the best interests of Australia. It is unlikely that a case would get 100 per cent support but if, for instance, we had a ratio of 90:10, we might look at a case-- Mr Ruddock —That is even less reason. Mr YOUNG —Let me remind the honourable members for Denison and Dundas that if they read through the record of that Senate debate they will read the quotations from the Premier of Tasmania, who said quite openly when he was interviewed that he expected to use Tasmanian taxpayers' money on the referendum and that he would oppose the proposal. Mr Steele Hall —Do you think that is right? Mr YOUNG —I am not making a judgment about it. All I am saying is that he had made a decision to use very scarce taxpayers' money in Tasmania to involve himself-- Mr Hodgman —Very scarce in Tasmania since you have been in government. Mr YOUNG —He has never had as much money as he has had since we got into government. The honourable member should wait until he sees the result of the next election. I think the barber who cut Bruce Goodluck's hair has done a job on him. He has cut off more than his hair. The way in which governments might spend their money will always be controversial. There is no provision in this Bill for the expenditure of funds by the Government at future referendums. We do not expect that now we will have a blanket coverage to make sure that under no circumstance will the Parliament in future entertain the idea of finding a formula for providing funds for and against a case. I am not suggesting that the Government of the day, because of a view that it may take, can be wholly and solely right in saying: 'Because we are in government, all the funds that are going to be available will be available to the sentiments that we express in favour of the Yes case'. Obviously, it would not be putting up a referendum if it wanted a No vote. The expenditure that we have under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which was referred to by the honourable member for Denison, is not contrary to the best processes of democracy; it is supplementary to democracy, looking at the operations of such a system in almost every democracy in the Western world. Democracies are very much in a minority in this world. We were not the first to adopt the system; we were almost the last. So people overseas have not found that expenditure granted to political parties for the purposes of campaigning has been contrary to the best interests of their political processes. The reason why we reject the amendment moved by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) is not that we have found a solution to the problem. I think that there should still be argument as to the way in which governments may or may not fund referendums. As I say, there is no provision in the Bill on funding. But the Government is not prepared to accept a blanket discharge of any future debate about what may or may not be the province of the Parliament to decide at any particular time the way in which it wants to move on the funding of referendums. For those reasons, we reject the amendment. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(10.21) —I am disappointed that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) still maintains, although perhaps with less flamboyant language , the position adopted by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) last December when this matter was before the Parliament. What the Minister has done is to reaffirm or to continue to entertain the possibility that on some future occasion this Government might appropriate public moneys to get through its views as a political party, the views of the Australian Labor Party, to change the Australian Constitution. That is not public funding as brought forward, as the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has mentioned, in the Commonwealth Electoral Act, under which a vote is awarded under a set formula. It is not that proposition. The Minister will not reject that proposition and lays open to this Government in future the ability to make a decision that it might so appropriate public moneys. I find this appalling. The Labor Party, in office, might in future appropriate public moneys to further policy decisions made in the Labor Party Caucus by appropriating taxpayers' funds to get them voted for in a referendum. I heartily stand behind the amendment that I have moved. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.23) —I speak in this matter because of the arguments that have been raised in debate, particularly those from the Special Minister of State (Mr Young). I was surprised that the Minister would argue that if a referendum proposition were supported by 100 per cent of members of this Parliament, there might be a greater claim to the spending of public moneys than there would be in other circumstances. Frankly, I find that an extraordinary proposition. I should have thought that in such a situation, the claim to spend public moneys in support of convincing the public of the righteousness of the cause was very much less than it might otherwise be in other circumstances, even if it were accepted that there was some justification. There have been situations in which referenda propositions have been overwhelmingly supported by members of this Parliament, and a minority of members have opposed the proposition that has been advanced. The first one of which I was aware was in relation to the nexus debate, in which members of the coalition and of the Labor Party were in agreement and the Australian Democratic Labor Party members of the Senate opposed that proposition put by the unity ticket, in those circumstances, of interests. They mounted an argument, and they went out to the electorate and sold that argument. The Minister is saying that a minority that is severely disadvantaged in terms of numbers, disadvantaged in terms of the other matters that we exempt in this referendum-that is, the advantage of office to sell a cause-ought to be further disadvantaged by having a substantial sum of public moneys appropriated to those who are advancing one side of the case. It ought to be recognised that this referendum leaves in the hands of the Government a very considerable advantage over and above other members of the Parliament who might wish to argue against the proposition, or over and above other people in Australia who might wish to argue against the proposition. It is their right to be able to oppose. We may not always agree with those who oppose a particular proposition, but they have a right to be able to do that in a democratic society. Yet we have a situation in which the Government, and office holders in the Opposition-I acknowledge that-are able, as we have accepted in relation to this amendment, to travel the country at public expense, with their accommodation and other ordinary expenses, if properly payable under the entitlements that go with their offices, being allowed. That very considerable advantage in endeavouring to persuade people to accept a referendum proposition it would continue. Yet we have the proposition put that when 100 per cent of the members of this Parliament, all of the office holders of the Government and of the Opposition, with public moneys-that is what they are-are able to move around Australia advocating the cause, others, a minority, would have to try to mount their case out of their own pockets and would have to suffer the further disadvantage that no public moneys would be available to them to advance their case. The Minister gave an extreme example of where he thought there would be agreement. I found that so much more abhorrent that I felt bound to speak on this matter. This is a very important amendment because it is designed to ensure that not only is our system whereby we consider these important questions one in which we argue that there is a democratic right to freedom of speech and for people to be able to vote for or against a proposition, but also that there is a democratic right to be able to hear the arguments unhindered by an enormous amount of public moneys being advanced in relation to only one side of the case. It ought to be acknowledged that of course other people are entitled, if they have a view and want to spend their own money to advance it, to be free to be able to do so. I would not seek to deny individuals or political parties the right to be able to garner their own funds to support a referendum proposition if they believe in it strongly enough. The only complaint that I have is when they want to garner the funds of the taxpayer to be able to put that case to the Australian people. I do not complain if the Labor Party says that it believes so strongly in this proposition that it wants to spend Labor Party funds on it; or if the Liberal Party or the National Party, in office, believed in a proposition strongly enough that they wanted to produce how to vote cards and go out and stand in the polling booths, organise meetings and convince people of the rightness of the cause. But I do not believe that it is appropriate that taxpayers' funds be advanced other than to ensure, as this amendment proposes, that there is a proper bringing together of the views for and against, and to ensure that that information reaches all electors so that people can apprise themselves of the arguments put by both sides of the case and, having looked at those arguments, can weigh matters up and reach a judgment of their own as to the way in which our Constitution ought to be altered. That is democratic. It is appropriate. All honourable members should see the worth in supporting this amendment. I would encourage honourable members to put aside the shackles of party discipline on a matter of this sort, where freedom of speech, one of the fundamental principles, is involved; freedom to be able to vote on a matter of this sort unhindered. The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) spoke today with great emotion about a matter on which he disagreed with his own political party. That was a useful first sign. He was speaking out in this Parliament, even though people tried to discourage him from speaking out. I congratulate him , not because I agree with his views-I do not-but for speaking out and speaking his mind. If honourable members opposite are reaching that point, at which on issues such as this they are able to look at propositions dispassionately and reasonably and not have to follow any party discipline, this would be one issue at which it is appropriate for Government members to look. The Minister might give them a free vote. When dealing with fundamental principles of democracy it would be worth while for members opposite to be able to judge these matters in accordance with their consciences and to be given the opportunity to step over to this side of the chamber and support us. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I shall report progress. Progress reported. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being after 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Young-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.30) —The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) appals me and frankly disappoints the Opposition with his response to this amendment. Rather than accepting the situation as it was put, whereby he was given the benefit of the doubt because, in his own words, he was in the sin bin when Senator Gareth Evans did this outrageous thing last year, the Minister affirms it and in fact takes it further. I was reminded by recent reading that constitutional amendments in the Soviet Union are passed unanimously in the Presidium. The Minister said that if 100 per cent of members of the Federal Parliament supported a proposal, in his view that strengthened the case for public funding of one side of a referendum case alone when it went to the people . Mr Young —I did not say that. Mr HODGMAN —That is the way it came over. In his remarks the Minister failed to take up the fundamental point put to him by the honourable member for Boothby ( Mr Steele Hall) and by me that what was so crook, if I can put it bluntly, about what the Government tried to do last year was that it was going to fund only one side of the case. I was not talking about the $1.25m. In fact Senator Evans said that $1.25m is very small beer compared with the $21.5m which was the proposed cost of the referendum that the Government was going to foist on the people of Australia in February. The point made by me, by the honourable member for Boothby and by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) is that the Government still has not realised that it is crook, wrong and blatantly dishonest to fund only one side of a referendum campaign with taxpayers' money. That is our complaint. This Minister, with respect, has exacerbated the situation because the effect of his argument was not that what happened last year was an aberration that will not happen again. He said: 'We will oppose the amendment of the honourable member for Boothby so that we will not have this option excluded in the future'. The Minister is saying as clearly as the nose on his face-he is nodding in agreement-that the Hawke socialist Government wants to keep its options open so that at some time in the future it can fund with taxpayers' money one side of a referendum campaign. I think that is disgraceful. That is the most undemocratic thing I have heard in 16 years in parliament, State and Federal. The Government has not learned from the rap over the knuckles it got in the Senate last December. In fact it is more determined to go on because it is saying that in a referendum campaign it will reserve the option to fund one side. If that is not Big Brother, if that is not consensus gone mad and if that is not a new authoritarianism or a new totalitarianism the like of which this country has never seen, I frankly am not standing here speaking in this Parliament. The Minister is effectively saying that if the Government wants it and the Parliament wants it, that is it. Section 128 of the Constitution says that that is not it and that the Constitution cannot be changed in the Parliament. Under section 128 it is the people who have the right to amend and to vary the people' s Constitution. It would not matter if every member of the Senate and every member of the House of Representatives was in favour of a constitutional amendment. Unless a majority of voters in a majority of States approve that amendment, it does not go through. The Minister is concealing them very well, but he must have qualities of fairness somewhere. I appeal to him to think again and to take up the suggestion of the honourable member for Dundas that there be a free vote in the ranks of the Hawke socialists. Let them vote according to their consciences. The plain fact is that the Government is proving to all mankind and womankind in this country that we now have a totalitarian government in the sense that when it says something it has to be right: If one agrees with it, that is consensus; but if one opposes it, one is on the outer. I do not think the Minister really appreciates the serious attack he has made by implication on the democratic process by refusing this amendment. I view as most sinister the Minister's reason why this Government will not exclude the option for it one day in the future to filch out of the slush fund of the Minister for Finance millions of dollars taken from the taxpayers of Australia and use them in a crook fashion by supporting one side of a referendum campaign. I ask the Minister to think again. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(10.36) —I do not know why the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) takes such a huge interest in the proceedings of the Presidium of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I think something funny is going on. Sometimes the people who yell the loudest are hiding something. Sometimes the people who know a lot about this subject are not the fascists they try to make themselves out to be. Underneath it all hides a little red fox. Here is someone who reads the Constitution of the USSR. Of course, the people in the Kremlin do not like our democratic socialist party, and neither does the honourable member for Denison. There is something very similar in the views expressed by Chernenko and by the honourable member for Denison. All of a sudden we see that it is a facade that we have been listening to for 16 years, as he keeps telling us, in both State and Federal Parliaments. Something a bit funny is going on down in Denison. Do honourable members remember the deal being done with the Russians in connection with the fishing fleet down there and how they were going to set up antennas? That was a great deal to do with Denison, which borders that harbour. The ships were going to pull up alongside his electorate. I think something funny is going on here with the honourable member for Denison. Billy Wentworth was the last one in this Parliament who was always yelling and screaming about the reds. Then we found out that he owned a newspaper in Wollongong and he presented the May Day prize to the secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation who was the leading communist in Wollongong. Now we have another one-the honourable member for Denison. I think we had better keep a good eye on him, because it is very funny that every time he gets up he tells us what happens in the USSR. I have never heard such an informed person on the USSR as the honourable member for Denison. When our Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden) comes back, he ought to have a yarn with the honourable member for Denison about what goes on there. I did not argue, as the honourable member for Denison made out, that all the funds in a referendum campaign ought to go one way. I said that there was no provision in this Bill for the funding of referendums. We will not accept that we can throw the baby out with the bath water by now putting in the clause proposed by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) which would ensure that in future the Parliament could not fund referendums. I believe there will always be differences of opinion on questions put at referendum. But if 100 per cent of parliamentarians are in favour of change and we want to fund the no case, we have to identify who is going to lead the no case and how they can be properly funded, if one is in favour of funding. Also, how would one determine the benchmark for and against? They are the things that have to be argued in future. That is why we are saying that we are not prepared to accept this amendment at the moment. An argument can be held about the way in which future referendum campaigns may be funded. There is nothing greatly wrong with it. The honourable member for Denison talked about taxpayers' funds being spent. When Malcolm went to an election he threw millions around like a madman. Those opposite did not care what Malcolm did. He just spent billions. It did not save him in the end, but I bet there was no talk in the Ministry of those opposite. They did not say: 'Malcolm, you will have to stop that, that is taxpayers' money '. They were not game to open their mouths, otherwise they found themselves up the back, like the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom). That is what happened to him. He said 'Malcolm' your housing industry policy is no good' and Malcolm said, 'Take three steps back'. That was the end of the old Ray Groom in the Ministry, so the Opposition was not saying much to Malcolm about the way he administered funds. All I say to the Opposition is be a little patient. We can continue to argue this. There is no provision in the Bill for funding. There will not be included in the Bill any provision for funding but we should not exclude the right of Parliament to continue to debate the matter. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke)(10.41) —I will speak very briefly. I want to counter some of the arguments of the Opposition speakers. First of all let me point out that these are the very same people who, having made firm agreements in relation to the Australian Constitutional Convention, went to the Constitutional Convention last year and promptly went back on all of the positions they had taken. I know that for a fact because the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) and I were there. We remember very well that there was an attempt, not simply in this chamber but through the processes of the Constitutional Convention, to set up agreements which were worked out painstakingly with the Opposition parties. When it came to the Constitutional Convention they went back on those agreements. In referendums in this country overwhelmingly the no case wins. I would argue in many cases that has been contrary to the democratic spirit in that amendments were moved which could have embedded more basic democratic rights for the people , such as some of the amendments which members of the Liberal Party of Australia agreed to prior to the Constitutional Convention but went back on. Tonight I do not have time to go through all of the various aspects of where we need constitutional reform in this country. The ravings of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) suggest that this is a blatant misuse of democracy. All we are doing here is keeping open the possibility of some public funds going forward in relation to the referendum proposals when those proposals might not simply have been accepted by the overwhelming majority in this House but by the Constitutional Convention. There is a dire need for constitutional changes in the family area. There should have been amendments but unfortunately they were thrown out by the behaviour of our opponents. We have an extraordinary situation now in which different States have different custody provisions for children. This disgraceful situation could have been resolved if we had had agreement in relation to constitutional change. There are some areas where there can be that kind of broad agreement and the principle should remain open so that if those sorts of basic and fundamental rights are there, and constitutional changes need to be made, public funding ought to be made available. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.44) —I heard with interest the comments of the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous) and, lest it be thought that he was the only person from this Parliament who attended the Australian Constitutional Convention and who can offer a view as to what happened. I feel I should add somewhat to his remarks. There were, of course, changes in position at the Convention amongst Convention delegations. But it was not, as the honourable member for Burke would have us believe, all on one side. I sat through a debate in which the honourable member for Burke participated. The Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) painstakingly, with colleagues, endeavoured to settle a draft provision dealing with the establishment of conventions of the Constitution, settle a document which came before the Constitutional Convention with substantial agreement from members of the Opposition, including the shadow Attorney-General. He was disavowed by his own colleagues such as the honourable member for Burke. It was not a one-sided affair. The Constitutional Convention sub-committee of which I am now a member is looking at those same questions over and over again. The Attorney tells us that because of the sort of opposition he has from the honourable member for Burke he has some difficulty with colleagues in working out some measure of agreement. It was not a one-sided case at all. What I object to in the comments from the honourable member for Burke, as I did in relation to the comments of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), even if there is substantial agreement between the Government and the Opposition as to what amendments ought to be put, is the view that that gives a better case for funding the majority view and putting it to the Australian public over and above any minority view. I do not accept that the numbers in this place or agreement between the Government and Opposition give one a better entitlement to get into the public purse for the funding of a particular view that ought to be put in relation to referenda propositions. I think that there is less justification. I remember a statement from a prominent Tasmanian, Senator Wright, that I think sums it up better than any other statement I have heard. In a debate in the Senate in relation to another matter-I think it is worth contemplating-he said that he who lives closest to the bakehouse should not get the best bread. I do not think that there is any justification for those who get the numbers in this place being able to get the taxpayers' money to go to the electorate to advance their cause over and above any other Australians who want to put a different point of view. Progress reported. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That standing order 103, 11 o'clock rule, be suspended for this sitting. Consideration resumed. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Steele Hall's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P.Child, J. Morris, AllanChynoweth, R. L. Morrison, W. L.Cohen, B. Mountford, J. G.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) O'Neil, L. R. T.Darling, E. E. Punch, G. F.Dawkins, J. S. Reeves, J. E.Duffy, M. J. Saunderson, J.Edwards, Ronald Scholes, G. G. D.Everingham, D. N. Scott, J. L.Fatin, W. F. Simmons, D. W.Free, R. V. Snow, J. H.Fry, K. L. Staples, P. R.Gayler, J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Dobie, J. D. M Hayden, W. G. Question so resolved in the negative Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Young)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 10 May, on motion by Mr Young: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Young) read a third time. Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Uren: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(11.00) —As I foreshadowed in the earlier debate dealing with the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill, there are some other matters to be dealt with in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Self-Determination (Consequential Amendments) Bill on which the Opposition has a view and on which I will elaborate shortly. I take this opportunity firstly, in relation to the recent act of self-determination on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, to welcome, as has the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren), the decision of the Cocos-Malay people to integrate with Australia. It was a decision that the previous Government was certainly desirous of achieving. The arrangements to bring about a situation in which the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands would have the opportunity to decide whether they would be part of Australia, whether they would become independent or whether in fact they would have some other form of free association with Australia were matters which the previous Government addressed. It was desirable that the local community should have the opportunity to express a view and I very much supported the Government in its effort to ensure that the local community was given this opportunity to decide its future. As the Minister did, I say warmly, on behalf of the Opposition, that we welcome the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, the Cocos-Malay people in particular, into our fellowship. We very strongly welcome the measures contained in this Bill, with one exception, to ensure that certain additional benefits flow from their integration with us. The purpose of this Bill is to extend Commonwealth legislation in the areas of health, social security and representation of the territory in the Federal Parliament following that act of self-determination. As I mentioned, the decision in favour of integration with Australia was overwhelming and, as a consequence, a number of decisions are to be taken. This Bill does that. The Bill amends the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act to enable the Commonwealth Grants Commission to exercise its powers and functions in relation to the territory. It amends the Health Insurance Act and the National Health Act to ensure that residents of the territory are eligible for benefits on a basis equivalent to that applicable to all other Australians. It amends the Social Security Act so that a resident of the territory will be treated as a resident of Australia for the purposes of that Act. Finally-this is the more difficult part-it amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act so as to place residents of the territory within the boundaries of the Northern Territory for Federal electoral purposes. Certain consequential amendments are made to the Northern Territory (Self- Government) Act 1978. As I have said these amendments in the area of health, social security and the Commonwealth Grants Commission are very welcome and, no doubt, other amendments will flow over time-one has only to consider the Minister's earlier statement about when some of the responsibilities might also follow, including the Australian taxation arrangements. We look forward to seeing what the Government has to say in these other areas that have yet to be addressed. But it is in the area of the amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act that the Opposition will propose certain amendments to delete those parts which will provide for the Cocos (Keeling) Islands to be included in the Northern Territory electorate. It is not, as it may be characterised, because we are in any way opposed to the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands being enfranchised so that they can vote in Australian electorates. Mr Reeves —What is it then? Mr RUDDOCK —It is not to see that they are without a vote; it is to ensure that they are given a proper opportunity to say where they want to be able to participate in elections in Australia, having regard to the nature of their particular situation, having regard to the very special factors which I intend to mention and having regard particularly to the future problems that may arise from the mechanism that the Government has adopted in this case. Let it be understood that the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands who have recently voted for integration are to be given, in accordance with this legislation, the opportunity to participate in the next Federal election-presumably this is what honourable members opposite will say-yet there are people of other territories that are part of Australia for whom no similar effort is being made and for whom no similar effort has been mounted or argument put in the past. We are told that consideration is now being given to include the people of Christmas Island. We are dealing with legislation which amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act, but there is no legislation dealing with that matter. In fact, the Minister in his own statements has said that any decision on that is being put off until June, until he has had an opportunity to go to Christmas Island and discuss the matter with the people of Christmas Island. That is what I saw in news reports of the Minister's intention. The fact of the matter is that people of Christmas Island are not being included by virtue of this legislation as voters who are able to participate in Commonwealth elections. Presumably if they are to be given that opportunity time will be of sufficient order before any election is held for them to be included. I do not think time is of such essence that it needs to be done tonight, or that it needs to be done in the next week or in the next month, or that it could not properly be deferred until the spring session, the Budget session, of the Parliament. There are very important reasons why this deferment ought to be considered by the Government. I have mentioned and the Minister has mentioned in his second reading speech the difficulty that does confront us in considering whether or not the most logical approach can be one that we can use in this case. The most logical approach for us to adopt would be to include the Cocos-Malay people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands in an electorate in the State of Western Australia because all of their traditional associations with Australia are exercised through Western Australia: Transport links are with Western Australia and in the past people from the Cocos (Keeling) Islands who have moved to Australia as permanent Australian residents substantially have settled in Western Australia. The census figures reveal that the majority of the Cocos-born people on the Australian mainland have settled in Western Australia. That is without doubt. That is the logical place to include the people for electoral purposes, assuming that community of interest means anything. It may be argued that community of interest is important. There is no logical community of interest with the Northern Territory. In fact, if one wants to argue community of interest it might more logically be argued that one of the electorates in the Australian Capital Territory would provide a more substantial community of interest. The Minister in his second reading speech made that very clear. I will read from his speech his claim that the inclusion of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands in the electorate of the Northern Territory would not affect its relations with the Federal Government: I emphasise that the inclusion of Cocos in the federal electorate of the Northern Territory will not affect access of the Cocos people to the Federal Government through me, as the Minister responsible, or my Department. I do not know where the Minister's Department is based, but I suspect it is in Canberra and not in Darwin. I suspect it probably has a very small office, if any, in Darwin. The Minister continued: I also emphasise that the Government of the Northern Territory will have no- I emphasise the word 'no'- role or responsibilities in relation to Cocos. I do not know whether that was meant to assure the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands that the Northern Territory Government would have no say in relation to the administration of services on the islands, but it does serve to emphasise that the provision of all services on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands will be administered by people who live in Canberra. The decisions will be reached in Canberra. The electorates with which there would be a more proper community of interest would be in the Australian Capital Territory and not the Northern Territory. I mentioned in the earlier debate tonight-I think it is appropriate that I should mention it again-that the argument against incorporating the Cocos ( Keeling) Islands in an electorate in Western Australia is based upon the Constitution. If we were endeavouring to include a territory outside the State of Western Australia into an electorate that would be unconstitutional. We would need to extend the boundaries of the State in order to ensure that the territorians were validly incorporated in an electorate of one of the divisions in Western Australia. That argument, if it has any validity, and I accept that it does, would also be valid in the situation where the Northern Territory itself proceeds to statehood. Honourable members opposite would know that I quoted earlier from section 121 of the Constitution; that is the relevant section of the Constitution that deals with the establishment of new States. What honourable members opposite hope is that we can read that section independently of any other section of the Constitution and without regard to any other section of the Constitution. In my view we cannot do that; it is inappropriate to do that. If there were any doubt the very fact that there is doubt would be sufficient reason to discourage one from opting from the Northern Territory solution. The fact is that section 121 of the Constitution states: The Parliament may admit to the Commonwealth or establish new States, and may upon such admission or establishment make or impose such terms and conditions, including the extent of representation in either House of the Parliament, as it thinks fit. That is the relevant section of the Constitution. Honourable members opposite are relying upon is the statement that the Parliament can decide the extent of representation in either House of Parliament as it thinks fit to argue that that in some way enables the addition of a territory to a self-contained division in the Northern Territory if the Northern Territory proceeds to statehood. If the Minister for Territories and Local Government wants to say to us 'We could extend the boundaries of the Northern Territory when it comes to statehood and that means that we will include the Cocos (Keeling) Islands as part of the Northern Territory', let him say it. If we read his speech we see that he clearly intends that all services should still be administered from Canberra; that the services should be provided from Canberra. He offers that as an assurance to the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands; an assurance upon which they should put some weight. I think one has to consider the situation of Northern Territory statehood. It is an objective that the previous Government had and one assumes that the present Government has not resiled from that as an ultimate objective. If the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) is suggesting, by nodding his head, that the Government is resiling from the proposition that the Northern Territory should become an independent State, let him say it. Is the honourable member saying that the Northern Territory does not want statehood? Is that what he is saying? Mr Reeves —Ask Everingham; he will tell you. Mr RUDDOCK —I will not ask anybody else; I am asking the honourable member. He is the member for the Northern Territory. Does he have a view on the matter? If he has, he might express it later when we come to discuss this question. I think it is an important question to be addressed. If the Northern Territory is to proceed to statehood, clearly, section 29 of the Constitution becomes relevant. Section 29 of the Constitution states: Until the Parliament of the Commonwealth otherwise provides- of course, it has otherwise provided- . . . for determining the divisions in each State for which members of the House of Representatives may be chosen, and the number of members to be chosen for each division. A division shall not be formed out of parts of different States. That is the section that is relied upon in relation to the argument that we cannot have the electors from Cocos (Keeling) Islands included in a division in Western Australia. What will happen when the Northern Territory proceeds to statehood? Clearly, we could not include, or have included, the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands at that point in time within the division of the Northern Territory unless we included it within the Northern Territory for other purposes. I have suggested-I suggest it again-that that is a proposition that the Government should entertain. The fact is that if we are serious about addressing this question, not only in relation to Cocos (Keeling) Islands but also in relation to Christmas Island and Norfolk Island, at some point in time we will have to consider the way in which each of those Territories may be associated with the most appropriate electorates. The way in which that should be done is to propose a new referendum question to the Australian people. It could be put on the next most convenient occasion. I suggest that that could be done quite quickly, with a great deal of co-operation from the Opposition and, I believe, good will from the people of Australia, to enable the inclusion of external Territories in a Federal division or divisions of a State of Australia without extending the boundaries of the State for other purposes. This would ensure that we address the question of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands being incorporated in a proper electorate of Western Australia, such as Kalgoorlie or perhaps O'Connor. Dr Klugman —What is wrong with the Northern Territory? Mr RUDDOCK —The Northern Territory is not an area in which Cocos (Keeling) Islanders have substantially settled, but they have substantially settled in electorates of Western Australia. The people have an obvious, special association with their own people who have settled where they have an affinity and where the communication links lie. Mr Wells —How many? Mr RUDDOCK —I have the figures actually if the honourable member wishes to know them. I think in the 1981 census something of the order of 494 people gave their place of birth as Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The great majority of them are known to be resident in Western Australia. As I understand it, the electorates of Kalgoorlie and O'Connor-- Mr Uren —Which electorates? Mr RUDDOCK —The electorates of Kalgoorlie and O'Connor are the two electorates in which the great majority have settled. If the Minister is looking at this question seriously I commend him for it. I suspect that, in asking that question , he is seeking information for the purpose of testing me as to whether I have researched this matter adequately. The fact is that there is a proper, sustainable argument, one at which the Government ought to look. A mechanism can be used for ensuring that that question is properly addressed, and that is by proposing a referendum question. That would ensure that the question was looked at not only in relation to the short term for the Cocos (Keeling) Islands but also in relation to Norfolk Island and Christmas Island. Dr Klugman —It costs too much to run a referendum. Mr RUDDOCK —The honourable member says: 'It costs too much to run a referendum'. I think there is a problem that needs to be properly addressed. It can be run in conjunction with other referendum propositions. I said in the earlier debate that there was a proper argument for the Government putting, at the earliest possible date, the proposal that was being considered for simultaneous elections . That would obviate any need for the Government to be advancing the argument that it wants to run early in relation to the next Federal election. It could put it at its proper time if it were prepared to put that proposition to the people now. Dr Klugman —I think I would prefer the other way. Mr RUDDOCK —The honourable member interjects: 'I think I would prefer the other way'. The fact is that there is a proper mechanism whereby an election could be held at its appropriate time. It could be done by a referendum put now and this matter could be dealt with at the same time. I wish to address a further matter, that is, the wishes of the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands themselves. The Minister was kind enough, when the Chairman of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council, Mr Parson Bin Yapat, and the Chairman of the Cocos Co-operative, Cree Bin Haig, and their colleagues, visited Australia. Mr Uren —This is the second time you are making this speech. Mr RUDDOCK —If the Minister recalls the earlier discussion he would realise that I am making some further points. The Minister was good enough to make those arrangements for me to meet with the chairmen of each of those councils and their colleagues when they came to Australia. I thank him for that. I must say that I found the occasion very useful for discussing a whole range of questions that both they and I saw as being important for their future association with Australia, for example, the question of the economic development of the Territory, the participation of the Cocos Malay people in domestic and administrative arrangements for the Islands as well as their participation in wider Australian questions. I must say that while my colleague the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) described the people as being very generous and as being a group of people with whom he very closely identified, I found them also to be very astute . They recognised that there were different views as to the voting arrangements that ought to be made for them to participate in future Australian elections. They knew that Mr McVeigh, as Minister, when he was in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands had discussed with them the proposition which was to be put by the former Government that if the act of self-determination were carried, the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands would be able to participate in Australian elections by being included in one of the electorates in the Australian Capital Territory, the electorate of Fraser. They were aware that that was the proposition that the previous Government had advanced to them. They were also aware that the Minister himself was proposing a different result, that is, their inclusion in the electorate of the Northern Territory. In the Press statement I issued after my meeting with the two Chairmen and their colleagues I had this to say: On the question of in which electorate of Australia the Cocos (Keeling) Islanders would vote to participate in Australian elections, their answer was that they would like to be in a position to weigh up the pros and cons of the various propositions in the knowledge of both the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory proposals. They said that they wanted to be in a position to weigh up the pros and cons of the various propositions that had been put. In other words, they wanted to be consulted. They did not want the decision to be made for them. They wanted to be able to be in a position to express a considered view on behalf of their own people. They did not want to be involved in our domestic political questions so far as the most appropriate electorate for them to be included in was concerned. I do not think there is any need for undue haste in this matter. They themselves expressed the view that they wanted to be consulted. I think it is appropriate that this matter be dealt with by deferring its consideration. I certainly do not want to defer the Bill in relation to the important social security and health questions and the role of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. But I think it is appropriate that, by deleting these provisions in relation to the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, we can ensure that we have a fresh opportunity to look at this matter. We can then consult adequately with the people. I suggest to the Government that perhaps because there is a difference of view as to the way in which this matter ought to be arranged, some form of independent inquiry and consultation with the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands ought to take place. Mr Wells —Are you concerned that they will vote Labor? Mr RUDDOCK —I am not worried about that in the least. I think they are more likely to vote anti-Labor. But that is a different question. Mr Wells —Why are you trying to stop them from getting the vote? Mr RUDDOCK —I am not trying to stop them getting the vote, as the honourable member would know. I put it that they ought to be entitled to vote and that they ought to be consulted as to where they are able to exercise that vote. They have asked. They have said that they ought to be able to be put into a position where they could weigh up-using their own words-the pros and cons of this issue. I want to make it very clear that if the Government has in mind producing further amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act and to the Northern Territory (Self -Government) Act to deal with the provision of the franchise to the people of Christmas Island-it intends to introduce legislation in relation to that matter at a later point-I think the Minister ought to put in place at this very time the appropriate, independent arrangements that I am encouraging him to facilitate so that the Christmas Islanders can equally be properly consulted as to the electorate in which they are to be included. The Opposition will, during the Committee stage, seek to oppose clauses 3, 4, 5 , 6 and 7, which deal with the Commonwealth Electoral Act and, equally, clauses 21 and 22 which deal with the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act so as to ensure that the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands have an opportunity to consider the pros and cons as to which electorate they are placed in. At a later date, when their view has been ascertained, further legislation can be introduced. I do not believe that the timetable for that should in any way impede their being able to participate in the next Australian election, whenever it is held. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(11.27) —A major section of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Self-Determination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984 has the effect of including the Cocos (Keeling) Islands in the Northern Territory electorate for the purposes of Federal elections only. I wholeheartedly welcome these new constituents to my electorate and assure them that I will do everything within my power to represent their interests in this place. The decision to integrate with Australia was made by an overwhelming vote of the Cocos Malay people in April this year. I am informed that, of that 259 formal votes cast, 229 were for integration with Australia; that is, 88.4 per cent of those voters voted for integration with Australia. That is clearly an overwhelming vote in favour of integration. They have made the choice to vote in Australian elections and to take part in the Australian system. Their inclusion in the Northern Territory electorate is logical, given the constitutional constraints which apply. They have been referred to earlier in the debate. The major constitutional restraints are that it is extremely complex and even doubtful whether the boundaries of an original State such as Western Australia can be altered to include a new area such as the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. However, the same constraints do not apply to the boundaries of a Commonwealth Territory such as the Northern Territory or the Australian Capital Territory. The Northern Territory has much more in common with the Cocos (Keeling) Islands than the Australian Capital Territory. Mr Ruddock —Provided it does not become a State. Mr REEVES —I will come to that question in a minute and put forward a few views of which the honourable member is obviously not aware about Territory statehood which will obviously be a large part of his education. Might I suggest that he inform himself on the issue of Territory statehood before he comes in here making a fool of himself in future. The Northern Territory has much more in common with the Cocos (Keeling) Islands than the Australian Capital Territory. To start with, the Northern Territory is much closer in distance to the Cocos ( Keeling) Islands than the Australian Capital Territory. The second point is that the Northern Territory is a remote area of Australia like the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The Australian Capital Territory could not be considered to be remote. The socio-economic conditions of the Australian Aborigines in the Northern Territory are very similar to those of the Cocos Malay people on the Cocos ( Keeling) Islands. I am aware that some people, who have a vested political interest argue that the Cocos Malay people have different social and religious backgrounds to those of the Northern Territory people and that for that reason they should not be included with the Northern Territory. The same applies to the people of the Australian Capital Territory and, for that matter, Western Australia. That is clearly a nonsense argument. The same people who say that the Cocos (Keeling) Islands should be included with Western Australia say that that should be done because of transport links. Mr Ruddock —Transport and communication links. Mr REEVES —Transport and communication links; that is fair enough. But the people who say that the Cocos (Keeling) Islands should be included in Western Australia obviously ignore the constitutional constraints to which I have already referred. On the one hand they are saying that they acknowledge that it is constitutionally difficult, if not impossible, to include the Cocos (Keeling) Islands in Western Australia, and on the other hand, that the matter should be delayed while we try to sort out the problems. They are saying that they do not think it can be sorted out but we should delay the whole matter so that these people will get a vote sometime down through the ages. On the other hand they say that there is more in common between the Australian Capital Territory and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands because the Minister and his Department are here but they do not argue that the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands should be put into the Australian Capital Territory. They are all over the place. They have not said where they stand. That is why the Government will be rejecting the nonsense arguments and amendments they are putting forward. People like the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) may dislike some of the electoral consequences of the logical decision to put the Cocos (Keeling) Islands into the Northern Territory but why should their dislike of those consequences result in the people on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands being deprived of a say in their future and a vote in the Australian system? They have made an overwhelming decision to integrate with Australia. They should not be deprived of a vote. They should be given the right to vote as quickly as possible and not have it put off forever and a day, as has been suggested by the Opposition. It is worth remembering that in 1974 the Liberal Party, the National or Country Party and the Country Liberal Party opposed the Australian Labor Party's proposal that the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory should get Senate representation. They took the matter to the High Court of Australia, not once but twice, to try to knock it over. They did not want the Territories to get Senate representation because it did not suit their electoral purposes at the time. They do not want the people on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands to get a vote because it does not suit their electoral purposes. That is bad luck for them. Mr Ruddock —The implication is that it suits yours. Mr REEVES —If that is the Opposition's position it should be able to state clearly exactly what it thinks should be done. On the one hand it is saying that it is almost impossible to put those people into Western Australia and, on the other hand, it is saying that we should have a referendum to try to do that, acknowledging that it is almost impossible. Then the Opposition says that maybe they should be put into the Australian Capital Territory but that it does not really believe they should be. It does not know where it stands on the whole issue. It is no wonder that we will reject the nonsense it is putting up. The right to vote is not the only benefit that the people of the Cocos (Keeling ) Islands will obtain by this legislation. When the legislation is passed the Cocos-Malay people will get health insurance cover with the extension of Medicare. They will also have the benefit of unemployment benefit, the age pension and the full range of Australian social security benefits. This morning this group of people in the Opposition, who cannot make up their minds where they stand on this issue, discussed it in their joint parties meeting. I have an Australian Associated Press report of that meeting. I will quote a couple of lines. It shows the confusion and the real point behind the whole argument that the Opposition is putting forward. It states: At the joint parties meeting today concern was expressed that the Government would also include residents of Christmas Island in the Northern Territory. Opposition Territories spokesman Philip Ruddock told members of the Liberal and National Parties that the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Self-Determination ( Consequential Amendments) Bill should be deferred and the Islanders' views sought. The meeting was told the Islanders had a greater affinity with Western Australia because of prevailing transport links. At a briefing afterward- This is the telling point- Opposition frontbencher Steele Hall said he could not say whether electoral considerations were behind concern about Christmas Island joining the Northern Territory. That is the point. (Quorum formed) The Opposition is concerned about electoral considerations. Let me deal with the points that were raised in this report. Firstly, the Opposition parties consider that the legislation should be deferred and the Islanders' views sought. The Cocos-Malay people sought and received explanations about the act of self-determination. The act of self-determination was requested by the Cocos community itself. It arose from obligations under the United Nations charter. Following Australia's acceptance of responsibility for the islands in 1955 Australia was obliged to promote the well-being of the Cocos people and to ensure their political, economic, social and educational advancement. The Islanders sought and received explanations about all that and they voted in April this year. After having had the matter explained to them in detail they decided overwhelmingly to integrate with Australia. Prior to the vote it was understood that they would be included in the electorate of the Northern Territory. The Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) raised that with them before the vote was taken on the islands. The vote itself was observed by a United Nations mission of four people who visited the islands. They subsequently reported back to the Secretary-General of the United Nations General Assembly. The Islanders, knowing that the Northern Territory was the electorate it was proposed they would be put into, after being consulted in detail about the act of self-determination, voted overwhelmingly in favour of integration with Australia in the Northern Territory electorate. Now the Opposition says that they should be consulted. They have been consulted. Given that they have been consulted, I ask again: What is the real reason for this attempt by the Opposition to delay these people getting a vote in Australian elections? I suggest that it comes back to electoral considerations. The second point the Opposition raises is that the Islanders have a greater affinity with Western Australia. We have already dealt with the constitutional problems that arise in trying to change the boundaries of an original State. Even the honourable member for Dundas, with his poor knowledge of the Constitution, accepts that it is complex, if not impossible, to expand the boundaries of an original State to include another area. So why toss that up again, knowing that it is complex, if not impossible, to put the Islanders into Western Australia? Opposition members know that the Islanders cannot be put into Western Australia. The suggestion that the Opposition put up today about a referendum to allow the islands to be included in State-based Federal electorates is nonsense. It strikes the same problem about expanding the boundaries of an original State. With the honourable member's limited knowledge of the Constitution, I would have thought that even he could see that point. The real motive behind the National Party and Liberal Party opposition to this Bill is electoral consideration. It is probably more than a coincidence that the Country Liberal Party candidate for the Northern Territory seat has been hanging around this Parliament today like a bad smell while this debate has been brewing . That is what it is all about. That is why the Opposition wants to prevent these people from getting a vote. As I have said, it is no surprise that members of the Opposition would be concerned about facing these people in an election. It is no surprise that the Opposition, having done what it has done in the past few months, in opposing these people getting a vote and trying to block them at every turn, would be concerned about facing them in an election because obviously these people will toss out the Opposition as will the rest of the Australian people at the next election. Finally the red herring of Territory statehood has been dragged up. The honourable member for Dundas, like most members of the Opposition, displayed his ignorance of the Northern Territory by prattling on about Northern Territory statehood. The whole question of statehood was dropped by members of the Country Liberal Party in the Northern Territory like a hot brick about four years ago. I suggest that the honourable member asks them about it, because after Fraser said in 1975 that he would shove statehood down the necks of the Northern Territorians within five years-that is, by 1980-the penny dropped. The financial arrangements between the Federal Government and the Northern Territory Government under the present agreement would not continue to apply if it became a State. The Country Liberal Party realised that it could not continue to run the Territory unless it was featherbedded in the way that it is so that its members can spend two and a quarter million dollars a year travelling around the world and interstate. It is interesting to know that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory has spent well over half of his time in the six months of his new term since 3 December last year in travelling around the world or interstate or on holidays. He has spent next to no time in running the Northern Territory. But the CLP in the Northern Territory, the honourable member for Dundas and the Opposition have all of a sudden raised the question of statehood again because it suits their cynical electoral purposes. They want to throw up some sort of blockage to the Cocos Malay people getting a vote. If the honourable member for Dundas and the Opposition really believe that the Territory is about to get statehood, let them tell us exactly when they want us to have statehood and how the new State encompassing the Northern Territory will manage financially. Let us hear them tell us whether they seriously believe that with a population of 130,000 people we justify having 10 senators. Let us hear the answer to those three questions. Finally, and most importantly, let us hear them give a commitment that the people of the Northern Territory will be entitled to vote in a referendum about whether they will cop statehood being shoved down their necks . I think that they will find that the people of the Northern Territory are a lot more astute than the Country Liberal Party politicians in the Northern Territory. They realise that the financial arrangements that are applied between the Federal Government and the Territory Government at present will not continue if we have statehood. If they are really serious about statehood, if it is not just a cynical political exercise to throw up another blockage to the Cocos Malay people getting a vote, I throw out a challenge to them to answer those four questions: When do they say we should get statehood; what sort of financial arrangements do they say should apply and how will we manage financially if we get statehood; how many senators do they say that we should have or do they seriously believe that we should have 10 senators for a population of 130,000 people; and, lastly, will they guarantee the people of the Northern Territory a say as to whether they want statehood? The Opposition should show its credentials and come up with the answers to those questions. When they have the answers, they can prattle about statehood. In the meantime, I suggest it is a nonsensical argument to try to prevent these people getting a vote. The Opposition knows, as well as I do and as well as everybody else does, that what it did a few months ago was to decide to oppose these people getting a vote. It knows that if it faces them in an election they will wipe it out because it did not want them to get a vote in the first place. The Opposition has made its bed and it should lie in it. It was its decision to oppose them getting a vote and to stop them at every turn. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am running out of time. In conclusion, I again welcome the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands to the Northern Territory electorate. I applaud the provisions of this legislation which extend Medicare and social security benefits to the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I reject this desperate, straw grabbing attempt by the Liberal-National Parties and the Country Liberal Party to avoid having to face these good people who they want to keep as second class citizens of Australia. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(11.46) —Madam Deputy Speaker, since your elevation to your present position I have often had the opportunity to speak in this House but this is the first occasion since your elevation that you have actually been sitting in the Chair when I rose to speak. I hope you will accept my belated congratulations. The first occasion I met you, Madam Deputy Speaker, was in 1974 at a meeting in your electorate of Henty. When I saw you on that occasion, I was not aware that I was looking at Australia's first female Deputy Speaker in the making, but I was aware that I was looking at a very distinguished lady. I will now address the nonsense which has been offered to this House by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). The honourable member did not want the Cocos Islanders to vote in the Northern Territory. He realised that there were certain constitutional difficulties in having them vote anywhere else. He felt that they should vote in Kalgoorlie or O'Connor, because he said that some of their relatives lived there. He realised that there were constitutional difficulties in that, namely, section 123 of the Constitution. But he had a lateral thinking answer to that problem. In order to prevent them voting in the Northern Territory he felt that the thing to do would be to have a constitutional referendum so that they could vote in one of the other electorates in which their relatives lived. That would cost the Australian taxpayer $20m. The purpose of all of this, of course, was to prevent these people from voting in the Northern Territory because he believed that they would vote for the Australian Labor Party. He believed that they would vote for the very talented and hard working honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves). Members of the Opposition were prepared to spend $20m on a referendum to prevent 400 people from voting for John Reeves when, only a few minutes ago in this House, they whinged about the expense to the Australian taxpayer of various proposals which we were putting up. Let that be exposed for the nonsense it is. I would like very briefly to address the positive aspects of the Cocos (Keeling ) Islands Self-Determination (Consequential Amendments) Bill. It gives substance to the Australian response to the recent act of self-determination by the Cocos Islanders. The Cocos Islanders recently voted overwhelmingly to become Australians. It is now up to this Parliament to endow them with the rights of Australians. The Bill begins the task in four ways: Firstly, by extending to Cocos Islanders the democratic rights of Australians, including the right to vote in Federal elections, including the right that the honourable member for Dundas and his colleagues were attempting to subvert a moment ago; secondly, by providing for the Islanders an Australian standard of health care, beginning by extending to them the benefits of the various Australian health Acts; thirdly, by extending to the Islanders the social security entitlements of Australians; and, fourthly, by making provision for the Grants Commission to visit Cocos to make recommendations to provide appropriate funding for Cocos Island projects. It is worth noting the historical precedents for the amalgamation with Australia of an external island territory. Christmas Island was discovered by Great Britain in 1615 and annexed in 1888. The first settlement occurred in the next year and the island became a territory of Australia under British and Australian Acts in 1958. Norfolk Island, with which honourable members on the other side of the House have also exercised themselves, was discovered by Captain Cook in 1774 and became a penal settlement in the year of this nation's establishment, 1788. It was enacted as a Commonwealth Territory in 1914. (Quorum formed) The Cocos Islands were discovered by Captain William Keeling in 1608. Members of the Opposition have exercised themselves with Norfolk Island and Christmas Island, but the Cocos (Keeling) Islands constitute the first such territory with an indigenous population to have made an act of self-determination to join our Commonwealth. That is why this Territory differs from the other territories. That is why it is important that we move with expedition to provide the Islanders with their democratic rights. That is why it is important that the provisions of the Electoral Act should be extended to them immediately. This Government has investigated extending those rights to the other territories as well. Had we lifted but a finger in such an investigation that would have been a whole lot more than the Opposition, which is just bleating about how these territories have been excluded from the investigations, did in all the scores of years that it had in office since those two territories were incorporated and brought under the aegis of the Australian Commonwealth. The self-determination of the Cocos Islanders may be an indication of a pattern in the future. The world is tending increasingly towards the development of regional associations. The European Economic Community and the Association of South East Asian nations are the best examples. The economies of scale available to the European Economic Community by virtue of its degree of integration have given it an edge in world economic competition. The countries of our region of the Pacific will need to look to a similar kind of association if we are to remain viable in the world of regional associations such as ASEAN and the EEC. Australia and New Zealand will need to look at further closer associations beyond the terms of the closer economic relations agreement once that agreement has become fully effective over the next few years. Many of the islands of our region of the Pacific would have much to gain by a closer association with Australia. One advantage, perhaps the only advantage, of our federal system is that the range of possible associations is quite wide. It should be possible in the future to find a form of association that would respect the uniqueness of Australia's Pacific neighbours at the same time as providing economic and other benefits for all of us in our region of the Pacific . In this context the recent act of self-determination by the Cocos Islanders may very well be seen as one possible model by many eyes in our region. It is therefore of historic importance that this House should play its part expeditiously and in an exemplary way. It is of historic importance that we should extend the Electoral Act to the Cocos Islanders immediately. This Bill provides us with an opportunity to do this and to extend all the other rights of Australians to the Cocos Islanders. For this reason I commend the Bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 3 (Principal Act). Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(11.56) —The Opposition, for the reasons outlined in my speech during the second reading debate, opposes clause 3. Question put: That the clause be agreed to. The Committee divided (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes 64 Noes 34 -- Majority 30 -- AYES Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J. Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R. Beddall, D. P. Jones, Barry Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Lindsay, E. J. Brown, John McHugh, J. Brown, Robert McLeay, Leo Brumby, J. M. Maher, M. J. Charles, D. E. Mayer, H. Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P. Child, J. Morris, Allan Chynoweth, R. L. Morrison, W. L. Cohen, B. Mountford, J. G. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) O'Neil, L. R. T. Darling, E. E. Punch, G. F. Dawkins, J. S. Reeves, J. E. Duffy, M. J. Saunderson, J. Edwards, Ronald Scholes, G. G. D. Everingham, D. N. Scott, J. L. Fatin, W. F. Simmons, D. W. Free, R. V. Snow, J. H. Fry, K. L. Staples, P. R. Gayler, J. Steedman, A. P. Gear, G. Theophanous, A. C. Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E. Hand, G. L. Uren, T. Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. NOES Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. Lusher, S. A. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C. Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L. Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R. Drummond, P. H. Robinson, Ian Edwards, Harry Rocher, A. C. Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M. Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F. Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC. Hawker, D. P. M. Spender, J. M. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. PAIRS Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Wednesday, 30 May 1984 Clause 4 (Interpretation). Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government)(12.03 a.m.) —I move : Clause 4, page 2, lines 6 to 9, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Interpretation ''4. Section 5 of the principal Act is amended- (a) by inserting after the definition of 'Justice of the Peace' the following definition: ' '' Northern Territory'' ' includes the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands; and (b) by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: '(6) This Act extends to the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands.'.''. Part II of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Self-Determination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984 amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 so as to extend to the Territory community full voting rights in relation to the Australian Parliament. In particular, clause 5 of the Bill inserts a new section 5A into the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to extend the operations of that Act to the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Unfortunately, no account was taken of the section proposed to be inserted in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 when a provision to renumber the Act was prepared. The renumbering provision is contained in the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill which was introduced into this Parliament on 10 May 1984. A second Bill, the Referendum ( Machinery Provisions) Bill 1984, has also been introduced containing cross- references to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, as renumbered. Those cross- references are based on the renumbering without the section proposed to be inserted by the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Self-Determination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984. In order to ensure that many cross-references in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill 1984 to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 will correspond to the provisions of that Act once it has been renumbered, there is provision in the recast clause 4 of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Self- Determination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984 so as to include the wording of the proposed new section 5A in the existing section of that Act. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(12.06 a.m.) —The amendment is a formal amendment. The Opposition has no objection to its being put and becoming the clause. The clause as amended will be opposed by the Opposition on the same basis as I outlined in the second reading debate and for the same reasons. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 5 (Interpretation). Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government)(12.07 a.m.) —I move : Clause 5, page 2, lines 10 to 13, omit the clause. Clause negatived. Clauses 6 and 7, by leave, taken together. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(12.07 a.m.) —For the reasons I outlined in the second reading debate, the Opposition is opposed to clauses 6 and 7. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 8 to 20-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clauses 21 and 22, by leave, taken together. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(12.08 a.m.) —For the reasons outlined in the second reading debate, the Opposition is opposed to clauses 21 and 22. Clauses agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Uren)-by leave-read a third time. [COGNATE BILLS AND PAPER: MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (STAFF) BILL 1984 MERIT PROTECTION (AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES) BILL 1984 'REFORMING THE AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC SERVICE'] Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Madam Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on this Bill, I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the Members of Parliament (Staff) Bill 1984, the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Bill 1984 and the motion to take note of the paper ' Reforming the Australian Public Service', as they are associated matters. Separate questions, will, of course, be put on each of the matters at the conclusion of the debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Is the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the four matters? Mr Connolly —Due to the lateness of the hour, we really do not have much choice. But I should take the opportunity to point out to the Leader of the House that it is quite unsatisfactory for legislation of such importance to be debated at this hour of the morning. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I gather that it is the wish of the House to have a general debate. I will allow that course to be followed. Mr DAWKINS —I seek leave of the House to make a very short explanation. Leave granted. Mr DAWKINS —As a result of a rather embarrassing oversight, my second reading speech did not include a financial impact statement in relation to this legislation. Therefore, I now seek leave of the House to table a financial impact statement. Leave granted. Mr DAWKINS —Secondly, I simply foreshadow that the Government intends to move some amendments to the three pieces of legislation. They are quite unexceptional amendments. For that reason, I have already had them distributed to honourable members. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(12.13 a.m.) — The legislation we are debating at this early hour of the morning, despite the time, is of great significance to the future administration of the Commonwealth and, through that, is going to affect the livelihoods of all Australian citizens. It is significant essentially for two other reasons; firstly, because it represents the sum total, we are led to believe, at this stage at any rate, of the Government's program for reforms in the area of public administration and, secondly, because the Opposition has agreed to a large measure with the proposals contained in the legislation. Along with the Government, we have for some time been developing the view that the time indeed has come when significant reforms must be introduced into the public administration of the Commonwealth. The Government's proposals are essentially contained in the Public Service Reform Bill and the two other associated Bills, the Members of Parliament (Staff) Bill and the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Bill. In addition to that, the Government some months ago tabled in this House a White Paper entitled 'Reforming the Australian Public Service'. That document was based on earlier research and reports conducted by the Reid Committee of Review of Commonwealth Administration and by the 202nd report of the Public Accounts Committee of which I had the fortune at that stage to be Chairman and on further work contained in a report of the then Opposition. The sum total of those three reports directed the attention of both parties in this chamber to the need to reassess the relationship between Ministers and their departments and to reassess the capacity of the departments' arrangements, through the Public Service Board, to carry out efficiently and effectively the quality of public administration which most of us believe is essential, especially in difficult times such as these when obviously it is encumbent upon this Parliament and the Public Service to try to put into effect the policies of the government of the day in a most cost effective manner. There has been a tendency regrettably for too long for members of parliament-most of us do not have in any sense a deeper expectation of experience of administration-to tend to the view that, provided one develops great policies, automatically one will be able to solve great problems. The reality of life, of course, is that an efficient and effective public service, if it is working in concert with the Government, is able at least to apply less than perfect policies, for one thing is certain, that the best policy cannot be applied by a less than perfect system of public administration. The sum total of this, therefore, requires us to examine in some detail the appointments of Secretaries to departments and the relationships between Secretaries and Ministers, keeping in mind the fundamental requirement of the Constitution that the Public Service of Australia must be seen to be and must be in fact responsible to this Parliament through the Ministers of the government of the day. I must emphasise, however, that there are some shortcomings in the proposal which the Government has put forward. As I said, they have principally been related, at this stage at any rate, to the application of change in what is now known as the First Division, namely, the permanent heads of departments, and the introduction of a totally new concept of a senior executive service, which was recommended to this Parliament in the 202nd report of the Public Accounts Committee. However, the fundamental questions relating to the managerial philosophy of the Public Service, the basic concepts and needs of things such as strategic planning, the need for performance standards and control systems within the Public Service, as well as concepts of management development which were covered in the 202nd report, are still not to a large degree included in either the White Paper tabled by the Government or in the legislation we have seen to date. I accept that many of these changes will be required in regulations under the Act and we have yet to see the effectiveness of the application of these changes through the Public Service Board on the quality of management of individual departments. But I just emphasis that there is still a fundamental need for the Government to explain to this Parliament exactly what its managerial philosophy is and how that can be translated into the context of the Public Service. It is not sufficient to come up with relatively new managerial jargon, to place this in a White Paper and to imagine that somehow or other a public service can be dragged to the altar of the need for change. It is also encumbent upon the Government to tell the Parliament precisely what its basic concepts of managerial philosophy are. We await that information. I refer specifically to the contents of the Public Service Reform Bill. The most important initial element of that is the concept of Secretaries to departments. The arrangements brought in by the Fraser Government in 1976 introduced new concepts in that it was accepted by the Government at that time that there was a need to introduce into departmental management appropriate arrangements for the appointment of outsiders as members of the Public Service for the period of a government. In other words, it was possible to introduce into the First Division of the service experts from outside to be departmental managers in addition to the traditional position, namely, that officers in a career service can expect to be promoted to the upper echelons and to the top management positions within departments. The proposal before us tonight contains a fundamental change in that arrangement. The previous provision by which a committee of departmental heads prepared a program of names to be put forward to the Prime Minister and to Cabinet is to be changed. Under new arrangements the Government may appoint people from outside as heads of departments. That automatically means that the concept of permanent Secretaries has been dropped. The Opposition supports that view because we believe that it is essential that it always be encumbent upon the government of the day to be ultimately responsible not only for the quality of public administration but also for the appointment of those officers who ultimately are responsible for the application of policy as required by the government of the day. The whole concept of a permanent appointment, while it may fit closely and rather snugly with the equally well-known and somewhat pristine concept of a permanent Public Service, nevertheless has not in the past given to the government of the day the degree of flexibility which is perhaps required in this important area. As I have noted, therefore, the Opposition supports the view that a two-tiered system should still remain in place, by which outsiders may be appointed by the Government to head up departments for a period of five years. That is the basis upon which they will be appointed under contract, and on terms and conditions which an amendment, which the Opposition will move later, will require the government of the day to place before this Parliament on an annual basis. However, in addition to that there is also the provision for appointment of officers of the career Service to head up departments. They also will be required to be reviewed on a five-yearly basis by the Chairman of the Public Service Board, who will report his findings to the Prime Minister. The Opposition also proposes an amendment to which the Government agrees; namely, that this reporting to the Prime Minister on permanent heads or likely appointment of departmental heads should be done subject to the consideration of the Minister of the day. We believe it is essential if we are to have legislation once and for all establishing criteria that it is the Ministers, through this Parliament, who are responsible for running the government of Australia; it is not a question of public servants who may or may not determine how policy should be introduced or to what degree their mouthpiece should be the Minister of the day. In that context the Opposition is in agreement with the general philosophy of this area of the Bill; namely, that the responsibility not only for the application of policy but also for the overall administration of departments will rest on the Minister of the day. There is no doubt that this will require a substantial improvement in the quality of Ministers and certainly in their ability to handle these additional responsibilities. Equally, it will make it more difficult for members of this Parliament, when they reach the Ministry, to be able to hide behind the traditional view that the responsibility rests with the departmental head and of course with the department and somehow or other is not the responsibility of the Minister. The fact that at the apex of this rather convoluted and difficult administrative triangle there will be essentially one person, the Minister at the time, automatically requires the points I made earlier; namely, the introduction of a coherent and consistent managerial philosophy which will be able to give Ministers of the day the capacity and ability to administer adequately not only policy but also the manner in which those policies are applied through their departments. It is pleasing to notice in the Bill that the conflict which has been in place for far too long between the provisions of the Constitution and those of the Public Service Act in relation to the responsibilities of Ministers vis-a-vis departmental heads is once and for all completely ended. The words in the Bill are adequate in that context because they emphasise that Secretaries to a department report to Ministers and carry out their activities at their behest. That is a significant change. In the introductory parts of the Bill there are also the concepts of industrial democracy and equality of opportunity. The Opposition supports the concept of affirmative action and equality of opportunity. It does not support the concept of positive discrimination of one section against another. It emphasises that point because the important principle should be that whatever the errors may have been in the past-I refer specifically to the difficulties which women, minority groups and Aborigines may have had in entering the Public Service-the criteria should be to ensure that all sections of the Public Service are given equal opportunity to increase their abilities so that they are qualified for promotion. The Opposition does not accept the view that the Government will achieve a more effectively functioning civil service by the principle of forced promotion or promoting people on criteria other than excellence and their ability to compete with other members of the civil service on more or less an equal footing. Proposed new section 22B of the Act refers to unjustifiable discrimination. The Opposition emphasises that it does not want to see standards of public administration fall any lower than they probably have already. There are many reasons why members of all sides of this House have for some years been grievously concerned about the application of public administration. In recent years we have had enough scandals to demonstrate the cost of that in both political terms and economic terms. Nobody wants to see that situation continue. Nevertheless a policy based on positive discrimination is not necessarily going to solve any of those difficulties, at least in that form. I turn to the question of industrial democracy. From my efforts to find out from members of the Public Service Board and from others whom I have asked for information there seems to be a dearth of basic intelligence on this subject. Of course it sounds good to talk about industrial democracy plans. We are told that all departments will be expected to introduce industrial democracy and that the Public Service Board will tell them how to do it, but again the Bill is remarkably short in specific information as to exactly what this means. If, for example, it means that officers of departments feel that they have the right to say to senior managers 'We are going to tell you how you are to run your department' or 'We are going to tell you how this specific policy of government should be run' I must say quite conclusively that the Opposition will not support such a proposal. I get back to the point I was making before: It is Ministers who must report to this Parliament on the activities of their departments and the applications of their policies through their departments. It is not the role of junior officers in departments to dictate to Ministers or to their senior officers how the policies or the activities of the departments should be managed. On the other hand there is undoubtedly a need to introduce in departments a mechanism by which it is possible for all levels within the Public Service, as staff of departments, to have the capacity to talk to managers, to feel that there is a community of spirit, a common will, to try to achieve what are meant to be the objectives of policy and the objectives placed before departments. If that is what industrial democracy is meant to mean the Opposition would support it. But I emphasise as I said earlier, that the Opposition would not support the view that somehow or other public administration will be improved by some strange osmosis which will involve everybody getting into the act, with the result that there will be less capacity to identify in the Public Service the concept of let the managers manage on the one hand and on the other, having been given the power to manage, that they are also responsible for the results of that management. If one divides responsibility outside the area in which it should be exercised one will continue what we have seen too much of in the past in the context of the Public Service, and that is a tendency for everybody to blame the Public Service Board for what goes wrong. The simple principle in terms of diffusion of power is such that ultimately it is not possible to identify somebody who actually made a decision and who should be responsible for the outcome. If there is one major change-I get back to the question of managerial philosophy which we must see in the Public Service-it is the introduction and application of the concept of let the managers manage, give them the ability, give them the power and give them the resources to do that. But together with that capacity they must also be prepared to accept the responsibility for success as well as failure. I move on to other proposals under the Bill. I refer to the Senior Executive Service. This concept-I am delighted to see it has been accepted by the Government as it was by the Opposition in its last few weeks in government-is the result of the 202nd report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. For some years it has identified and been most concerned about the evident deterioration in the quality of public administration in Australia. One of the things it identified was the need to establish a career senior management cadre within the Public Service. I am delighted to see some of the Minister's officers who served on that Committee. However, the important thing now is to make sure that the Senior Executive Service will work effectively. One of the most important elements in this question is the proviso for the opening up of the SES to enable competitive entry by persons who are not career officers of the Public Service. That was a recommendation in the 202nd report. It is contained in the Act and is something which the Opposition applauds. It is also relevant to this particular legislation that the Government has accepted the need to make significant and fairly profound changes in the traditional concept of a career service which meant tenure of position. In other words, in the previous system officers were allocated a specific position in the Public Service. Under the proposals before us relevant and referrable only to the Senior Executive Service that will not be the position. Officers will not be promoted to a grade within the Senior Executive Service and not to a specific position. The great advantage of that proposal is that the departmental head will have the capacity to allocate on the basis of need the senior physical resources allocated to him on the basis of the decisions taken by both the Public Service Board and senior management in the Department and, of course, the Department of Finance, which will be closely involved, I understand, in the preparation of personnel budgeting which is something we have yet to see identified, presumably at the next Budget. Nevertheless, it is a step long overdue. In many respect the introduction of the SES brings the Australian civil service in line with relatively recent changes taking place in other developed Western societies. Regrettably on this point the legislation has not gone far enough. It was the view of the Public Accounts Committee that while the SES should be related specifically to officers of the Second Division it was equally important that officers down to about class 9 of the Third Division should also be related to some degree with the SES because it would be from that feeder group that most promotions would ultimately be taken for membership of the SES. It was for that reason we recommended the need to introduce on an annual basis an effective system of personnel assessment. I am glad to see that the Government has accepted that recommendation. However, I am regretful that it has done so only in relation to the SES. I am under no illusion that this decision was reached not necessarily on the question of merit because as far as the decision goes it has very little merit. Principally it was the view of the Government for political reasons and because of its relationship with the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association and other trade unions that it had somehow hermetically to seal off the Third Division from any prospect of impregnation by changes introduced into the SES. I regard this as a retrograde and unfortunate step because it is quite obvious that the proposals which are being introduced into this legislation and which are now being related to the SES are of such quality they should also be applied to the Third Division. I trust that we will hear from the Minister at the end of this debate and that he will be able to make a commitment to us that in fact this is the long term decision and desire of the Government. The simple principle should be that if we want to be able to draw people from the Third Division into the SES we must know well in advance what quality of officers we in fact wish to promote into the SES. To have this hermetically sealed position where upon entry an officer will be subject to annual assessments is fine if we know what we are getting in the first place. I submit to the Government that unless it is prepared to introduce an overall system of assessments down to about class 9 it will face the difficulties of not really knowing in advance-usually not until it is too late-exactly the strength and weaknesses of individual officers promoted into the service. As I said it is at least a step in the right direction. I trust we will see this going much further in the future. I have referred again to the entry into the SES which again is very similar to the proposal for entry of officers to the ranks of departmental secretaries namely, the two tiered approach. We can have here lateral entry or entry through the normal career service. Persons from outside the service if selected will be offered the normal conditions for appointment to the Public Service. There has been a major degree of concern amongst certain elements of the Public Service in recent months on the degree of politicisation into the Public Service which could result from this amendment. One has to accept that there is a danger of politicisation. One also has to accept it is not the role of the Opposition to defend the Government from itself. We are accepting the amendments as they currently stand on the clear understanding that any officer who is appointed to a senior position in the SES or as a departmental head under the proposals in this legislation, and who has been so appointed on basically political grounds, should be in no doubt that when this Party is back in government his position will be under review in the context of the proposals in this legislation involving the ability to change the position of an officer, to demote an officer, to buy an officer out, et cetera. As I said, let there be no doubt that where we believe wrong people have been appointed to the career Service from outside, or even promoted from within the career Service to positions on the basis of their political allegiance, they will certainly be under the closest investigation when the time comes. We do not believe it is necessary to propose amendments at this stage in that context for the simple reason that one cannot define what a political appointment is. It is one of those situations where one has to see it on the ground and make a judgment in terms of the circumstances at the time. Another important element of the criteria is the proposal for staff mobility. We totally support that because it will break down the tendency, of which we have seen too much in the past, for people to believe that they belong to a department when in fact they belong to the Public Service as a whole. I make a number of observations at this stage in relation to ministerial consultants. This has been a subject of some contention. The Government proposes to enhance the level of assistance available to Ministers on key projects by appointing people who share the Government's values and objectives. One has to assume that that means people who are members of the Australian Labor Party. As we said before, if the Government wishes to appoint those people on a five-year basis, well and good, but if those people are appointed as career members of the Service, they will certainly face the difficulties mentioned earlier. I have to emphasise that my advice from the Public Service Board is that persons who are appointed on a five-year basis can, if they so desire, apply for entry into the career Service. That is a point on which the Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters (Mr Dawkins) may wish to comment. I believe the reasons we are concerned about this are fully justified. In recent months we have seen examples of the types of people appointed as ministerial advisers. I refer specifically to the appointments made by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen). He has appointed no fewer than three gentlemen who apparently live within his own electorate. Of course, one has to make whatever judgment one likes to make on that. The significant point is that we are told in the legislation, and in the White Paper , that it is proposed that the Prime Minister will have the last say as to who is given the status of ministerial adviser. At present I am rather doubtful that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been involved. I will be charitable and give him the benefit of the doubt. Let us be quite clear: In accordance with the White Paper, it is he and he alone who has to take the ultimate responsibility for the persons who are appointed by his Ministers as ministerial advisers-good, bad and indifferent. I want to bring the attention of the House to an example of the difficulties we can get into in a situation like this. I am reliably informed that one of the advisers to the Minister for Trade, Mr Bayutti, was recently in Rome, along with a senior member of the staff of the Minister for Trade. I should also point out to the House that the Government is currently deeply involved with the Government of Italy in the negotiation of social welfare arrangements relevant to the reciprocal arrangements between Australians of Italian descent and migrants from Italy who may retire in Australia. That is a matter of great significance to a substantial number of Australians and Italians , yet the fact of the matter is that these gentlemen sitting up there in Rome decided on their own initiative to recommend to the Government, through the Ministers responsible, that they should link up the proposals for a social welfare agreement with proposals for greater trade with Italy. The Italian community of Australia will be delighted to know that their access to social welfare benefits on a reciprocal basis will be linked to the question of whether or not the Italian Government is prepared to encourage more trade with Australia . I suggest that that is precisely the sort of nonsense that we will get from people who are not qualified and who are being appointed as so-called ministerial advisers. I have given honourable members one example. The Bulletin of some weeks ago gave three other examples, all of which demonstrate the fact that so-called expertise is, at this stage at any rate, a very rare commodity indeed. As I said, it is not the role of the Opposition to defend the Government from its own weaknesses. If the Government wants to go down this road and wants to appoint those sorts of people, so be it, but the responsibility, as the Government's White Paper states, rests with the Prime Minister. We will hold him accountable for the errors, the mistakes, the misjudgments and the downright stupidity which we have no doubt we are going to see from some of the ministerial advisers who will be appointed by members of the present Government. There are a number of other matters of relevance in this legislation, such as equal employment opportunity to which I referred earlier, various aspects of personnel management, the introduction of the merit principle which again is very worth while. We will move an amendment in that context to emphasise the point that, in addition to the merit principle, the factor of security also needs to be taken into account. The traditional position is that all members of the Public Service are subject to security examination. Those of us who have been here for some years also recall only too well that in the days of the Whitlam Administration certain Ministers in that Government flatly refused to allow the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to conduct investigations of any kind whatsoever into the personnel that it appointed to its departments and individual offices, irrespective of the security classification of the material passing across the desks of those Ministers and, therefore, being subject to examination by members of their staff. I emphasise quite clearly that we are stating and recommending to the Government that a relatively minor, but nevertheless significant, amendment should be put into the provisions for merit appointment to emphasise that all elements of merit are relevant, including the question of security. We believe that that is a matter of particular importance. I will refer briefly to the provision for permanent part time employment. We applaud that. We believe it is a very worthwhile initiative. It will certainly help women in the work force who wish to join the Public Service, or women who have previously been in the Public Service who may wish to return. In addition, many men may, in later years, wish to return on the basis of a part time appointment rather than a full time appointment. A number of other relevant changes will be discussed by my colleague the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) in the context of the next two Bills before the House. I commend the Government for the introduction of this legislation. I trust that it will accept the amendments which we have put forward in the spirit in which we have done so. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(12.43 a.m.) —Before I begin my comments on this legislation I must make a confession to the House. After spending three years assisting in the preparation of this legislation, it is difficult to retain my enthusiasm for this legislation even at this hour of the night. I feel that honourable members who are in the House listening to the debate can be forgiven if they too find it difficult to retain their enthusiasm. In fact, I will marvel if all honourable members manage to stay awake during this debate. (Quorum formed) I thank the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) for calling for a quorum, thus giving us an audience for discussion of this important legislation. I must say that it is the only interest in this legislation that the Opposition has shown. As we look across the chamber tonight we can see where the real interest in this Public Service legislation is. It is on the side of the Government. How many honourable members from the other side are present? I can see five members and none of them is really awake. I welcome the support that the Opposition has given to this legislation. I would just like to take issue with one of the points made by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) who correctly pointed out the need for a management plan for the Public Service. I know that the honourable member for Bradfield has taken particular interest in this issue of managing the Public Service. However, I suggest to him that all the management plans in the world will not work unless they have the support of government, unless there is a legislative base for the reforms one is attempting to implement. As we saw from the years of the previous Government that Government was devoid of any management plan. In fact, the philosophy of the previous Government with respect to running the Public Service was to cut back numbers regardless of functions, and so morale declined. That was the philosophy we were faced with when we got into government. It is unfortunate that this legislation is before the House at such a late hour because it is the most significant legislative package for the Public Service introduced in this Parliament since the introduction of the Public Service Act in 1922. We must thank the Minister at the table, the Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service matters (Mr Dawkins), for the incredible support he has given to this legislation and the speed at which he has had it introduced in this House. The legislation gives effect to the recommendations of the White Paper which was circulated by the Government in December 1983. It makes changes to the Public Service which for years have been recognised as necessary. Over the past decade the Public Service has been over-reviewed, but there has been no action on any of those reviews. I hate to think how much money has been spent on all the reviews that have been conducted. We had the Coombs Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration and the Parliament's own Public Accounts Committee report on the selection and development of senior managers under the chairmanship of the honourable member for Bradfield and, finally, the Reid Committee of Review of Commonwealth Administration. But what came of all those reviews? Nothing! There was talk and criticism of the Public Service, but there was no action. In fact, all the previous Government did was blame the Public Service for its own faults. The Public Service became the scapegoat. Is it any wonder then that morale declined? So why reform? Why is this package of legislation before the House at this hour of the morning? Reform is not introduced and change is not introduced just for the sake of change. The honourable member for Bradfield in his speech stated that the Public Service is being dragged to the altar of change. From my contacts with the Public Service and the union I contest that statement. I believe that this legislation has an enormous amount of support. The problem with the previous administration is that they took no action to follow through any of these reforms. It is all very well to talk about reforms; it is all very well to have reviews, but we need a government that is intent on implementing them. The Government of this country today is proceeding to implement those recommendations. Mr Connolly —I supported them. Mrs KELLY —I concede that certain members of the Opposition, including the honourable member for Bradfield, supported them. But this Government has brought about change because change was necessary. The honourable member for Bradfield will probably be one of the first people in this House to admit that. The previous Government ignored the mood that was prevalent not only in the Public Service but also in the community itself and, I believe, among members of parliament. A momentum has built up for reform. I admit that certain members of the Opposition have contributed to that and I thank them for that contribution. The legislation before us today really puts in place a lot of the reviews and investigations that have been undertaken in the last decade. These reforms have not been implemented because this Government is disappointed with the Public Service. Let me quote from a speech made by the Minister for Finance to the Royal Institute of Public Administration on 24 January. I think it is important to quote this statement so that we put these reforms in context. The Minister for Finance, who is at the table tonight, said: The overwhelming experience of Ministers since taking office has been of efficient, candid and high quality advice and support. Many of us who had never held office before were surprised and impressed at how comprehensive and sensitive that support has been and the dedication of those who provide it. In short it would be totally wrong to see the Government's desire for improvement as reflecting a belief that the individuals who comprise our top advisers are incompetent, disloyal or lazy. So the legislation is not meant to be any criticism of the Public Service but rather an attempt to bring it up to modern day practices of management and personnel management and to put into practice the reviews that have been carried out over the last decade. The legislation puts particular emphasis on reform of the top echelons of the Public Service. I appreciate the comments made by the honourable member for Bradfield. He criticised the Government by saying that the reforms have been confined to the Second Division and the First Division of the Public Service. There may be some basis for that criticism in that there have been no specific recommendations about the Third Division. However, the philosophy of this reform has been to begin at the top. I hope that there will be a follow through from these reforms to all levels of the Public Service. I think we will see from some of the other measures, for example, the merit protection and equal opportunities program and the industrial democracy and permanent part time work, that those changes will filter through the whole of the Public Service. I think one of the reasons that this Government has concentrated on the top echelons is not just the sort of logic of the argument but also it is reinforced by some of the previous reports. For example, the Reid report stated: . . . we are convinced that a crucial factor in any upgrading is the quality and experience of senior management . . . If these people are able further to lift their game to meet the challenges facing the Administration, the overall system can be expected, through their leadership and inspiration, to operate more effectively and efficiently. The Service needs senior officers who are good managers; equipped with relevant up-to-date skills; experience in a variety of fields such as policy advising, program delivery and personnel and financial management; and sensitive to the needs of government and its clients. That really is the philosophical base behind many of the reforms in the Senior Executive Service. The Public Service Reform Bill applies, first of all, to the senior levels of the Service. This will not be just a change in name only, but in the provisions for staff selection, development, mobility, promotion and tenure. These changes will be specifically designed to revitalise senior management. The Senior Executive Service will be more open to recruitment from outside the Public Service and its membership will be more mobile within the Service. An important development in the establishment of the Senior Executive Service is the establishment within the Public Service Board itself of a senior executive staffing unit, because that will assist in the staffing, selection and development of senior staff. It is critical, if we are to put into practice our philosophy about the need to have good managers in the senior service, that we have a unit to train and select those managers. These people are spending and managing an enormous amount of government money. It is essential that those managers have the best training possible. There are numerous other changes occurring in the Public Service such as merit promotion, the equal opportunity program, industrial democracy planning and the permanent part time work proposal . I want to make some brief reference to the equal opportunity program because I am very pleased to see this included in the legislation. It is the first of such legislation. However, I point out that nothing contained within the Bills justifies discrimination under the race and sex discrimination legislation. The provisions should ensure that those groups which are presently under-represented have more employment opportunities within the Public Service. In addition, this will be complemented by the forthcoming Green paper on affirmative action. The honourable member for Bradfield, when he spoke on this point, stressed the need for an equal opportunity program. I too want to highlight the necessity for this. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts has been involved in looking at senior managers. The figures regarding the percentage of women employed, for example, in the top levels of the Public Service are absolutely appalling. If we look at the figure concerning full time staff in the Public Service as at June 1983, in the First Division, departmental heads, one will see that all are male. In the Second Division 3 per cent are females. In the Third Division the figure was 27 per cent females and in the Fourth Division it was 51 per cent females. So one can see that there is a need for programs to assist in the development of opportunities for women and members of ethnic groups in the Public Service. Mrs Darling —What are we doing about it? Mrs KELLY —Specific programs are to be implemented. The Public Service Board is taking this seriously. Also, the Green paper will be circulated, as I said, later this week and this will complement the legislation. Another very important aspect is the permanent part-time work provision. There are many people in the community, particularly women, who are desperate for this sort of legislation. There has been considerable consultation with the unions. The unions have given their backing. I believe this legislation will make a dramatic change to the role of women in the Public Service over a period of years. I know that women, particularly those who reside in Canberra, welcome these provisions. The honourable member for Bradfield made reference to consultants. I point out that this legislation formalises a practice which has been in existence for years, that of governments appointing consultants. The previous Government appointed many of its own-for example, Professor Owen Harries, who was a planning policy adviser in the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Minister stated in his second reading speech that these positions will be limited and they will be small in number. The consultants will work on nominated projects and reviews directly for a Minister or on duties agreed between a Minister and the secretary to a department. These positions must have the approval of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and be accompanied by a merit panel report. So there will not be opportunities for the sorts of appointments to which the honourable member for Bradfield referred. These positions will not interfere with the promotions of permanent members of the Public Service as they will be for periods of up to three years and they can be terminated by a Minister at any time. The legislation before us also encourages much greater flexibility for departments in the managing of their own staff. It also gives a much clearer role for the Public Service Board. In the report of the Public Accounts Committee there was considerable criticism of the role of the Public Service Board. In fact, the report recommended that there be a review of the Public Service Board. One of the problems had been that under the previous Government the Public Service Board had neglected its role of looking at personnel management and staffing because it had to concentrate simply on cutting numbers. It became the ogre of the Public Service. So in this package of legislation and in the statements that the Minister has made, what has happened is that a transfer of that staffing function has now moved to the Department of Finance. So staffing is now much more logically linked with budgetary procedures and with financial concerns. So now the Public Service Board can get on with the job which I believe it should be doing and that is looking at personnel management and staffing. I think we will then see a considerable improvement in the role of the Public Service Board. I think we can see the enthusiasm of the members of the Public Service Board by the fact that they are in this House at 1 o'clock in the morning supporting this legislation. Mr Robert Brown —Hear, hear! Great, dedicated officers. Mrs KELLY —Most public servants are, in fact. However, in conclusion, if this package is to be successful, the support of the Government and of the Opposition is not sufficient. We also need the support of members of the Public Service, especially those at senior levels. I think we have every indication from almost all senior public servants that we have the support for this legislation. We need support from departmental heads and from senior public servants because they are the ones who have to show the leadership in implementing these recommendations. The Public Service Board itself has a very important co- ordinating role. The Government, however, should regard this package of legislation as a first step in a continuing reform process to ensure that the Australian Public Service is responding consistently to the demands of the Government and to delivering effectively services to the Australian community. These reforms especially need to be carried through at all levels of the Public Service. It is hoped that the Public Service takes up the challenge. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. House adjourned at 1.02 a.m. (Wednesday) The following notice was given: Mr Hodgman to move- That this House support the decision of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to approve a visa to enable Mr Jose Ramos Horta, the leader of the East Timorese Independence Movement, to visit Australia, thereby enabling members of both sides of the Parliament to engage in discussions aimed at bringing about the satisfactory completion of the Australian-East Timorese family reunion program. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 29 May 1984: Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 77 Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposal for collection of information-1984-No. 4-Transport Industry Surveys 1983-84 Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders-1984-M21/84-Amendment to M12/83-1984 Performance Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 81 Conciliation and Arbitration Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 79 Defence Act- Determinations-1984- No. 9-Transport Allowance. No. 15-Ceremonial Duties Allowance and other allowances. No. 16-Outfit Allowance in Lieu of Issues of Uniforms. No. 17-Special Allowance for Medical Officers and another allowance. No. 18-Outfit Allowance. No. 19-Outfit (Replacing of Uniform) Allowance Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, Nos 76, 78. Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations-Statutory Rules 1984, Nos 88, 89, 90, 91. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-1984-No. 2-Meat Orders ( Amendment No. 2) Financial Corporations Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 87 International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act-Regulations- Statutory Rules 1984, No. 85 Lands Acquisition Act-Statement of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1) National Health Act-Principles, dated 2 May 1984, formulated under- Sub-section 39A(6) Sub-section 40AA(3C) Sub-section 40AA(7) Navigation Act-Navigation (Orders) Regulations- 1984- No. 3-Marine Orders, Part 3 No. 4-Marine Orders, Part 4 No. 5-Marine Orders, Part 5 No. 6-marine Orders, Part 28 Nursing Homes Assistance Act-Principles, dated 2 May 1984, formulated under- Sub-section 3A(6) Sub-section 4 (3C) Postal Services Act-Australian Postal Com- mission-By Laws-Postal-1984-Amend- ment No. 2 Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the dates on which the following Acts and section of Act shall come into operation- Health Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 1983-Sections 34, sub-sections 35 (3), (9), ( 10) and (11), 36 (2), and 38 (2), section 48, sub-sections 50 (2), 54 (2) and 55 (2), section 60, sub-sections 61 (3), (8), (9) and (10), 62 (2), 66 (2), 69 (2) and (3) and 72 (2) and section 74-23 May 1984 Companies and Securities Legislation. (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act (No. 1) 1984-Parts II-IV-28 May 1984. Public Service Act- Appointments-Department- Employment and Industrial Relations-Coyne, L.S. Social Security-Baker, R.L.A Determinations-1984-Nos 9, 11, 15 Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, Nos 80, 83, 86 Remuneration and Allowances Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 84 Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determination, dated 4 May 1984, listing fees for the purposes of the Medical Practitioners Registration Ordinance. National Memorials Ordinance-Determination naming Divisions of the Australian Capital Territory, dated 2 May 1984 Ordinances-1984- No. 12-Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) (Amendment) No. 13-Medical Practitioners Registration (Amendment) No. 14-Veterinary Surgeons Registration (Amendment) No. 15-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations-1984- No. 8 (Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry ) Ordinance) No. 9 (Medical Practitioners Registration Ordinance) No. 10 (Cemeteries Ordinance) Variations of plan of lay-out of City of Canberra and its environs dated- 15 May 1984 21 May 1984 States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States of New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia, dated 14 May 1984 Telecommunications Act-Australian Telecommunications Commission-By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts)-Amendment No. 44 Telecommunications (Community Calls)-Amendment No. 36 Trade Commissioners Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 82 The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 833) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) What inter-departmental committees (a) does the Minister's Department and ( b) do instrumentalities under the Minister's control (i) participate in and (ii) chair. (2) What is the subject matter of these committees' inquiries. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The following list has been compiled on the basis of the definition accepted by governments of an inter-departmental committee as a committee involving two or more departments established at the specific direction of the Government and for which authority for its establishment is either a Cabinet decision or the approval in writing of the Prime Minister. Inter-departmental committees are just one method of inter-departmental consultation and alone do not provide a true indication of the ongoing level of communication and consultation among departments. They do, however, represent a legitimate administrative function of governments and are directed to the preparation and oversight of government programs and policies. By its very nature inter-departmental activity is therefore not static. Not all the following committees are currently active but rather exist to handle matters as they arise. 1 (a) (i) and (b) (i) There are several inter-departmental committees in which my Department and instrumentalities under my control participate: Inter-departmental Working Group on Aboriginal Health (PM&C) Committee on the Determination of Refugee Status (PM&C) Committee on Post-arrival Programs and Services for Migrants (COPAPS)-(PM&C, PSB) Inter-departmental Working Group on National Conservation Strategy for Australia (PM&C) Inter-departmental Committee on Nuclear Codes of Practice (PM&C) Permanent Heads Committee on Aboriginal Affairs (this Committee is also known as the IDC on Co-ordination in Aboriginal Affairs) (PM&C) Inter-departmental Committee to Review Recommendations of Committee of Review of the NCDC (PM&C, PSB) Advisory Committee on National Collections (PM&C, PSB) Standing Inter-departmental Committee on the Australian Bicentenary (SIDCAB)-( PM&C) Standing Inter-departmental Committee on Rehabilitation (SIDCOR)-(PM&C) Working Party on Co-ordination of Aged Care Policies (PM&C) Inter-departmental Committee on Financial Structure and Financial Objectives of Telecom and Australia Post (PM&C) Inter-departmental Committee on Nuclear Safeguards (PM&C) Inter-departmental Committee on Review of Atomic Energy Legislation (PM&C) Inter-departmental Committee on Ship Management and Manning Arrangements and Future of Surplus 'Cape' Class Vessels (PM&C, PSB) Senior Officers Committee on Emissions and Energy Related Matters (PM&C) Sub-committee on Foreign Fishing Proposals (PM&C) Wages Policy Task Force (PM&C, PSB) Inter-departmental Committee on Grants-in-aid (PM&C) Inter-departmental Committee on Relations with ASEAN (PM&C) Standing Committee on Japan (PM&C) Inter-departmental Committee on the Torres Strait Treaty (PM&C) Inter-departmental Committee on Youth Policy (PM&C) Inter-departmental Committee on Community Employment Program (PM&C, PSB) Antitrust IDC (PM&C) Inter-departmental Committee on Law of the Sea Convention (PM&C) Inter-departmental Committee on Antarctica (PM&C) Standing Inter-departmental Committee on Northern Territory Constitutional Development (PM&C) Defence Committee (PM&C) Visiting Ships Panel (Nuclear) (PM&C) Special Inter-departmental Committee on Protection Against Violence (SIDC-PAV) (PM&C) Committee of Officials on Agent Orange (PM&C) Inter-departmental Committee on Export Finance and Insurance Corporation National Interest Applications (PM&C) Standing Inter-departmental Committee on Coastal Surveillance (PM&C) Inter-departmental Working Group on Security in Ministers' Offices (PM&C) Standing Advisory Committee on Security of Official Establishments (PM&C) Inter-departmental Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal ( PM&C) Inter-departmental Committee on Medical Fees (PM&C) Inter-departmental Committee on Academic Salaries Tribunal (PM&C, PSB) Inter-departmental Committee on Retirement Incomes (PM&C) Inter-departmental Working Group on Australia-China Relations (PM&C) Inter-departmental Working Group on Relations with the Koreas (PM&C) Inter-departmental Committee on International Year of Peace (PM&C) Security Construction and Equipment Committee (PM&C) Inter-departmental Committee on Inspection of French Nuclear Tests Site at Mururoa Atoll (PM&C) Inter-departmental Committee for the Review of Proposals by Commonwealth Departments and Instrumentalities to Own, Replace or Lease Aircraft (PM&C) Inter-departmental Committee on a Proposed Reciprocal Status of Forces Agreement Between Australia, New Zealand and United States (PM&C) Inter-departmental Committee on Australia-Indonesia Maritime Boundaries (PM&C) Inter-departmental Committee on Cultural Exchange Programs (PM&C) Inter-departmental Committee on Information Policy (PM&C) Standing Inter-departmental Committee on North-South Issues (PM&C) Inter-departmental Committee on the Renegotiation of Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement (PM&C) Inter-departmental Committee Assessing and Monitoring Project Proposals for Funding under the Commonwealth Component of the Community Employment Program (PM &C) Standing Inter-departmental Committee on Government Printing and Publishing ( PSB) Inter-departmental Committee on Motor Transport (PSB) Overseas Property Committee (PSB) Co-ordination Committee (industrial claims throughout Commonwealth Employment sector) (PSB) Inter-departmental Committee on Fees and Allowances (PSB) Commonwealth Teaching Service Consultative Committee (PSB) The subject matter of the inquiries of these Committees will be set out in the replies to the honourable member's Questions from those Ministers whose Departments chair them. 1 (a) (ii), (b) (ii) and 2. The following inter-departmental committees are chaired by my Department or instrumentalities under my control: Committee Subject matter Permanent Heads Committee on Intelligence and Security (PM&C chair, ONA) To advise the relevant ministerial Committee on matters of concern to it. Task Force of Permanent Heads on the Status of Women (PM&C) To implement progressively Government policy of ensuring that the interests of women are integrated in all programs and policies and ensure co-ordination in establishing programs and priorities. Inter-departmental Committee on South West Tasmania (PM&C) To examine proposals for the creation of alternative employment as a consequence of the cessation of the Gordon-below-Franklin dam project. Commonwealth Government Counter Disaster Task Force (PM&C) In relation to disasters causing major social and economic dislocation, incapable of being handled under ongoing arrangements, the Task Force: During the emergency phase, acts as a link between the National Disaster Organisation (NDO) and the Government so as to provide policy guidance and support to NDO if requested. During the post disaster phase, assesses the need for and co-ordinates Commonwealth assistance and develops recommendations/advice to Ministers on any special Commonwealth machinery and inter-governmental arrangements considered necessary. Inter-departmental Committee on Soviet Representation in Australia (PM&C) To take account of relevant factors involved in the Soviet presence in Australia and co-ordinate advice on major problems in this field or those not capable of bilateral solution. Computer Security Advisory Group (PSB chair, Auditor-General's Office) Provides advice to permanent heads and departments in protecting people, information and other assets associated with computers from threats whether of a security, criminal or other nature. Location of Australian Government Employment Committee (PSB chair, PM&C) (i) Report and recommend to Government on proposals by departments and authorities to relocate units of employment; and appropriate location of all newly established or proposed Australian Government bodies. (ii) Report to/advise Government on general matters relating to location of Australian Government employment. Policy Committee on Conditions of Overseas Service (sub-committee of the Committee on Conditions of Overseas Service) (PSB) To advise the Public Service Board on major policy issues relating to terms and conditions of employment of public servants performing duties overseas. Representation is at the permanent head level. Operational Committee on Conditions of Overseas Service (sub-committee of the Committee on Conditions of Overseas Service) (PSB) To advise the Public Service Board on lesser policy issues relating to terms and conditions of employment of public servants performing duties overseas. Representation is at the Second or senior Third Division level. Overseas Visits Committee (PSB) Examine annual programs of overseas visits and recommend to the Government objectives in relation to numbers of visits both overall and on an individual department or authority basis. The Committee also considers requests for variations to limits set. Inter-departmental Committee on Housing Scales and Standards (PSB) Formulate service-wide standards for departmental staff housing. Inter-departmental Furniture Committee (PSB) Develop standards for office furniture. National Co-ordinating Committee on 38 hour Negotiations (PSB) Co-ordinate negotiations on ACTU's general claim for a 38 hour week throughout Commonwealth employment. National Assessments Board (ONA) To consider assessments prepared by the Office of National Assessments in relation to matters not primarily involving economic considerations. Economic Assessments Board (ONA) To consider assessments prepared by the Office of National Assessments in relation to matters primarily involving economic considerations. (Question No. 904) Mr Groom asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 6 December 1983: (1) Did the Government make a commitment to the Marine Board of Burnie, Tasmania, to upgrade the Wynyard airport to medium jet standard in association with transfer of ownership; if so, why has this commitment not been honoured. (2) Did the Prime Minister, as the then Leader of the Opposition, make a clear promise before the March 1983 election that, if the Australian Labor Party won government, the Wynyard airport would be upgraded to medium jet standard; if so, why has this promise not been honoured. (3) Is it a fact that the reason for not honouring this promise is the deficit problem faced by the Government; if so, will the airport be upgraded as promised as soon as funds become available. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The previous Government announced that Wynyard aerodrome would be upgraded in association with its transfer under the aerodrome local ownership plan, subject to finalisation of transfer negotiations and agreements on the detail of works for which the Commonwealth might provide grants. Agreement was not achieved before the change of government. (2) Yes. However, Mr Hawke also announced on 2 March 1983, and prior to the election, that all pre-election undertakings would have to be revised if the actual forecast of the Budget deficit was substantially in excess of that announced by the former Government. In the event, the prospective Budget deficit was shown to be about $3.6 billion greater than previously announced and the Government, in accordance with its announced undertaking, commenced a review of all budgetary commitments. Following this review the Government announced in May 1983 that Commonwealth funding of medium jet upgrading of Wynyard aerodrome, among other things, would not proceed. (3) No. The Government decided not to proceed because medium jet upgrading could not be justified in light of a substantial fall in traffic levels. Wynyard aerodrome is available for transfer, under the aerodrome local ownership plan ( ALOP), on the basis of Commonwealth funding for improvements for present Fokker Friendship (F27) type services on the existing main runway and the ALOP provides for future Commonwealth funding for the whole cost of approved movement area upgrading for medium jet aircraft introduction when the need for such services can be demonstrated. (Question No. 922) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 7 December 1983: (1) When is he expecting to answer Question No. 573 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 4 October 1983. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Question No. 573 was answered on page 2288 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 10 May 1984. (Question No. 1005) Mrs Darling asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: (1) Is it a fact that, in general, Federal prisoners in Queensland are considered for release on licence only after they have served half of their sentence, and that this is different to the situation applying in other States. (2) Can the Attorney-General provide details on a State by State basis of prisoners who have been released on licence in each of the years 1981 to 1983 including (a) the total sentence involved and (b) the length of time that had expired at the time of release, in each case. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes, but it is quite common in jurisdictions other than Queensland for a non-parole period to be specified which is 50 per cent or more of the head sentence, particularly in cases involving offences relating to narcotic drugs. I also draw the honourable member's attention to the reply to Senate Question No. 592 Hansard 1 May 1984. (2) Information in the form sought in the honourable member's question is not readily available. Administratively it would not be practicable to undertake the research necessary to provide the information sought. (Question No. 1026) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: (1) What is the total cost of the Community Employment Program (CEP) to December 1983. (2) How much of the funds used in the CEP were derived from savings due to the wage pause. (3) What is the total number of person/weeks of employment by the CEP to December 1983. (4) What is the division of those person/weeks by federal electorates. (5) What was the unemployment rate at December 1983 in each federal electorate. (6) What percentage of those employed in the CEP have obtained permanent jobs. (7) What is the anticipated cost of the CEP to the end of 1983-84. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $15.79m. As more projects commence in the second half of 1983-84, expenditure under the program will increase significantly. (2) Nil. (3) and (4) Detailed figures on the number of person/ weeks of employment created under CEP in 1983 are not yet available on a national or federal electorate basis. This information will be available when developments in the Department's performance monitoring automatic data processing system permit. However, information is available on the number of jobs to be created on projects approved to 31 December 1983. This is shown in the following table. JOBS TO BE CREATED IN CEP PROJECTS APPROVED TO 31 DECEMBER 1983 Number Area of jobs State/Territory Component(a) New South Wales 1,377 Victoria 1,672 Queensland 1,696 Western Australia 294 South Australia 625 Tasmania 174 Australian Capital Territory 261 Northern Territory 21 Total State/Territory Component 6,120 Commonwealth Component(b) 2,754 Total 8,874 (a) Projects 'sponsored' by State or local government or by community groups. (b) Projects 'sponsored' by Commonwealth departments or authorities. (5) This information is not available as the data is not collected by the Commonwealth Employment Service or the Australian Bureau of Statistics. However, estimates of unemployment rates by federal electorate in March 1983 were made by the Manpower Economics Branch of my Department in the publication 'Estimates of Unemployment Rates by Commonwealth Electorate' dated October 1983. I have arranged for a copy of this publication to be forwarded to the honourable member . (6) Information on employment of CEP participants after completion of projects is not yet available as most CEP projects are either still in operation or have yet to commence. The Bureau of Labour Market Research will report on this issue when sufficient data is available. (7) The Budget allocation for CEP during 1983-84 is $300m. (Question No. 1059) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 2 March 1984: (1) On what basis are leases granted to (a) commercial and (b) other enterprises at premises at aviation terminals controlled by the Department of Aviation. (2) Who, if any-and in the case of companies-the names of the principals, were the successful applicants in (a) 1983 and (b) 1984 for leases at aviation terminals in (i) Sydney, (ii) Melbourne, (iii) Brisbane, (iv) Adelaide, (v) Perth, (vi) Darwin, (vii) Canberra, (viii) Hobart, (ix) Launceston and (x) Wynyard. (3) What rent is being paid by each successful applicant. (4) In any case where a successful applicant was not the highest tenderer, (a) what were the premises involved, (b) which applicants submitted higher tenders- and in the case of companies, the names of the principals-and (c) what were the reasons for the successful tenderer being preferred. Mr Beazley —The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Leases to both (a) commercial and (b) other enterprises at premises at airport terminals controlled by the Department of Aviation are granted pursuant to terms and conditions contained in the Airports (Business Concessions) Act 1959-1973, in which it states that I, as Minister, may on behalf of the Commonwealth, (a) grant leases and licences in respect of land within an airport on such terms and conditions, and subject to payment of such rent or other considerations as the Minister thinks fit; and (b) exercise any power or remedy of the Commonwealth in respect of any such lease or licence. The Airport (Business Concessions) Act does not distinguish between leases to ' commercial' and 'other enterprises'. The Act only makes a distinction between aviation and non-aviation related operations. Under the Act, tender action is not necessary for the granting of leases which are directly related to the operation of air transport services. These leases are granted by me, as Minister, under terms and conditions agreed through the Aviation Industry Advisory Committee. Public tender action is a legal prerequisite of the Act, for all leases granted to non-aviation enterprises, for periods in excess of three years but is not a mandatory requirement in the granting of leases for periods of three years or less. However, when granting leases for periods of three years or less, the Department needs to be satisfied that Government probity requirements are met in ensuring that the opportunity of Government business is available to all who wish to participate. (2) Detailed presentation of lessee information requested-concerning those granted following public tender action-is at Appendix A. (3) Rent details are also contained in Appendix A. (4) In all cases the successful applicant was the highest tenderer. In one instance the highest tenderer, after going into receivership, was unable to continue meeting the obligation agreed in the lease/authority. The lease/ authority was re-assigned to the second highest original tenderer. APPENDIX A Aviation Lease (business Successful terminal concession) applicant (lessee) Principals Rent Consideration $ p.a. Sydney 1983 Coin Operated Machines Concessions LAI Corp. P/L Mr M. D. Steinberg Mr I. H. Wiltshire 2,400 Turnstiles 95% of G.T.O. Luggage Lockers 40% of G.T.O. Telescopes 50% of G.T.O. Weighing Scales 50% of G.T.O. Video Game Machine 62.5% of G.T.O. 1984 Coin Operated Machines Concessions Partnership D. I. Macarthur-Onslow and C. Anscombe D. I. Macarthur-Onslow C. Anscombe 2,400 Turnstiles 75% of G.T.O. Luggage Lockers 50% of G.T.O. Telescopes 50% of G.T.O. Weighing Scales 50% of G.T.O. Video Game 50% of G.T.O. Duty Free and Sales Tax Free International Allders International P/L Mr P. J. Harper Mr P. Taylor Mr E. C. A. Symes Mr T. J. Neil Mr J. F. Olsen Mr S. R. Hill Mr B. S. Ross Note 1 $6,510,004 p.a. plus 36.1% of any amount by which the actual gross revenue of the business exceeds $16,560,000 with the guarantee that payment in respect of turnover shall not be less than $500,000 Terminal Advertising Southern Cross Advertising P/L Mr A. L. Robinson Mr G. W. Keato Note 1 Year 1 $199,200 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $332, 000 p.a. Year 2 $213,000 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $355, 000 p.a. Year 3 $222,000 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $370, 000 p.a. Year 4 $244,200 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $407, 000 p.a. Year 5 $270,000 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $450, 000 p.a. Melbourne 1983 Jewellery Shop Puzsar Jewellery Mr L. Puzsar 5,400 Year 1 $24,600 p.a. plus 15% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $250, 000 p.a. Year 2 $24,600 p.a. plus 20% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $260, 000 p.a. Year 3 $24,600 p.a. plus 25% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $270, 000 p.a. Florist G. S. Ireland P/L Mr G. S. Ireland Mr G. G. Ireland 5,400 Year 1 $24,606 p.a. plus 8% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $230, 000 p.a. Year 2 $25,806 p.a. plus 9% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $240, 000 p.a. Year 3 $27,006 p.a. plus 10% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $250, 000 p.a. Duty Free Shop James Richardson P/L Mr D. Mandie Mrs M. Mandie Mr I. Mandie Mr S. Mandie 100,800 Year 1 $1,069,992 p.a. plus 33.5% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $ 3,200,000 p.a. Year 2 $1,140,000 p.a. plus 33.5% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $ 3,400,000 p.a. Year 3 $1,224,000 p.a. plus 34% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $3, 600,000 p.a. Year 4 $1,308,000 p.a. plus 34.5% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $ 3,800,000 p.a. Year 5 $1,380,000 p.a. plus 34.5% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $ 4,000,000 p.a. Newsagency and Composite Shop Taralba P/L Mr A. To Mrs L. To Mr R. J. Walsh Mr G. J. Ross-Jones 48,000 Year 1 $494,004 p.a. plus 22% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $2, 600,000 p.a. Year 2 $513,000 p.a. plus 22% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $2, 700,000 p.a. Year 3 $531,996 p.a. plus 22% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $2, 800,000 p.a. Gift Shops Taralba P/L Mr A. To Mrs L. To Mr E. J. Walsh Mr G. J. Ross-Jones 24,000 Year 1 $212,520 p.a. plus 28% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $850, 000 p.a. Year 2 $225,000 p.a. plus 28% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $900, 000 p.a. Year 3 $237,480 p.a. plus 28% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $950, 000 p.a. 1984 Terminal Advertising Southern Cross Advertising P/L Mr A. L. Robinson Mr G. W. Keato Year 1 $210,000 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $350, 000 p.a. Year 2 $225,000 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $375, 000 p.a. Year 3 $247,200 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $412, 000 p.a. Year 4 $270,000 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $450, 000 p.a. Year 5 $294,000 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $490, 000 p.a. Brisbane 1983 Food and Beverage Dudley (Holdings) P/L Mr D. C. Dunn Mr S. C. Dunn Mr N. McL. Barrell Mr D. I. Stewart Note 2 Year 1 $75,000 p.a. plus 15 per cent of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $1,700,000 p.a. Year 2 $123,000 p.a. plus 15% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $1, 800,000 p.a. Thereafter $13,450 p.c.m. plus 15% of gross revenue in excess of $166,667 p.c.m. Duty Free Shop James Richardson P/L Mr D. Mandie Mrs M. Mandie Mr I. Mandie Mr S. Mandie 60,000 Year 1 $747,996 p.a. plus 34% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $2, 200,000 p.a. Year 2 $822,000 p.a. plus 35.1% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $2, 400,000 p.a. Year 3 $891,000 p.a. plus 35.3% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $2, 600,000 p.a. Year 4 $966,000 p.a. plus 35.4% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $2, 800,000 p.a. Year 5 $1,020,000 p.a. plus 36.2% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $ 3,000,000 p.a. 1984 Terminal Advertising Southern Cross Advertising P/L Mr A. L. Robinson Mr G. W. Keato Note 1 Year 1 $13,800 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $23, 000 p.a. Year 2 $15,000 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $25, 000 p.a. Year 3 $15,600 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $26, 000 p.a. Year 4 $16,800 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $28, 000 p.a. Year 5 $18,000 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $30, 000 p.a. Adelaide 1983 Newsagency/Giftshop Dudley (Holdings) P/L Mr D. C. Dunn Mrs S. C. Dunn Mr N. McL. Barrell Mr D. I. Stewart $7,200 Year 1 $160,400 p.a. plus 20.5% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $ 800,000 p.a. Year 2 $176,440 p.a. plus 20% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $880, 000 p.a. Year 3 $233,382 p.a. plus 20% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $970, 000 p.a. Year 4 $257,442 p.a. plus 20.5% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $1, 070,000 p.a. Year 5 $283,908 p.a. plus 20.5% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $1, 800,000 p.a. Direct-Line Reservation Unit Sargent Enterprises P/L Mr M. Sargent 7,260 Nil. Traveller Services Bureau D & H Investments P/L Mr B. W. Morgan 1,200 Nil. Duty Free Shop Taralba P/L Mr A. To Mrs L. To Mr E. J. Walsh Mr G. H. Ross-Jones 1,200 Year 1 26.5% of G.T.O. to $650,000; 27.5% of G.T.O to $750,000; 28% of G.T.O. over $750,000 Year 2 27.0% of G.T.O. to $750,000; 28.0% of G.T.O. to $850,000; 28.5% of G.T.O. over $850,000 Year 3 27.5% of G.T.O. to $850,000; 28.5% of G.T.O. to $950,000; 29.0% of G.T.O. over $950,000 Year 4 28.0% of G.T.O. to $950,000; 29.0% of G.T.O. to $1,050,000; 29.5% of G.T. O. over $1,050,000 Year 5 28.5% of G.T.O. to $1,050,000; 29.5% of G.T.O. to $1,150,000; 30.0% of G. T.O. over $1,150,000 1984 Nil Perth 1983 Food & Liquor Ansett Transport Industries (OPS) P/L Mr K. R. Murdoch Sir E. H. P. Abeles 18,000 Year 1 $201,600 p.a. plus 10% of any amount by which gross revenue exceed $2,700 ,000 p.a. Year 2 $295,200 p.a. plus 12% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $2, 950,000 p.a. Year 3 $338,400 p.a. plus 12% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $3, 250,000 p.a. Year 4 $193,200 p.a. plus 12% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $2, 300,000 p.a. Year 5 $231,600 p.a. plus 12% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $2, 500,000 p.a. Plus non-removable improvements to premises by way of fit out costs estimated at $867,000 1984 Nil Darwin 1983 Direct-Line Phone Service Mr C. George Mr C. George 3,000 Nil Darwin Traveller Service Bureau Darwin Tourist Promotion Association Ms K. Hosking 840 Nil 1984 Nil Canberra 1983 Nil 1984 Terminal Advertising Southern Cross Advertising P/L Mr A. L. Robinson Mr G. W. Keato Note 1 Year 1 $27,000 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $45, 000 p.a. Year 2 $29,400 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $49, 000 p.a. Year 3 $32,400 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $54, 000 p.a. Year 4 $35,937 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $59, 895 p.a. Year 5 $39,000 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $65, 000 p.a. Hobart 1983 Nil 1984 Terminal Advertising Southern Cross Advertising P/L Mr A. L. Robinson Mr G. W. Keato Note 1 Year 1 $13,000 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $23, 000 p.a. Year 2 $15,000 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $25, 000 p.a. Year 3 $16,500 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $27, 500 p.a. Year 4 $17,400 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $29, 000 p.a. Year 5 $19,200 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $32, 000 p.a. Launceston 1983 Lounge Bar/ Restaurant, Buffet/Kiosk Newsagency Gift Shop Nationwide Food Service P/L D. F. Aquilana K. L. Purcell G. E. McEncroe G. R. Rhodes J. A. Roddy 12,000 Year 1 $49,992 p.a. plus 15% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $430, 000 p.a. Year 2 $51,996 p.a. plus 15% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $450, 000 p.a. Year 3 $54,000 p.a. plus 15% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $470, 000 p.a. Year 4 $55,992 p.a. plus 15% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $490, 000 p.a. Year 5 $57,996 p.a. plus 15% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $510, 000 p.a. 1984 Terminal Advertising Southern Cross Advertising P/L Mr A. L. Robinson Mr G. W. Keato Note 1 Year 1 $12,960 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $21, 600 p.a. Year 2 $13,800 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $23, 000 p.a. Year 3 $15,000 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $25, 000 p.a. Year 4 $15,900 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $26, 500 p.a. Year 5 $16,500 p.a. plus 60% of any amount by which gross revenue exceeds $27, 500 p.a. Wynyard 1983 Nil 1984 Nil Note 1. Rent included in consideration amount. Note 2. Rent paid to TAA as owner of terminal. Department receives a consideration amount only as payment for the Authority to Trade. (Question No. 1070) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, 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 Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) Males-(i) nil; (ii) nil. (b) Females-(i) nil; (ii) December 1983-nil, January 1984-nil, February 1984-1. (Question No. 1072) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Finance, 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 Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) (1) nil; (a) (ii) nil; (b) (i) nil; (b) (ii) nil. My Department has examined the guidelines for the community employment program and, bearing in mind the functions and responsibilities allocated to the Finance portfolio, has concluded that there are no projects within the portfolio suited to the engagement of temporary employees under the community employment program. (Question No. 1134) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 2 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 Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There have been 18 consultants engaged by my Department since 1 April 1983. (2), (3), (4) and (5). (2) Dr M. F. C. Day was engaged to advise on the establishment of a Bureau of Rural Science and Technology. (3) 47.5 days. (4) $10,212.50. (5) Dr Day is a former Chief of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Division of Forest Research and member of the Executive. He possesses special qualifications and background relevant to this assignment. (2) Moorabbin Technical and Further Education (TAFE) College was engaged to undertake detailed design work for multiskilling courses for inspection staff. (3) The assignment commenced in January 1984 and is expected to be completed in June 1984. (4) $20,100. (5) Moorabbin College is part of the Victorian TAFE system and specialises in the development and running of courses in the food science area. (2) David Shave and Associates were engaged to undertake the development and implementation of certain aspects of the Export Inspection Service national training strategy. (3) The assignment commenced in December 1983 and is expected to be completed in June 1984. (4) $62,500. (5) The consultant had recently undertaken an extensive training needs analysis of the Export Inspection Service and was therefore fully conversant with the detailed training requirements of inspection staff. (2) Mr D. Schultz was engaged to assist in the production of Ministerial Inspection Orders and associated Manuals for the Export Inspection Service. (3) Four months. (4) $13,500. (5) Mr Schultz possesses the necessary relevant qualifications and experience and through previous experience with the Department is familiar with the subject matter involved. (2) Touche Ross Services Pty were engaged to evaluate, design and implement a computerised integrated financial management system for the Department. (3) 5.5 months. (4) $292,225. (5) Touche Ross are experienced with a wide variety of financial systems and computer facilities in the Public and private sectors. (2) C. R. Eckermann and Associates were engaged to report on the feasibility of the use of 'Front end processing' of fisheries data with a view to reducing Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Computing Network charges. (3) One month. (4) $4,000. (5) The consultant has extensive background and experience in this field and has been successfully used by the Department in previous assignments. (2) Spencer Stuart and Associates were engaged to assist in the selection of a Board member on a statutory Marketing Authority. (3) The consultant was engaged to perform a specified task and not for a specified period of time. The task was completed over a period of about two months. (4) $9,452.50. (5) Spencer Stuart and Associates possess special background and experience in their field and were able to demonstrate successful past performance in similar assignments. (2) Mr D. McKinna was engaged to draft tender specifications for selection of survey field force for a household meat consumption survey. (3) Two days. (4) $1,030.60. (5) Mr McKinna is a market strategy consultant of Wantirna, Victoria. He has expertise in the marketing economics area and possesses the necessary knowledge for the assignment. (2) Dr T. Beed was engaged to design and develop a survey for use in a research project into meat usage and purchasing patterns in Australia. (3) Six weeks (approximately). (4) $9,000 (estimate). (5) Dr Beed is the Director of the Sample Survey Centre at the University of Sydney and is considered to possess the knowledge and expertise necessary to undertake the tasks involved. (2) Dr L. A. Syme was engaged to prepare a published scientific review of intensive sheep husbandry. (3) The assignment will be completed on a part time basis over a period of approximately six months. (4) $7,000. (5) Dr Syme possesses a strong background in animal behaviour studies and practice and has a substantial research and publication record in this field. (2) Hassall and Associates Pty Ltd were engaged to develop a sub-plan for Commonwealth involvement in the eradication of tuberculosis from feral buffalo. (3) Approximately three months. (4) $25,000 (estimate). (5) Hassall and Associates have access to sociological specialists with skills not available to the Department of Primary Industry. (2) Professor W. I. B. Beveridge was engaged to undertake a revision of Volume 1 of the Animal Health in Australia Series entitled 'Viral Diseases of Farm Livestock'. (3) The assignment was completed on a part time basis over a period of approximately two months. (4) $2,000. (5) Professor Beveridge was the author of the principal manuscript. (2) Mr G. N. Arthur was engaged to undertake a scientific literature review on Metaldeyde. (3) Approximately three months on a part time basis. (4) $4,000. (5) Mr Arthur holds a degree in Agricultural Science and has extensive experience relevant to agricultural chemicals in both government service and private enterprise. (2) Mr A. S. Taylor was engaged to undertake a scientific literature review on diphenylamine. (3) Approximately three months on a part time basis. (4) $6,000. (5) Mr Taylor is a qualified Medical Laboratory Technologist and has extensive experience in pesticide information and intelligence matters. (2) Coopers and Lybrand were engaged to examine and report on the method of inspection charging. (3) 112 days between May 1983 to November 1983. (4) $65,220. (5) Coopers and Lybrand possessed a high degree of relevant experience and expertise. (2) Chandler and MacLeod were engaged to review and report on the management of human resources within the Export Inspection Service. (3) 222 days between May 1983 to December 1983. (4) $111,250. (5) Chandler and MacLeod possessed a high degree of relevant practical experience and expertise. (2) Mr E. L. Foster was engaged to assist in a review of the administration and operation of export inspection services relating to fresh fruit and vegetable products. (3) Approximately seven months. (4) $11,802. (5) Mr Foster possessed extensive experience in related inspection matters and detailed knowledge of the fresh fruit and vegetable industries by virtue of his previous employment with the Victorian Department of Agriculture. (2) Mr C. R. Brough was engaged to assist in a review of the administration and operation of export inspection services relating to fresh fruit and vegetable products. (3) Approximately four months. (4) $15,504. (5) Mr Brough was formerly Principal Plant Standards Officer in the Victorian Department of Agriculture and possessed special background and experience relevant to this assignment. (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 and required service. The consultants engaged by my Department were selected from a competitive field except in those cases where the consultant possesses special qualifications, expertise and background relevant to the particular assignment. In all cases the engagement of the consultants was approved by the Public Service Board. (Question No. 1152) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 5 March 1984 : Is he able to say whether the Industries Assistance Commission Draft Report on Rural Adjustment, in Table A7.2, shows that the administration cost per loan being administered in the rural adjustment scheme (RAS) was, in 1981-82, $1968 in New South Wales and $425 in Queensland; if so, why is New South Wales so much more costly in administration. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The IAC draft report incorporates statistics showing the administration cost per loan in the rural adjustment scheme for the period 1976-77 to 1982-83. For 1981-82 the cost per loan being administered ranged from $1968 in New South Wales to $425 in Queensland. The rural adjustment scheme agreement provides that for assistance under Parts A and C of the scheme in each year the Commonwealth and each State will share equally administration expenses up to an amount equivalent to 2 per cent of the value of assistance approved annually and that costs in excess of this amount are paid by the State. I understand that the difference in the figures quoted by the IAC for States' administrative costs is due to the fact that in some States, the administering agency handles other activities as well as the RAS, but does not allocate administrative costs to each activity. The figure for those States quoted in the IAC report is a total administrative cost. In New South Wales, the administrative cost is further inflated by charges levied by the State Bank for services provided by its branches in connection with the administration of the RAS. (Question No. 1153) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 5 March 1984: (1) In the decision to allow nuclear powered and nuclear armed allied defence ships to enter Australian ports has he taken into account the catastrophic environmental damage which could be caused to a port, such as Sydney Harbour, if a nuclear accident occurred; if so, what precautions and safety measures have been taken. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government has carefully considered the potential environmental effects of accidents involving nuclear powered warships visiting Australian ports. Studies by the responsible Australian authorities, principally the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, indicate that the risk of a major uncontained reactor accident is very low indeed. Nuclear powered warships are allowed to visit Australian ports only in strict accordance with guidelines and detailed practical safety arrangements. Under these arrangements every port visited by a nuclear powered warship must first have been examined by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to determine whether it meets all the criteria laid down by the Government for visits by such ships. For further information regarding the general conditions under which nuclear powered warships visit Australian ports, I refer the honourable member to the statement by the Minister representing me in the Senate, Senator Evans, on 15 December 1983 (Senate Hansard, page 3829). In regard to ships which may be nuclear armed, it has been a policy of successive Australian Governments not to require our friends and allies to reveal whether their ships making routine visits to Australian ports are carrying nuclear weapons. To do so could result in important information about the pattern of nuclear weapons deployments being revealed to potentially hostile powers. The Government is satisfied that the safety precautions taken on board visiting warships effectively preclude the possibility of an accidental nuclear detonation. (Question No. 1169) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 7 March 1984: Further to the announcement by Telecom's Managing Director, Mr Bill Pollock, at Broken Hill on 11 January 1984, how many of the 7,500 telephone subscribers in the Dubbo Telecom District presently on manual exchanges will be converted to (a ) separate automatic telephone exchanges and (b) separate digital radio concentrator services. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Telecom Australia has informed me that based on current plans for the conversion of manual telephone services in the Dubbo Telecommunications District to automatic operation 1,225 subscribers will be connected to digital radio concentrator services; approximately 180 will be given automatic service by analogue radio concentrators with the remainder being connected to automatic telephone exchanges. (Question No. 1173) Mr Lloyd asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 8 March 1984: Is he taking action to ensure that the Australia Day holiday is recognised and uniformly celebrated on the actual day throughout Australia, as is the case with Anzac Day; if so, what action. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government firmly believes that the present arrangements for the observance of Australia Day should be changed so that our National Day is officially celebrated on 26 January each year with a public holiday declared on that day or on the following Monday when 26 January falls on a weekend. The Government considers this arrangement would enhance the importance of Australia Day and the symbolic significance which it should have for all Australians. The Commonwealth 's direct powers, however, in declaring such public holidays are limited to the Territories it administers. The question of the date of observance of Australia Day was listed, following preparations under both the present and the previous Government, for discussion at the June 1983 Premiers' Conference. Because of constraints on time, the item was not reached and I therefore followed it up by correspondence. As New South Wales had already agreed in principle to such a change with effect from 1988 and the Northern Territory had decided to celebrate Australia Day with a public holiday on 26 January as from this year, I sought the views of the remaining Premiers last August on the Commonwealth's proposal. Responses from those Premiers indicated that their Governments were not prepared then to change the existing arrangements. In view of the significance of this matter, I have written again to the Premiers of Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania seeking reconsideration of their position and indicating that the celebration of Australia Day will be listed for further consideration at the next Premiers' Conference. (Question No. 1183) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: Is he able to say whether the Western Australian Liberal Party has established a 'hotline' to obtain complaints from people who believe Medicare has been costlier, more restrictive and more inconvenient than the previous health insurance system, and that standards of treatment have been reduced; if so, is his Department monitoring this 'hotline' in order to follow up complaints and improve the quality of care available under Medicare. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I understand that a hotline service was set up by the Western Australian State Liberal Party on 6 March, for a month, to receive complaints about Medicare. The Western Australian Minister for Health, the Hon. B. J. Hodge, MLA, responded to complaints that were publicised and gave an assurance that Medicare would not result in lowering the standards of public hospital services. I also understood that Mr Hodge suggested that an independent committee, to include a member of the Opposition, be established to investigate complaints raised on the 'hotline'. As no response to this suggestion was received, Mr Hodge set up a watch dog committee to handle Medicare complaints. The committee is headed by Professor Eric Saint, a former professor of Medicine at the University of Western Australia and includes an Australian Medical Association representative, other medical practitioners and the Director of Clinical Services in the Department of Hospitals and Allied Services. Queries on any aspect of the operation of Medicare are to be handled initially by the Medicare office and, where appropriate, passed to the committee for examination. I am advised that no complaints were referred to my Department by the Western Australia Liberal Party 'hotline'. (Question No. 1186) Mr Aldred asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: (1) Are security checks and/or surveillance undertaken in relation to customs officers; if so, (a) what checks, (b) how frequently are the checks made, (c) by whom are the checks carried out, (d) what positions or levels of staff are subjected to the security checks and (e) how many security checks were undertaken on customs officers and what was the most senior position subjected to a security check in each of the years 1972 to 1983. (2) Have any of the security checks linked any serving or former customs officers with the former Canberra establishment known as Pine Lodge. (3) Following security checks how many customs officers have been subjected to disciplinary action. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) Security checks are carried out in relation to officers likely to have access to national security information classified CONFIDENTIAL or above, or likely to have access to a secure area in the course of their work. Applicants for positions requiring a security assessment are informed of the requirement, and given the opportunity to withdraw their applications if they wish. (b) As a general rule, security checks are reviewed at intervals of not greater than five years. (c) General suitability checks are carried out by the Department's security officers. Once these are resolved satisfactorily, a request is made of Australian Security Intelligence Organisation for security assessment. The decision whether or not to grant access is the prerogative of the Departmental head. (d) All levels of staff falling within the answer to (a) are subject to security checks. (e) Statistics are not available on the number of checks carried out on the customs component within the Department, or within particular periods in earlier years. In 1983 departmental security checks totalled 361, and in 1984 to date total 227. (2) No. (3) None. (Question No. 1201) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 27 March 1984 : (1) Further to his answer to question No. 983 (Hansard, 28 February 1984, page 120) concerning dairy product imports from New Zealand, what (a) is the cheese variety mentioned in the first part of the answer, (b) was the problem referred to and (c) is the current situation. (2) What are the levels of imports of (a) powders, (b) casein and (c) ice-cream which are causing concern and what action has been taken. (3) How much New Zealand ice-cream is being imported and what has been the rate of increase. (4) Is he able to say whether there is an export incentive or other form of New Zealand Government incentive for ice-cream; if so, what action has the Australian Government taken. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The variety in question is Edam. (1) (b) and (1) (c) Detailed information on pricing was tabled at the Joint Industry Consultative Committee (JICC) meeting on 9 November 1983, indicating that some brands of New Zealand Edam cheese were being priced in Australia at prices below those for comparable Australian brands. The New Zealand representatives stressed that it was not their intention to disrupt the market and undertook to investigate the matter. A report is expected from the New Zealand Dairy Board (NZDB) at the JICC meeting to be held on 10 May 1984. (2) (a) The level of imports of milk powders from New Zealand has been as follows (tonnes). July 1983- 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Feb. 1984 Skimmilk powder (SMP) 595 590 785 597.8 Whole milk powder (WMP) 1,433 * 127 421 98.8 *1,200 tonnes of this was re-exported. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Australian industry has been concerned with the increases in SMP and WMP imports between 1981-82 and 1982-83. The ADC advise that the increase in WMP occurred as a result of an increase in demand for WMP as stockfood, which importers claimed was unavailable from local sources. However the ADC considered that it was a question of price rather than availability and informed the NZDB accordingly. Imports of (WMP) for this purpose have, I am advised, been reduced although imports of SMP have remained at relatively high levels. There is concern, I understand, that some New Zealand imports classified as SMP may in fact be dry ice-cream mix. This will be discussed, along with other outstanding matters relating to imports of powders, at the JICC meeting on 10 May. (2) (b) For confidentiality reasons the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) does not publish the volume of casein imports, with only value figures being available for imports from New Zealand. The FOB (country of origin) value of casein imports from New Zealand increased from $A50,000 in 1981-82 to $403,000 in 1982-83. For the eight months to February 1984 the figure has reached $419, 000. The ADC advises that it has been reported that the casein imported from New Zealand is of a specification which cannot be produced by Australian manufacturers. This matter also is to receive further attention at the next JICC meeting. (2) (c) and (3) Official statistics show imports of ice-cream and ice-cream mixes from New Zealand have increased as follows (tonnes): July 1983- 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Feb. 1984 Ice-cream 1 25 214 306 Ice-cream mixes 1 1 . . 14 Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics. (4) I understand that ice cream qualifies for concessions under the New Zealand export performance taxation incentive scheme (EPTI) and the market development tax incentive scheme (MDTI). The NZDB has undertaken to investigate the matter, while advising that ice- cream exports lie outside its direct control. The Ice-cream Manufacturer's Federation of Australia has conducted a survey which highlights the fact that ice-cream sourced from New Zealand is consistently priced well below comparable Australian product at retail level. Results of the survey will be submitted for consideration by the JICC. I will be examining carefully the report of the Australian delegation to the JICC on this issue. (Question No. 1205) Mr Fisher asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: (1) What quantity of dried fruit has been imported into Australia during the last 12 months for which figures are available. (2) From which countries was the fruit imported and what was the tonnage in each case. (3) What companies, co-operatives or associations imported dried fruit and what was the tonnage in each case. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The information requested is set out in the following tables: Table 1 Imports of Raisins, Currants and Sultanas into Australia (12 months ended 31 March 1984) Source Quantity (tonnes) People's Republic of China .034 Greece 926.575 United States of America 62.001 All Countries 988.610 Table 2 Imports of Dried Apricots (12 months ended 31 March 1984) Source Quantity (tonnes) People's Republic of China .034 Lebanon 1.500 Malaysia .016 New Zealand .068 South Africa 50.75 Singapore .065 Spain 39.600 Syria 1.700 Turkey 485.299 United States of America 119.094 Hong Kong .013 All Countries 698.139 Table 3 Imports of Dried Prunes (12 months ended 31 March 1984) Source Quantity (tonnes) People's Republic of China .005 Hong Kong .418 Singapore .140 Taiwan 21.323 United States of America 615.609 All Countries 637.495 Table 4 Imports of Other Dried Fruit (12 months ended 31 March 1984) Source Quantity (tonnes) Bangladesh .620 People's Republic of China 17.790 Hong Kong 5.362 India 24.261 Italy 4.524 Japan .526 Malaysia 4.577 Netherlands .045 New Zealand 14.115 Philippines 2.001 South Africa 262.680 Singapore 10.292 Sri Lanka .703 Taiwan 61.372 Thailand 36.776 United States of America 27.262 United Kingdom .005 All Countries 472.966 Source of Tables 1 to 4: Australian Bureau of Statistics Import Statistics. (3) The Acting Australian Statistician has advised that because of the confidentiality provisions of the Census and Statistics Act 1905 this information cannot be made available. (Question No. 1217) Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 30 March 1984: (1) What is the estimated cost of increases and proposed increases of export inspection charges. (2) What is the value of various rural assistance and depreciation packages removed since the Government gained office. (3) How do these increased costs compare with any increased forms of Government assistance to farmers such as wool promotion funding. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Following the Government's decision in the 1983 Budget context to re- endorse and implement the policy of 50 per cent recovery of export inspection costs for 1983-84, revised rates of charge were introduced which took effect from 1 October 1983. A total of $19m of additional revenue was estimated to flow from industry during 1983-84 as a result of the increase in export inspection charges. The increase in revenue estimated for each commodity group is summarised in the following table: Estimated increase Commodity in revenue 1983-84 ($m) Meat 17.66 Grains .68 Fish .27 Live Animals .20 Dairy Products .05 Dried Fruits .05 Eggs .03 Wool .03 Edible Oils .01 Total 18.98 The Government has not as yet considered rates of export inspection charge to apply for these products during 1984-85. In line with the Government's decision to extend the coverage of charges to all products inspected for export, legislation is currently before Parliament which provides for the imposition of inspection charges for fresh fruit and vegetables , canned and frozen fruit and vegetables and for honey. The charges under consideration were estimated to raise in a full year $1.2m from fresh fruit and vegetables, $260,000 from canned and frozen fruit and vegetables and $47,000 from honey. (2) and (3) In the 1983-84 Budget, total direct Commonwealth assistance to the forestry, fishing, agriculture and pastoral industries-excluding funds on-lent to the sugar industry-were virtually unchanged from the previous year at $333m. However, the unchanged total masks significant increases in some areas of assistance which have been offset by cuts in areas where the need for assistance has been reduced or removed. The latter include, in particular, a reduction in drought assistance-by $62m-associated with the return to generally favourable seasonal conditions in eastern Australia and the removal of the interest subsidy to the Australian Wheat Board-$21m in 1982-83-following the removal of the prohibition on overseas borrowing by the Board. Among significant increases in provisions for direct budgetary assistance are: Rural Adjustment Assistance-$28m Water resource projects-$28m Eradication of cattle diseases-$12m Assistance to Leeton Co-operative Cannery-$4m. In March 1984 the Government announced new arrangements for the Government's contribution for wool promotion. For the next five years the Government's contribution will be 1.2 per cent of the gross value of the clip. This will be at least $25m in 1984-85 which is a substantial increase over the $20m provided in each of the past four years. Estimated costs to revenue of the special depreciation allowances, investment allowance and other forms of income and sales tax concessions available to primary producers are not included in the above figures of direct expenditure. Changes in this area by the present Government are as follows: the minimum depreciation period for certain plant, including structural improvements for hay, grain and fodder storage was changed from three to five years, as had applied before July 1982 immediate deductability for expenditure on clearing or draining land was abolished to prevent it providing an incentive for indiscriminate and unnecessary destruction of Australia's tree cover the 'in-out option' applying to the special averaging provisions for primary producers' income tax was abolished. The Budget estimate of revenue gained from these changes was $24m in 1983-84 and $73m in the first full year. Other taxation concessions available to primary producers were retained in full , including provision for the immediate writing off of capital expenditure on soil and water conservation, fences for disease control and the application of the investment allowance on such expenditure. (Question No. 1239) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce , upon notice, on 2 April 1984: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to allegations of the dumping of Swiss-type cheese in Australia; if so, (a) have the allegations been investigated, (b) from which countries is it alleged that the cheese has been imported, (c) what is the tonnage imported for the last two-year period for which figures are available and (d) what is the alleged level of subsidy. (2) Is Australia allowed to sell cheese to the exporting countries. If not, why not. (3) If so, what (a) is the tonnage and type sold in the last two year period for which figures are available and (b) tariff quotas or other restrictions are placed on Australian cheese. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) The Australian Dairy Industry Conference submitted a countervailing complaint with the Department in November 1983 against imports of Swiss-type cheeses from Norway, Sweden and Austria. The complaint did not provide any information in respect of the subsidy arrangements which existed in the nominated countries. The Australian Government has requested the Governments of Austria, Sweden and Norway, under Article 7 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade code on subsidies and countervailing duties to provide information on the subsidies applicable. Some information has been supplied and is currently under examination, however, further and more detailed information has recently been requested. (b) Austria, Sweden and Norway. (c) 1.7.81-30.6.82 Quantity Value (kgs) ($) Austria 135,451 222,975 Sweden 32,873 64,083 Norway 1,464,599 3, 115,051 1.7.82-30.6.83 Austria 95,025 174,323 Sweden 39,354 79,680 Norway 807,192 1,848,354 1.7.83-31.12.83 Austria 89,374 174,429 Sweden 168,423 333,484 Norway 426,687 1,083,500 (d) See (a). (2) Yes. (3) (a) The only exports of cheese to the countries referred to in (1) (b) above have been exports of cheese powder to Sweden. Details are as follows: 1981-24 tonnes 1982-14 tonnes 1983-8 tonnes. (b) Nil. (Question No. 1241) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 2 April 1984: (1) Did he state at the 2nd Supplementary Licence Seminar held in Sydney on 2 February 1984, that multicultural television has been extended beyond the confines of Sydney and Melbourne and in a few years will become a truly national network. (2) Which other cities and communities in Australia will receive Special Broadcasting Service programs and/or television stations. (3) Will the first generation of domestic satellites be used for transmission purposes. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) multicultural programs were extended to Canberra in October 1983 and to Goulburn and Cooma in November 1983. Extension to Newcastle, Wollongong, Adelaide and Brisbane is scheduled for the second half of 1984-85 and further extensions to Perth, Hobart and Darwin will occur during 1985-86. (3) The use of the AUSSAT satellites to distribute the multicultural television signal for retransmission is being investigated. (Question No. 1280) Mr Peacock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) What advertisements have been placed in the press or on television featuring either special programs or the general aims of the Minister's Department since the 1983 general election. (2) What was the cost of each advertisement. (3) When and where did each advertisement appear. (4) What are the names of the advertising agencies hired in preparation of these advertisements. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Advertising agency through Australian Government Description Cost Date Where Advertising Service $ Small business award supplement 5,321.02 4.3.83 11.3.83 The Australian Business Review Doyle Dane Bernbach P/L Doyle Dane Bernbach P/L 31.3.83 Australasian Post Doyle Dane Bernbach P/L 30.4.83 Rydges Doyle Dane Bernbach P/L Global and A.N.Z.C.E.R. Quota Tenders for 1984 2,519.84 22.4.83 22.4.83 Sydney Morning Herald The Financial Review Neville Jeffress Neville Jeffress 22.4.83 Hobart Mercury Neville Jeffress 22.4.83 Melbourne Age Neville Jeffress 22.4.83 The Australian Neville Jeffress 22.4.83 Courier-Mail Neville Jeffress 22.4.83 The Canberra Times Neville Jeffress 22.4.83 West Australian Neville Jeffress 22.4.83 Daily Telegraph Neville Jeffress 22.4.83 Daily Shipping Commercial Neville Jeffress 22.4.83 Darwin N.T. News Neville Jeffress Seminars on Commercial Tariff Concession System 8,612.42 18.5.83 18.5.83 Melbourne Age Sydney Morning Herald Neville Jeffress Neville Jeffress 18.5.83 Daily Telegraph Neville Jeffress 18.5.83 The Australian Neville Jeffress 19.5.83 Melbourne Sun Neville Jeffress 19.5.83 Financial Review Neville Jeffress 20.5.83 Sydney Morning Herald Neville Jeffress 20.5.83 Sydney Telegraph Neville Jeffress 21.5.83 Newcastle Herald Neville Jeffress 23.5.83 Daily Commercial News Neville Jeffress 27.5.83 The Australian Neville Jeffress 28.5.83 Dubbo Daily Liberal Neville Jeffress 30.5.83 Hobart Mercury Neville Jeffress 30.5.83 Adelaide Advertiser Neville Jeffress 30.5.83 Launceston Examiner Neville Jeffress 30.5.83 Burnie Advocate Neville Jeffress 30.5.83 Ballarat Courier Country Press Co-operative 30.5.83 Shepparton News Co. Ltd 30.5.83 The Financial Review Neville Jeffress 30.5.83 Melbourne Age Neville Jeffress 30.5.83 Melbourne Sun Neville Jeffress 30.5.83 Wagga Daily Advertiser Neville Jeffress 30.5.83 Illawarra Mercury Neville Jeffress 30.5.83 Albury Border Morning Mail Neville Jeffress 30.5.83 Wangaratta Chronicle Despatch Neville Jeffress 30.5.83 The Geelong Advertiser Neville Jeffress 30.5.83 The Portland Observer & Guardian Neville Jeffress 30.5.83 The Warnambool Standard Neville Jeffress 31.5.83 Orange Central Western Daily Neville Jeffress 1.6.83 Bathurst Western Advocate Neville Jeffress 6.6.83 Brisbane Courier Neville Jeffress 6.6.83 Rockhampton Morning Bulletin Doyle Dane Bernbach P/L 6.6.83 Toowoomba Chronical Doyle Dane Bernbach P/L 6.6.83 Townsville Daily Bulletin Doyle Dane Bernbach P/L 6.6.83 Darwin N. T. News Doyle Dane Bernbach P/L 7.6.83 West Australian Neville Jeffress 20.6.83 Cairns Post Doyle Dane Bernbach P/L 20.6.83 Sydney Morning Herald Neville Jeffress 20.6.83 Daily Telegraph Neville Jeffress 20.6.83 Financial Review Neville Jeffress 20.6.83 The Australian Neville Jeffress 20.6.83 Brisbane Courier-Mail Neville Jeffress T.C.F. Tender Quota categories-registration extended on certain categories 1,857.41 20.6.83 20.6.83 20.6.83 Sydney Morning Herald Melbourne Age Brisbane Courier-Mail Neville Jeffress Neville Jeffress Neville Jeffress 20.6.83 Adelaide Advertiser Neville Jeffress 20.6.83 Perth West Australian Neville Jeffress 20.6.83 Hobart Mercury Neville Jeffress 20.6.83 The Australian Neville Jeffress 20.6.83 Financial Review Neville Jeffress 20.6.83 Canberra Times Neville Jeffress 20.6.83 Daily Shipping Commercial News Neville Jeffress 20.6.83 Darwin N. T. News Doyle Dane Bernbach P/L Meetings to discuss Australia's review of Anti-dumping and countervailing legislation 3,054.61 24.6.83 25.6.83 29.6.83 30.6.83 Financial Review The Australian Canberra Times Melbourne Age Neville Jeffress Neville Jeffress Neville Jeffress Neville Jeffress 4.7.83 Hobart Mercury Neville Jeffress 5.7.83 Brisbane Courier-Mail Neville Jeffress 7.7.83 Sydney Morning Herald Neville Jeffress 7.7.83 Telegraph Neville Jeffress 11.7.83 Adelaide Advertiser Neville Jeffress 13.7.83 Perth West Australian Neville Jeffress T.C.F. Tender Quota-registration extended on certain clothing categories 1,714.77 4.7.83 4.7.83 4.7.83 Sydney Morning Herald Melbourne Age Brisbane Courier-Mail Neville Jeffress Neville Jeffress Neville Jeffress 4.7.83 Adelaide Advertiser Neville Jeffress 4.7.83 Perth West Australian Neville Jeffress 4.7.83 Hobart Mercury Neville Jeffress 4.7.83 The Australian Neville Jeffress 4.7.83 Financial Review Neville Jeffress 4.7.83 The Canberra Times Neville Jeffress 4.7.83 Daily Shipping Commercial News Neville Jeffress 4.7.83 Darwin N.T. News Doyle Dane Bernbach P/L Announcement of the Review of the IAC 2,805.53 17.8.83 17.8.83 Financial Review Sydney Morning Herald Neville Jeffress Neville Jeffress 17.8.83 The Age Neville Jeffress 17.8.83 The Australian Neville Jeffress 19.8.83 Financial Review Neville Jeffress 20.8.83 The Australian Neville Jeffress Advertising 'Trimpac', 'Sound Advice' and 'Managing Small Business' series of booklets as part of the Small Business Program 11,147.00* 31.1.84 9.3.84 9.3.84 9.3.84 9.3.84 Daily Telegraph The Australian Sydney Morning Herald Daily Telegraph Melbourne Age * 9.3.84 Brisbane Courier-Mail 9.3.84 Adelaide Advertiser 9.3.84 Hobart Mercury 9.3.84 Perth West Australian 10.3.84 Business Review Weekly 14.3.84 Melbourne Age Seeking expressions of interest in the activities of the Steel Industry Authority 2,844.00* 13.4.84 13.4.84 13.4.84 Sydney Morning Herald Australian Financial Review Melbourne Age * 13.4.84 Brisbane Courier-Mail 13.4.84 Adelaide Advertiser 13.4.84 Hobart Mercury 13.4.84 Launceston Examiner 13.4.84 Darwin N.T. News 13.4.84 Canberra Times 13.4.84 Newcastle Herald 13.4.84 Illawarra Mercury 13.4.84 Whyalla News Opening of registrations to participate in 1985 tender quota schemes 2,000.00* 18.4.84 18.4.84 18.4.84 Sydney Morning Herald Melbourne Age Brisbane Courier-Mail * 18.4.84 Adelaide Advertiser 18.4.84 Perth West Australian 18.4.84 Hobart Mercury 18.4.84 Darwin N.T. News 18.4.84 The Australian 18.4.84 Financial Review 18.4.84 Canberra Times 18.4.84 Daily Shipping Commercial News 18.4.84 Launceston Examiner * The exact cost and advertising agency used by the Australian Government Advertising Service is not yet known because of the normal delay in receipt of accounts. (Question No. 1341) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: Has he reached a decision on a second passenger ferry for the Melbourne/ Tasmania run for the 1984-85 summer season; if not, at what stage are the negotiations. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Federal Government and the Tasmanian Government are currently discussing future arrangements for sea passenger services across Bass Strait. (Question No. 1349) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: Is the Minister able to say whether Metro Meats, an Adelaide Steamship subsidiary, announced on 3 April 1984, its purchase of the T.A. Field Meatworks in Rockhampton and Ipswich, Queensland, and Orange, New South Wales and the sacking of the staff of over 1200; if so (a) what joint interests are there linking the 2 companies, (b) what discussions occurred with employees before the closures and (c) has T.A. Field given as the reason for the sale 'difficult conditions'. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It is my understanding that the Orange, New South Wales, meatworks of T.A. Field were closed in February 1983 and that the same company on 3 April 1984 closed its Rockhampton and Ipswich meatworks. Employment of a workforce of about 1,200 at the two Queensland plants was terminated. Subsequently the abattoirs and associated plant was purchased by Metro Meats Limited with a view to engaging a workforce and reopening the Queensland meatworks. (a) I am not aware of any joint interest linking Metro Meats and T.A. Field. (b) and (c) It is public knowledge that T.A. Field had experienced difficulties with industrial disputation at its Queensland works prior to taking its decision to close the plants. I am not aware, however, of the nature of any discussions which took place between the parties. I understand that the new owners are currently negotiating with the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union and that if agreement can be reached the Queensland plants will be reopened. (Question No. 26) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) What are the costs of (a) an outpatient consultation provided by public hospitals, (b) an inpatient day in public hospitals, (c) a consultation during normal hours provided by government health centres and (d) a consultation outside normal hours in government health centres in each State and the Australian Capital Territory. (2) What factors are taken into consideration in establishing the costs of the services. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It has been assumed that the honourable member's question refers to charges raised by public hospitals and community health centres. On that basis the answers to the questions are: AS AT 31 JANUARY 1984 (Pre Medicare) ($) N.S.W. Vic. Qld S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. A.C.T. 1 (a) public hospital outpatient fee 20 24 Nil 24 28 22 15 20 (b) public hospital inpatient fee- shared ward 120 130 *120 125 125 110 110 120 private ward 165 180 160 125 145 150 150 165 same day . . . . . . 65 . . . . . . 60 (c) Government health centre consultation in hours Not applic- able Medical benefits schedule rates* No charge Medical benefits schedule rates* Not applic- able Medical benefits schedule rates Medical benefits schedule rates Medical benefits schedule rates (d) Government health centre consultation outside normal hours Not applic- able Not applic- able Not applic- able Not applic able Footnotes: * Applied to- Queensland residents electing treatment as private patients in public hospitals; and non-Queensland residents. * Charges applied only to insured patients * In South Australia one centre provided free medical services, apart from pathology services (2) Responsibility for determining the level of charges for public health services in the States and the Northern Territory rested with the respective State and Northern Territory governments. The following information which related to factors considered in establishing the costs of such services have been provided by the respective State and Northern Territory health authorities. New South Wales-The above charges were based on the notional charges used by the Commonwealth in 1981 in calculating New South Wales' capacity to raise revenue under the new hospital charging arrangements. The original fee levels were increased on two occasions (in January 1982 and September 1982) to reflect increases in hospital costs and uncompensated shortfalls in patient fee revenue. Victoria-Charges in public hospitals were traditionally set at uniform rates, regardless of the cost of services and were part of a complex and varying structure of subsidisation. Factors taken into consideration include overall funding arrangements, which at various times in the past involved the need to agree charges with the Commonwealth Government; sustainable levels of State deficit funding; and relationships with health insurance benefits. It was the policy of the Victorian Government to index hospital fees each six months in accordance with movements with average earnings. Since August 1982, revenue in respect of outpatient services to insured patients was collected through a levy on the hospital benefit organisations so that charges were made only in respect of uninsured non-Commonwealth entitled patients. Charges for medical services in community health centres were in accordance with the medical benefits schedule. Queensland-Charges in relation to private single and private shared and extra State accommodation were based primarily on the daily average cost with appropriate reductions for medical and other services provided from the private sector and were varied in accordance with Commonwealth approval associated with determination of hospital benefit insurance schedules. South Australia-Factors taken into consideration in setting fees were: Increases in costs based on a hospital price index; anticipated revenue; utilisation patterns; relativities to other States; and relativities to other costs. Western Australia-(i) Level of charges in other States; (ii) the cost of running public hospitals in Western Australia; and (iii) budgetary consideration . Tasmania-The principal factor in determining hospital fees was the cost per bed day or occasion of service of operating the service. Northern Territory-Factors which were considered in determining charge rates included: The cost of providing services; the prescribed Commonwealth charges; insurance limitations; comparability with other States; and the financial impact on members of the public. Australian Capital Territory-The hospital charges were set taking into account public hospital charges in New South Wales and the cost per occupied bed day in Australian Capital Territory public hospitals. Post Medicare (1 February 1984) N.S.W. Vic. Qld S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. A.C.T. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1 (a) public hospital outpatient fee Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil (b) public hospital inpatient fees * Hospital Patient Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil * Private Patient * shared ward 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 * private ward 130 130 130 N/A 130 120 N/A 130 * same day . . . . . . 40 . . . . . . 40 (c) Government health centre and consultation in hours and (d) outside normal hours (1) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Medical Benefits Schedule Fee (2) Nil Nil Footnotes (1) All centres except those in Tasmania which raised charges prior to the introduction of Medicare will bulk bill after 1 February 1984. Any new centre established in any State after that date will bulk bill all patients for medical services. (2) All centres established in Tasmania after 1 February 1984 will bulk bill all patients under Medicare. Centres which commenced operations before that date will begin bulk billing at the earliest opportunity. (2) Hospital charges for private inpatients hospitalised in shared ward accommodation at public hospitals have been determined for the period 1-2-1984 to 30-6-1985 following agreement between the Commonwealth and State/Northern Territory governments. The level of charges raised in respect of private in- patients accommodated in private rooms at public hospitals is a matter for the respective State/Territory Health Ministers to determine. The Commonwealth and all States and Territories except Tasmania have agreed that as from 1 February 1984 any community health centres in operation at that date which raised charges and any new centres which commence operation after that date will bulk-bill patients under Medicare in respect of medical services. A similar agreement exists with Tasmania except that centres which commenced operations before 1 February 1984 will commence bulk-billing at the earliest opportunity. (Question No. 837) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) What inter-departmental committees (a) does the Minister's Department and ( b) do instrumentalities under the Minister's control (i) participate in and (ii) chair. (2) What is the subject matter of these committees' inquiries. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The following lists of inter-departmental committees have been prepared in accordance with guidelines provided by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. These guidelines define an inter-departmental committee as a committee involving two or more departments established at the specific direction of the Government, and for which authority for its establishment is a Cabinet decision or the approval in writing of the Prime Minister. (1) and (2) The first column lists those inter-departmental committees on which the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations participates. The second column lists the names of the inter-departmental committees chaired by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations or instrumentalities under the Minister's control. The third column states the subject matter of the committees ' inquiries which the Department chairs. Inter-departmental committees Inter-departmental committees Subject matter of those inter- on which the Department of chaired by the Department departmental committees chaired Employment and Industrial of Employment and Industrial by the Department of Employment Relations participates Relations and Industrial Relations Inter-Departmental Committee (of Permanent Heads) on Co-ordination in Aboriginal Affairs Inter-Departmental Committee Assessing Project Proposals under the Commonwealth Component of the Community Employment Program Monitor expenditure and review project proposals submitted under the Commonwealth component of the community employment program Standing Inter-Departmental Committee on Rehabilitation (SIDCOR) Inter-Departmental Working Group on Alternatives to Recruitment of Overseas Workers Investigate submissions on migration Inter-Departmental Committee on Medical Fees Inter-Departmental Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal Co-ordination Committee Ensure that Commonwealth authorities which employ public servants and Commonwealth employees adopt a standardised approach in the area of fixing wages and conditions Inter-Departmental Committee on Australian Public Service Housing Scales and Standards Wages Policy Task Force Preparation of reports on issues of wages policy Inter-Departmental Furniture Committee Inter-Departmental Committee on Youth Policy Inter-Departmental Committee on Academic Salaries Tribunal Preparation of the Commonwealth Submission to the Academic Salaries Tribunal Task Force on the Status of Women (Question No. 843) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice , on 29 November 1983: (1) What inter-departmental committees (a) does the Minister's Department and ( b), do instrumentalities under the Minister's control (i) participate in and (ii ) chair. (2) What is the subject matter of these committees' inquiries. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The following list has been compiled in accordance with guidelines provided by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Under these guidelines, an inter- departmental committee is defined to be an ongoing committee involving two or more departments established at the specific direction of the Government and for which authority for its establishment is either a Cabinet decision or the approval in writing of the Prime Minister. 1 (a) (i) The Attorney-General's Department and instrumentalities under the Attorney-General participate in the following inter-departmental committees: Determination of Refugee Status Committee; Inter-Departmental Committee on Atomic Tests-Veterans' Claims; Inter-Departmental Co-ordinating Committee on Law Reform in Australian Capital Territory; Permanent Heads Committee on Intelligence and Security; Standing Advisory Committee for the Security of Official Establishments; Inter-Departmental Committee to Consider the Report of the Committee of Review of the National Capital Development Commission; Inter-Departmental Committee on Australia/ Indonesia Maritime Boundaries; Computer Security Advisory Group; Standing Inter-Departmental Committee on Northern Territory Constitutional Development; Committee of Officials-Agent Orange; Standing Inter-Departmental Committee on OECD Chemicals Program; Security of Ministerial Accommodation in Parliament House; Inter-Departmental Committee on Torres Strait Treaty; National Aviation Security Committee; Inter-Departmental Committee on the Law of Sea Convention; Inter-Departmental Committee on Soviet Representation; Working Party on Planning Physical Security in Commonwealth Buildings; Inter-Departmental Committee on Antarctica (General); Inter-Departmental Committee on Review of Atomic Energy Legislation; Inter-Departmental Committee of Review of Employment of Women in the Defence Force; Steering Committee for Standardisation of Specifications and Testing and Evaluating Fire Fighting Equipment; Inter-Departmental Committee on a Proposed Reciprocal Status of Forces Agreement Between Australia, New Zealand and the United States; Standing Inter-Departmental Committee on Protection Against Violence; Working Party of the Joint Council on Government Printing and Publishing; Inter-Departmental Committee on the OECD Committee on Information Computers and Communications Policy; Inter-Departmental Committee on Passenger Automated Selection System; Inter-Departmental Committee on Passports; Public Lending Right Committee. The subject matter of the inquiries of these Committees will be set out in the replies to the honourable member's questions from those Ministers whose departments chair them. 1 (a) (ii) The Attorney-General's Department chairs the following Inter- departmental committees. The subject matter of these Committees' inquiries is set out in respect of each: Inter-Departmental Committee on Matters Relating to the Extra-Territorial Operation of United States of America Antitrust and Similar Legislation-provides advice to Departments on antitrust and related matters; Inter-Departmental Committee on Machinery for Review of Administrative Actions- review of administrative actions; Inter-Departmental Committee on the Protective Security Manual-maintains the protective security manual and provides advice to Departments and organisations to assist in the preparation of security instructions; Security construction and Equipment Committee-provides advice on security construction and equipment standards for use by Government; Security of Sensitive Materials/Unauthorised Disclosure Committee-The Committee formulates sensitive document handling procedures. Inter-Departmental Committee on Security Assessment Manual-The Committee considers procedures for the authorisation of persons for access to the security of classified matter. List of inter-departmental committees in which the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation participates. Permanent Heads Committee on Intelligence and Security. Standing Advisory Committee for the Security of Official Establishments. Computer Security Advisory Group. Security of Ministerial Accommodation in Parliament House. Inter-Departmental Committee on Security Assessment Manual. National Aviation Security Committee. Inter-Departmental Committee on Soviet Representation. Standing Inter-Departmental Committee on Protection Against Violence. Inter-Departmental Committee on the Protective Security Manual. Security Construction and Equipment Committee. Security of Sensitive Materials/Unauthorised Disclosure Committee. Steering Committee for Standardisation of Specifications Testing and Evaluating Fire Fighting Equipment. Working Party on Planning Physical Security in Commonwealth Buildings. (Question No. 1045) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: (1) What is the current stage in establishing a national system of computerised marketing of livestock. (2) What assistance is the Commonwealth prepared to offer to enable this system to commence operating. (3) Does the government agree that a Commonwealth co-ordinated national system to which all growers have access is better than individual State systems. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Meat Research Committee (AMRC) has funded the development by the Agricultural Business Research Institute, University of New England, of a trial computerised system of livestock selling which has been operated in the New England District of New South Wales. The AMRC also commissioned a feasibility study of a national computerised selling system which indicated that such a scheme would be cost effective and could be expected to show significant economies of scale. The AMLC is currently exploring the question of legal and corporate structures necessary to take the AMRC research proposal into an operational phase. (2) Directly and indirectly the Commonwealth contributed significantly to the initiatives and research in the development of concepts for computerised and sight unseen selling of livestock, as have the States. For example the Australian Meat Research Committee which is funded on a dollar for dollar Government: Industry basis has spent over $565,000 since 1979-80 in the development of the computer aided livestock marketing system which was trialed in New England. That support will continue. I have indicated to the industry that the commercial development of computerised marketing of livestock should be funded by those who will benefit from such technology. I am also aware that at a recent meeting the Cattle Council of Australia resolved to seek financial help from the Government to assist in establishing computerised selling of livestock. (3) I am assured that producer groups are keen to pursue the AMRC research with a view to establishing a nationally co-ordinated operation, and that livestock agents, for their part, want to develop systems on their own terms. I believe there may be room for accommodating both these approaches, and I am encouraging all interested parties to ensure that no possibility for co-operation is overlooked. From my reading of developments, I do not see any particular trend developing in the industry to implement computerised selling systems on a strictly State by State basis. (Question No. 1049) Mrs Kelly asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: Has a decision been made to allow townhouse development on section 57, Red Hill , Australian Capital Territory; if so, (a) what expressions of interest have been received for development of the site; (b) will the site be auctioned or released for tender; (c) what terms and conditions will apply to the successful bidder or tenderer; (d) what is the expected revenue from release of this site; and (e) what consultative process will be initiated to ensure that residents will have the opportunity to view development plans for the site. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) A decision has been made to allow a cluster housing development on section 57, Red Hill. Expressions of interest for development of the site have not been invited. (b) It is intended to release the site by restricted auction. Bidding at auction will be restricted to those who have obtained prior written approval from the National Capital Development Commission to sketch concept plans. (c) Lease conditions have not yet been finalised. (d) Current market value of the site is $1.35m. (e) The National Capital Development Commission is having discussions with representatives of the Red Hill Preservation Association concerning the proposed development. (Question No. 1050) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial relations, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: (1) How many removal contracts under the relocation assistance scheme, in the last 12 months, have been awarded to the Oak Flats based firm of Peevers, New South Wales. (2) Are three quotes required under the scheme for furniture removals; if so, how many approvals, where Peevers supplied the lowest quote, also involved quotes from Rednels Removals, Oak Flats, and Gregory Ross Jones Removals. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Seventeen (2) Yes; ten. (Question No. 1052) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial relations, upon notice, on 1 March 1984: (1) Have any instances of fraudulent tendering for removal of furniture under the relocation assistance scheme in New South Wales been detected in the last 12 months; if so, how many. (2) What monitoring procedure does his Department have to ensure that fraudulent tendering does not occur. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) Quotations are accepted in good faith unless there are reasons to doubt their legitimacy. (Question No. 1086) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, 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 Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (i) Department of Territories and Local Government (a) Males (b) Females December 1983 3 3 January 1984 24 5 February 1984 30 4 (ii) Statutory Authorities-National Capital Development Commission (a) Males (b) Females December 1983 0 0 January 1984 3 1 February 1984 1 0 No other statutory authorities within my portfolio engaged temporary employees under the community employment program during the months in question. (Question No. 1138) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, 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 Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Since April 1983 only one consultant, Dr J. S. Deeble, has been engaged to work for the Minister. Dr Deeble was engaged for a period of one month and paid a fee of $5,403. He was selected for the commission because of his specialist background and qualifications. The merit principle of selection, as outlined in (6) below, was applied. In excess of 1,200 consultant commissions, each over $1,000 in value, have been arranged for the Department of Housing and Construction since April 1983. The majority of consultants engaged to work for the Department are architects, engineers, quantity surveyors and contract draftsmen who have been engaged to undertake design and documentation of the capital works program. All consultants' fees above $1,000 are notified in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. (2) Because of the large number of consultancies involved, it would be impractical to reproduce their names in Hansard. A list of the consultants' names have been provided to the House of Representatives Table Office for distribution to interested honourable members. (3) The length of a consultant's commission can vary from a few days to two years, depending on the nature and complexity of the commission. (4) The fees paid to each consultant vary from a few dollars to $1,500,000. (5) All consultants have the requisite level of experience and expertise necessary for the project or task. (6) In all cases the merit principle of selection applies. Selection is based on several factors: previous experience skills of the design team capacity of the firm to perform on time proven ability to control costs proposed cost of the consultancy. (Question No. 1157) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 March 1984: (1) In view of the conflict between Iran and Iraq, the threat by Iran to close the Straits of Hormuz, responses by the United States and United Kingdom governments to these Iranian threats and the importance of the Persian Gulf to the world economy, is he now able to provide information concerning the movement of naval vessels from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United States, United Kingdom, France and other countries in (a) the Persian Gulf, (b) the Gulf of Oman, (c) the Gulf of Aden, (d) the Arabian Sea and (e) the Red Sea. (2) Is he able to say how many naval vessels transit (a) the Straits of Hormuz and (b) Bab-el-Mandeb, each day. (3) In view of the increasing geopolitical and strategic importance of the region, will he reconsider the appointment of military attaches to appropriate diplomatic missions in the Middle East, as recommended by the 1976 report of the Joint Committee of Foreign Affairs and Defence. (4) Further to his answer to question No. 862 (5) (Hansard, 28 February 1984, pages 109-10) is he now able to say whether significant development for Soviet naval purposes has occurred at Dahlak Island, Aden, Socotra or at the Bay of Turbah. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) No. Comprehensive data on naval movements at this level of detail is not available from open sources. (3) I refer the honourable member to the answer I gave him in response to his question 862. (Hansard, 28 February 1984, p. 110) (4) Recent significant development of facilities relevant to Soviet naval deployments in the Indian Ocean has been concentrated at Cam Ranh Bay. The position regarding significant development for Soviet naval purposes at Dahlak Island, Aden, Socotra Island and the Bay of Turbah remains as outlined in response to your question No. 4641 (Hansard, 24 August 1982, P. 882). (Question No. 1168) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 7 March 1984: (1) What new or additional executive positions are being created in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation at what (a) individual and (b) total cost. (2) What positions are they replacing at what (a) individual and (b) total cost . Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is: (1) Seven new executive positions are being created. They are: Director Radio Director Television Director Information Services Director Human Resources Director New Business Opportunities Director Engineering and Property Director Finance and ADP (a) The seven positions will be staffed on a negotiated contract basis if filled by persons from outside the ABC or on a fixed term temporary transfer on higher duties in the case of the position being filled by a permanent ABC officer. (b) As these positions have only recently been advertised, the total cost will not be known until the seven Directors have been appointed. (2) (a)- Per annum $ Assistant General Manager (Television) 54,601 Expense of Office Allowance 1, 250 Assistant General Manager (Radio) 54,601 Expense of Office Allowance 1,250 Assistant General Manager (Management Services) 54,601 Expense of Office Allowance 1,250 (b) $167,553 per annum. The ABC is only in the planning stage of reorganisation, and at this stage it is not possible to forecast what further additional positions may be created or abolished. (Question No. 1189) Mr Rocher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: (1) Has the cost to the taxpayer of the supporting parents benefit increased approximately tenfold in the last 10 years, equivalent to a threefold real increase. (2) What (a) was the number of recipients of supporting parents benefit in each of the last 10 years (financial or calendar) and (b) are the estimated or projected numbers of beneficiaries in each of the next 10 years. (3) Can the Minister say what proportion of the increase in the number of beneficiaries can be attributed to (a) the widespread abandonment of traditional patterns of family life and (b) the way in which this abandonment has been encouraged or facilitated by State and Federal governments; if not, will the Minister cause an examination to be made of the reasons for the increase in the numbers of beneficiaries, and their relative importance. (4) What action can be taken to achieve a reduction in the cost of the supporting parents benefit short of reducing the rate of benefit or severely restricting eligibility. (5) Will consideration be given to encouraging stable patterns of family life in which both parents are actively involved in the nurture of their children, and the preserving distinctions in law and administration between such situations and short-term casual relationships, and between marriage and cohabitation as a means of achieving a cost reduction. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Expenditure on supporting parents' benefits and Class 'A' widows' pensions since 1973-74 and the estimated expenditure for the year 1983-84 are shown in table 1. Expenditure on supporting parents benefits should be viewed together with expenditure on Class 'A' widows pensions since some recipients of supporting parents benefit are eligible for Class 'A' widows' pension. The Consumer Price Index increased by 163.6 per cent between 1973-74 and 1982-83. (2) The number of recipients of supporting parents' benefit and Class 'A' widows' pension as at 30 June, for the last ten years, and for the years 1984-87 are shown in table 2. Numbers of pensioners are projected only for the current financial year and for the next three years. The projected numbers are only broad estimates since it is impossible to quantify all the demographic, economic and social factors which affect the increases in the number of pensioners and beneficiaries. (3) It is impossible to quantify all the individual influences leading to the increased numbers of sole parents receiving pension or benefit. My Department has conducted considerable research on sole parenthood and the honourable member may be interested in the following research papers prepared in the Department. A Review of Characteristics of Sole Parents Assisted Under the Social Services Act (No. 5). Research Questions on Income Security for Sole Parents (No. 6). Characteristics of Sole Mothers Receiving State Assistance Subsidised under the States Grants (Deserted Wives) Act (No. 7). As His Wife-Social Security Law and Policy on De Facto Marriage (No. 16). Sole Parents on Pensions-A Sample Survey of Class 'A' Widow Pensioners and Supporting Parent Beneficiaries (No. 18). (4) and (5) Policies regarding income security support for the sole parents are subject to regular review. In this context, the Government is as concerned as the honourable member to encourage stable patterns of family life. EXPENDITURE(1) ON SUPPORTING PARENTS' BENEFIT AND CLASS 'A' WIDOWS' PENSION, AUSTRALIA 1973-74(2) TO 1982-83(2) AND ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE FOR 1983-84(3) $m 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 Supporting parents' benefit 40.6 76.1 127.2 158.5 192.8 226.7 259.6 412.4 605.9 727.7 890.0 Class 'A' widows' pension(4) 119.3 157.3 208.7 232.9 272.0 311.5 348.3 401.8 427.6 445.1 483.0 Total 159.9 233.4 335.9 391.4 464.8 538.2 607.9 814.2 1 033.5 1 172.8 1 373.0 (1) Includes mother's/guardian's allowance, additional benefit for children and supplementary assistance. (2) Expenditure for financial year ended 30 June. (3) Source: Revised Budget estimates. Expenditure on class 'A' widows estimated from the expenditure on all widows. (4) The years 1973-74 to 1980-81 are estimated since only combined expenditure on class 'A' and class 'B' widows was available for these years. NUMBER OF SUPPORTING PARENT BENEFICIARIES AND CLASS 'A' WIDOWS, AUSTRALIA 1974(1 ) TO 1983(1) AND ESTIMATED NUMBER FOR 1984 TO 1987(1 2) 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Supporting parent beneficiaries 26,286 36,015 45,542 50,954 57,433 62,498 70, 425 106,631 123,942 140,228 155,000 169,000 183,000 197,000 Class 'A' widows 64 ,084 66,518 71,009 76,059 82,392 88,683 91,142 87,837 84,800 84,261 82,000 81, 000 80,000 79,000 Total 90,370 102,533 116,551 127,013 139,825 151,181 161,567 194,468 208,742 224,489 237,000 250,000 263,000 276,000 (1) Numbers as at 30 June. (2) Subject to revision. (Question No. 1190) Mr Rocher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: What are the estimated sums which will be paid in (a) age pensions, (b) age pensions to persons aged 70 years and over and (c) age pensions to persons aged 70 and over whose incomes from other sources exceed (i) for single persons, $5, 000 and for married couples $8,000 and (ii) for single persons, $10,000 and for married couples, $15,000, during the year 1 November 1983 to 31 October 1984. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Data relating to the year 1 November 1983 to 31 October 1984 are not available. The annual equivalent of fortnightly pensions payable at 16 December 1983 is estimated to be in the order of (a) $5,200m for all age pensioners; (b) $3,300m for age pensioners 70 years and over; (c) (i) $300m for age pensioners 70 years and over whose annual income from other sources exceeds $5,000 (single persons) and $8,000 (married couples); and (ii) $80m for age pensioners 70 years and over whose annual income from other sources exceeds $10,000 (single persons) and $15,000 (married couples). (Question No. 1194) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, of 27 March 1984: (1) Is it a fact that, following the 1980 ballot for the election of office- bearers of the Queensland branch of the Transport Workers Union (TWU), there was a court hearing before Mr Justice Northrop on claims of irregularities in the ballot which resulted in the results of the ballot being upheld; if so, (a) was Mr Justice Northrop made aware during the course of this hearing of allegations that about 600 unclaimed ballot papers had been collected from Brisbane GPO on or about 16 January 1980 by 2 officials of the union, taken to a private house where they were then filled in improperly by 4 officials of the union, and then posted from various locations in order to be counted as lawful votes in the poll and (b) were these allegations subsequently drawn to the attention of (i) the Queensland Fraud Squad, (ii) the Australian Federal Police and/or (iii) the Attorney-General. (2) Is it also a fact that charges were brought against 4 men by the Fraud Squad in relation to these allegations but subsequently were not proceeded with; if so, why were they not proceeded with. (3) Have repeated approaches been made to the Attorney-General's office in relation to a federal prosecution of those named in these allegations; if so, (a ) when did the Attorney-General first become aware of the allegations, (b) what action, if any, was taken and when and (c) if no action was taken why not. (4) Is it a fact that 3 of the men named in the allegations are candidates in an election for office-bearers of the Queensland branch of the TWU which was ordered by Mr Justice Fitzgerald following irregularities in the union's 1982-83 elections. (5) Is he able to say whether any of those named in the allegations currently hold senior offices in (a) the Australian Labor Party or (b) the federal organisation of the TWU; if so, what are those positions. (6) Have representations been received by the Attorney-General or his Department in relation to any of those named in the allegations; if so, what was the nature of those representations. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the right honourable member's question: (1) Yes; (a) I understand that his Honour was not informed of the allegations to which the honourable member has referred; (b) (i)-(iii) Yes. (2) On 8 July 1983 the Queensland Crown Law authorities informed my Department that 4 men had originally been charged with offences under the Queensland Criminal Code in relation to the allegations but that the State charges had been withdrawn as it was considered that sub-section 86 (1) of the Crimes Act 1914 operated to the exclusion of any charge of conspiracy under Queensland law. (3) Yes: (a) 7 August 1983; (b) and (c) Following the decision of the Queensland Crown Law authorities not to proceed with the State charges, the Queensland Police brief of evidence concerning the allegations was referred to the Acting Deputy Crown Solicitor, Brisbane, under cover of a memorandum from the Australian Federal Police dated 22 June 1983. The Acting Deputy Crown Solicitor asked that further inquiries be made and these were not completed until late November 1983. Upon receipt of reports from my Department I decided that no proceedings should be instituted on the basis of the evidence made available to me. I published my reasons for that decision in a statement issued on 26 January 1984. (4) Yes. (5) Yes, Vice-President of the Queensland Branch of the Australian Labor Party, (b) Yes, Assistant National Secretary of the Transport Workers' Union. (6) Yes, the representations were in the nature of inquiries as to the action that had been, or would be, taken in respect of the allegations. (Question No. 1198) Mr Free asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: (1) What evidence can he give to support the view that there has been a marked recovery in the housing industry in New South Wales. (2) Have he and his Department received assistance from the New South Wales Labor Government in achieving this result; if so, what are the details of inter- governmental co-operation. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Total dwelling approvals in New South Wales have shown signs of growth since June 1983, with the number of approvals in the 6 months to February 1984 11 per cent above the previous 6 months. The Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry forecasts that dwelling commencements will show continued growth over the course of 1983-84 with commencements expected to increase by almost 30 per cent to around 38,000. Total dwelling commencements in 1984-85 are forecast at around 43,000, an increase of 13 per cent on 1983-84. (2) Yes; a lot of help has been received from the New South Wales Government. There has been inter-departmental co-operation and assistance in a number of areas. Not the least has been assistance from the New South Wales Government with the implementation and operation of the first home owners scheme. (Question No. 1200) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: Is it a fact, as reported in the Financial Review of 27 February 1984, page 10, that he is in favour of requiring Overseas Telecommunications Commission, Telecom Australia and Australia Post to pay a fixed dividend each year; if so, ( a) are these the only government organisations he is considering and (b) what will the dividend requirement be. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) and (b) The question of the financial performances of various Commonwealth statutory authorities is one of a number of complex issues relating to the activities of such authorities which have received scant attention in the past. For this reason, and consistent with the views expressed in the paper on 'Labor and the Quality of Government', I have recently announced that the Government will shortly be releasing a white paper on this general subject. (Question No. 915) Mr Spender asked the Minister for Defence Support, upon notice, on 7 December 1983: Will he bring up to date the answer to House of Representatives question Nos. 5256 (Hansard, 8 December 1982, pages 3167-8) and 5036 (Hansard, 26 October 1982 , pages 2582-3). Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Update to question No. 5256 The answer to part 1 of this question is contained in the table at ANNEX A with the answer to part 4 (excluding figures for Vickers Australia Pty Ltd) in ANNEXES B, C and D. (2) The total number of employees at the factories and dockyards is shown in the answer to part (1) of the question as is the number of persons in ' management' positions. Those positions included in the definition of 'management ' positions consist of the manager in each establishment and those management positions directly reporting to that position. (3) The information is not available in my Department. ANNEX A The following table shows the total number of operative employees at factories and dockyards as at March 1984. Public Supply and Naval Number in Service Development Defence management Establishment Act Act Act Total positions Ammunition Factory, Footscray 333 995 . . 1,328 7 Ordnance Factory, Maribyrnong 327 728 . . 1,055 9 Ordnance Factory, Bendigo 166 404 . . 660 6 Small Arms Factory, Lithgow 251 639 . . 890 7 Munitions Filling Factory, St Marys 237 600 . . 837 7 Explosives Factory, Mulwala 86 149 . . 235 6 Explosives Factory, Maribyrnong 147 253 . . 400 8 Albion Explosives Factory 73 167 . . 240 7 Australian Government Clothing Factory, Coburg 93 612 . . 705 6 Government Aircraft Factories 1,174 1,147 . . 2,321 7 Aircraft Engineering Workshop, Pooraka 10 23 . . 33 1 Garden Island Dockyard 1,225 . . 2,163 3,388 9 Williamstown Naval Dockyard 648 . . 1,378 2,026 12 4,770 5,807 3,541 14,118 92 ANNEX B The following table shows the total number of operative Public Service Act employees at factories and dockyards as at September. Establishment 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Ammunition Factory, Footscray 276 395 286 291 314 329 Ordnance Factory, Maribyrnong 260 278 288 325 325 338 Ordnance Factory, Bendigo 137 150 164 167 161 160 Small Arms Factory, Lithgow 232 240 233 245 244 252 Munitions Filling Factory, St Marys 143 143 157 201 216 234 Explosives Factory, Mulwala 65 66 69 79 81 83 Explosives Factory, Maribyrnong 126 122 122 154 149 151 Albion Explosives Factory 30 30 31 41 56 68 Australian Government Clothing Factory, Coburg 82 83 88 92 89 92 Government Aircraft Factories 1,027 1,118 1,164 1,246 1,220 1,188 Aircraft Engineering Workshop, Pooraka 12 13 13 13 12 8 Garden Island Dockyard 1,261 1,222 1,210 1,162 1,200 1,249 Williamstown Naval Dockyard *609 *626 *642 *622 520 +644 4,260 4,486 4,467 4,638 4,587 4,796 * Includes approximately 105 belonging to Defence as part of the Naval Support Command Stores Organisation. + 105 Stores Organisation formally transferred to DDS-from 1 July 1983. ANNEX C The following table shows the total number of operative Supply and Development Act employees at factories as at September. The figures include apprentices. Establishment 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Ammunition Factory, Footscray 922 952 992 972 933 950 Ordnance Factory, Maribyrnong 568 589 628 670 670 700 Ordnance Factory, Bendigo 460 432 436 449 439 467 Small Arms Factory, Lithgow 682 698 716 744 641 617 Munitions Filling Factory, St Marys 373 423 524 631 625 584 Explosives Factory, Mulwala 123 135 142 149 147 144 Explosives Factory, Maribyrnong 191 187 214 275 254 253 Albion Explosives Factory 89 106 130 134 146 161 Australian Government Clothing Factory, Coburg 560 552 586 617 622 612 Government Aircraft Factories 1,297 1, 251 1,229 1,228 1,157 1,116 Aircraft Engineering Workshop, Pooraka 34 35 32 31 29 28 5,299 5,360 5,629 5,900 5,663 5,632 ANNEX D The following table shows the total number of operative Naval Defence Act employees at naval dockyards as at September. The figures include apprentices. Establishment 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Garden Island Dockyard 2,202 2,161 2,114 2,050 2,161 2,117 Williamstown Naval Dockyard 1,536 1,526 1,476 1,376 1,398 1,385 3,738 3,687 3,590 3,426 3,559 3,502 Update to question No. 5036 1 (a) (i) Construction Programs in Australia-Government Dockyards-January 1979- December 1983 Williamstown Dockyard-Melbourne Completed work - Oceanographic ship (HMAS Cook) - Modernisation of destroyer escorts (HMAS Parramatta, HMAS Stuart) - Two water/fuel lighters Work in progress - Modernisation of destroyer escort HMAS Derwent - Two water/fuel lighters (a) (ii) Construction Programs in Australia-Private Dockyards-January 1979- December 1983 Vickers Cockatoo Dockyard Pty Ltd, Sydney (VCD) - Fleet underway replenishment ship (AOR-1) in progress North Queensland Engineers and Agents Pty Ltd, Cairns (NQEA) - Twenty-two 12-metre work boats completed - Fourteen Fremantle class patrol boats-ten completed and in service Carrington Slipways Pty Ltd-Newcastle Completed work - Amphibious heavy Lift Ship (HMAS Tobruk) Work in progress - two prototype Minehunter catamarans De Havilland Marine, Sydney - four 10-metre survey motor boats completed Shoreline Engineering Pty Ltd, Portland (Vic.) - small tug Quokka for HMAS Stirling completed Australian Shipbuilding Industries, (Western Australia) - medium tug Tammar in progress Starboard Products, (New South Wales) - Eighty-two five-metre sail training dinghies (Tasar class) in progress Swarbrick Brothers Pty Ltd, (Western Australia) - Five 11.1 metre offshore training yachts in progress (b) (i) Repair, Refit and Overhaul Work in Australia-Government Dockyards- January 1979-December 1983 Garden Island Dockyard-Sydney - Major refits on: HMAS Brisbane, Hobart, Bass, Melbourne, Yarra, Banks, Supply, Vampire, Stalwart , Perth, Kimbla, Curlew, Torrens, Ibis, Snipe, Swan, Adelaide - Intermediate dockings in accordance with usage upkeep cycles are undertaken between major refits as required. (ii) Repair, Refit and Overhaul Work in Australia-Private Dockyards-January 1979-December 1983 Vickers Cockatoo Dockyard Pty Ltd-Sydney - Major refits on: Submarines HMAS Oxley, Otway, Ovens, Orion, Onslow (in progress), Otama (in progress) Surface ships HMAS Yarra, Supply, Duchess, Patrol Craft, Jervis Bay North Queensland Engineers and Agents Pty Ltd-Cairns - Major refits on attack class patrol boats, HMAS Flinders, Fremantle class patrol boats State Dockyard-Newcastle - Refits on HMAS Supply, Vampire Other Miscellaneous Australian Contractors - HMAS Moresby-Western Australia Landing craft heavy (LCH)-Queensland HMAS Bass-Tasmania HMAS Banks-South Australia Intermediate dockings in accordance with usage upkeep cycles as undertaken between major refits as required. 2 (a) Construction Programs Overseas-January 1979-December 1983 Todd Shipyard, Seattle-United States of America - Four guided missile frigates (FFG) HMAS Adelaide, Canberra, Sydney, Darwin ( in progress) Brooke Marine-United Kingdom - One Fremantle class patrol boat (lead class) HMAS Fremantle (b) Repair, Refit and Overhaul Work Overseas-January 1979-December 1983 Various Overseas Dockyards including Singapore and Pearl Harbour - Miscellaneous work to rectify urgent defects or carry out essential maintenance 3. Value of Work Done Overseas See 2 (a) above-Construction Todd Shipyard, Seattle-United States of America Year Payments $m 1978-79 116.398 1979-80 119.505 1980-81 145.232 1981-82 47.165 1982-83 82.017 (Made under foreign military sales arrangements with United States Government) Brooke Marine, United Kingdom Year Payments $m 1978-79 2.953 1979-80 1.503 See 2 (b) above-Repair, Refit and Overhaul work Various Overseas Dockyards including Singapore and Pearl Harbour Percentage total annual expenditure on Year Expenditure ship repair $m % 1978-79 .042 0.14 1979-80 .169 0.47 1980-81 .088 0.21 1981-82 .161 0.35 1982-83 .217 0.38 4 (a) Future Construction-January 1984-December 1988 Aside from the ongoing construction projects covered above, the currently approved or planned new construction projects are Williamstown Dockyard Australian frigate (two in number) Garden Island Dockyard Modernisation of HMA Ships Perth, Hobart, Brisbane, Adelaide, Canberra, Sydney. (b) Overhaul, Repair and Refit-January 1984-December 1988 Garden Island dockyard Dockings and refits of a whole range of fleet units in accordance with usage upkeep cycles including HMAS Perth Brisbane Hobart DDG's HMAS Adelaide Canberra Sydney Darwin FFG's HMAS Parramatta Torrens Swan Stalwart Jervis Bay Stuart Vampire Cook Banks Curlew Williamstown Dockyard Limited modernisation for HMA ships Swan and Torrens Vickers Cockatoo Dockyard Dockings and refits of six Oberon class submarines as required. North Queensland Engineers and Agents, Cairns - HMAS Flinders - Dockings and refits of attack class and Fremantle class patrol boats, as required Various Contractors, Sydney, Brisbane, Darwin, Fremantle and Hobart areas - Dockings and refit work, as required, primarily on landing craft heavy (LCH), HMAS Cook and patrol boats, HMAS Moresby, AOR (Success), to reflect the use of available facilities in the area which ships are based. Overseas Facilities - Miscellaneous work to rectify urgent defects or carry essential maintenance ( at a level commensurate with that of recent years). (Question No. 1129) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Foreign 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 Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The honourable member's question is very detailed and the complete answer for my Department is very lengthy. With respect to the Department of Foreign Affairs the answer to the honourable member's question is: 1. Twenty-four consultants have been engaged for general consultancy since April 1983. The consultants have been drawn from tertiary institutions, public and private sector bodies, private consulting firms and individuals and non- government bodies. The main areas of expertise provided have been in foreign service training, management and foreign policy. 2. Name of each consultant or, if a company or partnership, the name of the corporation or partnership. (a) Dr J. Ritchie-History Department, Australian National University-ANU. (b) Mr C. Findlay-Research School of Pacific Studies, ANU Dr R. Gregory-Economics Department Research School of Social Sciences, ANU Mr B. Smith-Economics Department-ANU (c) Mr N. Hocking-a retired Senior Third Division Officer of the Australian Public Service. (d) Professor Stuart Harris-ANU Professor Max Corden-ANU Professor Richard Snape-Monash University Associate Professor Tom Parry-University of New South Wales (e) Miss Mary MacIlwain-Relaxation Expert (f) Dr H. Kinlock-Dean of Students-ANU Mr J. T. G. Jukes-Senior Lecturer-International Relations Department-ANU Mr T. B. Millar-Research Fellow-ANU Dr P. Dibb-Lecturer in International Relations-ANU Dr H. Collins-Lecturer-Department of Political Science-ANU Dr G. Jones-Lecturer-Demography Department-ANU (g) Mr I. Miles-a retired Minister of Religion Dr J. Hill-a retired Medical Practitioner Mr R. Walker-an officer of the Australian Capital Territory Council of the Aged (h) Mrs D. Outram-Consultant of Effective Writing (i) Mr R. W. Furlonger-a retired First Division Officer of the Australian Public Service. (j) Mr J. Casson OBE-Communications Consultant (k) See 2 (c) above. (l) Mr C. J. Lloyd-Journalist (m) Dr C. Emerson-Research School of Pacific Studies-ANU 3. Length of consultancy (a) One hour lecture-12 April 1984 (b) Mr Findlay-two days; Dr Gregory-one day; Mr Smith-half day (c) Six months to about 31 December 1983, initially on part time 6 to 9 hours per week increasing to full time when the Jackson Committee's work developed. (d) Four weeks. (e) One day. (f) Dr Kinlock-one day; Mr Jukes-two lectures; Dr Millar-one day; Mr Dibb-one lecture; Dr Collins-one day; Dr Jones-one lecture. (g) Mr Miles-one half day; Dr Hill-one half day; Mr Walker-one half day. (h) Three days. (i) Twenty days. (j) One day. (k) See 3 (c) above-Length of consultancy extended to 30 March. (l) Three months. (m) Two weeks. 4. Fee paid to each consultant (a) $60 (b) Mr Findlay-$220; Dr Gregory-$110; Dr Smith-$60 (c) $1,500 (d) $10,000 (e) $40. (f) Dr Kinlock-$60; Mr Jukes-$110; Mr Millar-$60; Mr Dibb-$60; Dr Collins-$60; Dr Jones-$60. (g) Mr Miles-$40; Dr Hill-$40; Mr Walker-$40. (h) $585. (i) $1,000. (j) $1,000. (k) $1,500. (l) $10,000-upper ceiling. (m) $750. 5. Special background and experience possessed by each consultant to enable engagement to be undertaken (a) Experienced lecturer in Australian history. (b) Mr Findlay, Dr Gregory and Mr Smith are senior lecturers in the economic field of studies and were considered to be eminently qualified to give lectures to the economic workshop segment of the foreign service training course. (c) Mr Hocking, a retired long serving senior administrative officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs has the maturity, familiarity with the Department' s structure, operation and physical layout and the experience necessary to perform the range of administrative support tasks for the Jackson Committee during its review of Australian overseas aid. (d) Professors Harris, Corden, Snape and Associate Professor Parry are acknowledged academic experts in their respective fields of study and were thus considered eminently qualified to undertake the consultancy requirements of the North-South seminar discussions, the outline and format of which had the Minister for Foreign Affairs' endorsement. (e) Miss MacIlwain is a qualified relaxation therapist with experience and skills necessary to undertake the relaxation techniques session of this Department's stress identification seminar. (f) The six academics listed at 1 (f) above are acknowledged experts in their particular areas of foreign policy issues and were thus considered eminently qualified to lecture foreign service trainees during the foreign service training course. (g) The three consultants listed at 1 (g) above were considered to have appropriate background and experience to lecture in their respective fields on the subjects of 'Planning Your Retirement Accommodation', 'Health in Retirement' and 'Why Plan for Retirement' in conjunction with this Department's seminar on ' Planning for Retirement'. (h) Mrs Outram is a recognised expert in the field of effective writing techniques. She possesses academic qualifications commensurate with those techniques. It is understood that Mrs Outram is also regularly engaged for similar tasks by other Australian Government departments and authorities. (i) Mr Furlonger, because of his long, respected and distinguished public service to Australia and his knowledge of the Department of Foreign Affairs and its working was considered to be eminently suitable for the task of assisting the Departmental Promotion Committee with senior Second Division officer promotions. Mr Furlonger is also well known for his fairness and humanity, qualities considered essential for the task under reference. (j) Mr Casson OBE is an internationally recognised consultant in the field of organisational communications. Mr Casson's services have also been utilised by at least several other Australian Government departments and organisations for similar engagements to that of organisational communications sessions of this Department's senior management course. (k) See 5 (c) above. (l) Mr Lloyd is a well known journalist with proven experience in the writing of major works and had the necessary general experience of international and political issues relevant to the subject of Australia's aid program review. (m) Dr Emerson was selected for the project both for his general economic research skills and for his expertise on South East Asian countries, in particular his knowledge of the economies of those countries. 6. Was the merit principle applied in each case; if so, in what manner (a) Yes-Dr Ritchie is regularly engaged by Joint Services Staff College to give lectures similar to that required for the foreign service course. (b) Yes-See 5 (b) above. (c) Yes-See 5 (c) above. (d) Yes-See 5 (d) above. (e) Yes-See 5 (e) above. (f) Yes-See 5 (f) above. (g) Yes-See 5 (g) above. (h) Yes-See 5 (h) above. (i) Yes-See 5 (i) above. (j) Yes-See 5 (j) above. (k) Yes-See 5 (c) above. (l) Yes-Mr Lloyd was selected by the members of the Committee to review the Australian overseas aid program from a list of 13 applicants following wide circulation in the media, at educational institutions and at the Australian Journalists' Association. (m) Yes-See 5 (m) above. It should be noted that all consultancies involving payment in excess of $1,000 have been the subject of a fully documented departmental proposal to and approval by the Public Service Board. All other consultancies meet Public Service Board guidelines for the engagement of consultants, as advised by the publication 'Engagement of Consultants and Contractors for Service-Guidelines for Department and Authorities', Australian Public Service Board, May 1978. (Question No. 1234) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 April 1984: Which Federal electoral divisions do not have a Department of Social Security office located within their boundaries. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The following Federal electorates do not at present have a Department of Social Security office located within their boundaries: Banks, Bennelong, Bradfield and Hume in New South Wales; Balaclava, Bruce, Scullin, Isaacs and Kooyong in Victoria; Maranoa in Queensland; and Curtin and Moore in Western Australia. (Question No. 1246) Mr Campbell asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 April 1984: (1) Is there a plan to transfer capital from the Commonwealth Development Bank to the Commonwealth Bank. (2) Does this capital surplus exist because of the very restrictive charter the Development Bank has been forced to act under. (3) What will be the increase in gearing for the Development Bank. (4) What effect will this have on the Development Bank's ability to borrow. (5) Will it have the effect of raising the interest rate at which the Development Bank can lend. (6) Will it in any way inhibit the Bank's ability to service farmers in Western Australia in their current dire, drought-induced debt circumstances. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) On 2 May 1984, the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill 1984 was introduced into the House by the Acting Treasurer. That Bill provides for the transfer of $75m from the reserves of the Commonwealth Development Bank to the Commonwealth Trading Bank. In deciding to transfer this amount of the Development Bank's reserves, the Government was mindful of the fact that the level of the Development Bank's capital and reserves is much higher than is necessary to support the Bank's current or prospective levels of activity. These 'surplus' reserves have arisen because, in order to allow the Bank to become established, it was decided in the 1959 legislation establishing the Commonwealth Development Bank that the Commonwealth would forgo taxation and dividends on the Bank's profits. Now that the Development Bank is firmly established and has built up very high levels of reserves, the Government has decided that, rather than requiring some of those reserves be returned to the Commonwealth, it would be appropriate for them to be redeployed within the Commonwealth Banking Corporation Group. (3) and (4) The gearing of the Commonwealth Development Bank-that is, the ratio of its liabilities to its capital and reserves-will increase from 3:1 to 4:1. That will still represent a very healthy ratio by banking standards, and one which will not inhibit the Bank's ability to borrow and to expand its business. By way of comparison, the gearing ratio of the major private banks in Australia averages at about 21:1. (5) There is no reason to expect that the Bank's lending interest rates will change as a result of the transfer, as distinct from those changes that would otherwise have occurred as a result of market developments and other influences. (6) I can assure the House that the transfer of reserves will in no way inhibit the Bank's ability to service farmers in Western Australia or elsewhere. (Question No. 1347) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) What is the definition of an Aboriginal 'sacred site'. (2) How many sacred sites are known to exist. (3) What areas of land are sacred sites in Australia and what is the total size of each sacred site. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) An Aboriginal sacred site is a site that is sacred to Aboriginals or is otherwise of significance according to Aboriginal tradition. (2) Aboriginal site recording and registration is undertaken by various State and Territory agencies and authorities, under the auspices of relevant legislation. I am advised that the State and Northern Territory registers include some 43, 500 recorded Aboriginal sites as at November 1983. (3) No figures are available on the total area covered by sites. Not all sites located and recorded have been surveyed, or estimates made of the area involved. (Question No. 1385) Mr Andrew asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the view expressed by Mr A. Whitlam in the Australian Financial Review of 5 April 1984 that the proposed restructuring of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation will be disadvantageous for the Commonwealth Savings Bank; if so, is it a fact that this restructuring will be a disadvantage for the Commonwealth Development Bank and would this disadvantage flow on to its rural and small business borrowers. (2) With whom did he consult before deciding on the restructuring. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware that Mr N. Whitlam, Managing Director of the State Bank of New South Wales has made a number of comments regarding the restructuring of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. I disagree strongly with claims that the restructuring of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation will in any way disadvantage the Commonwealth Savings Bank. In deciding on the various measures that I announced on 2 April 1984, and which are now before Parliament in the form of the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill 1984, great care has been taken to strengthen and modernise the Commonwealth Banks, including, importantly, the Commonwealth Savings Bank, so as to enable them to compete more effectively and on a comparable basis with the major private banks. The Commonwealth Savings Bank will become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Commonwealth Trading Bank (which is to be renamed the Commonwealth Bank of Australia) and as such this will allow for the more effective organisation of the resources of the two banks. While the Commonwealth Savings Bank will be required to pay a dividend, through the (new) Commonwealth Bank, to the Commonwealth, the profit sharing arrangements will be on a much more flexible basis compared with the current provisions of the Commonwealth Banks Act. The Commonwealth Savings Bank will become subject to taxation as there is no longer any justification why that should not be the case and that view conforms with one of the major objectives of the Commonwealth, that the Commonwealth Banking Group should operate on a comparable basis with the private banking and non-banking institutions. I would note that legal proceedings are currently underway between the State Bank of New South Wales and the Commonwealth Savings Bank regarding the New South Wales Savings Bank amalgamation agreement. It is also not a fact that the restructuring of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation will disadvantage the Commonwealth Development Bank nor will it lead to any disadvantage to the Development Bank's rural and small business borrowers . The legislation before Parliament provides, among other things, for an increase in the capital resources of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia by transferring to it $75m of the very high level of reserves held by the Commonwealth Development Bank. The Commonwealth Development Bank will remain an integral part- and as a statutory identity in its own right-of the Commonwealth Bank Group. As I indicated in my Press statement of 2 April 1984 announcing these changes, in deciding to transfer $75m of the Development Bank's reserves, the Government was influenced by the fact that the Development Bank's capital and reserves are now clearly at a much higher level than is necessary to support the Bank's current or prospective levels of activity. These surplus reserves have arisen because, in order to allow the Bank to become established, it was decided in the 1959 legislation establishing the Corporation banks that the Commonwealth would forgo taxation and dividends on the Development Bank's profits. Now that the Development Bank is firmly established and has built up a very high level of reserves, the Government has decided that, rather than requiring some of those surplus reserves to be returned to the Commonwealth, it is appropriate for them to be redeployed within the Corporation Group, in particular, to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. The transfer 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. (2) The Government decided upon restructuring of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, which is to be effected by the legislation currently before Parliament, following a review of the Corporation conducted in close consultation with the Corporation Board and management. (Question No. 1438) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 10 May 1984: (1) What radioactive wastes will result from, or be needed to undertake, the synroc research program at Lucas Heights. (2) How will these wastes be dispersed into the environment, stored or disposed of. (3) As part of the program, will reprocessing of spent reactor fuel be carried out at the Lucas Heights site or elsewhere. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The waste produced by the synroc research program will consist of a number of radioactive synroc samples containing selected radioisotopes. Some of these radioisotopes are available in Australia from wastes arising from radioisotope production at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission; however certain of the radioisotopes required were not available in Australia and have been imported. The quantities imported are small, of the order of 15 grams. The total quantity of radioisotopes required for these tests is approximately 20 grams. It should be emphasised that only certain radioisotopes were imported, not radioactive wastes as such. (2) Synroc samples containing radioisotopes will, after testing of the samples has been completed, be stored with other radioactive wastes at the AAEC. (3) No.